U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

72–301 PS WASHINGTON : 2001

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 3 AND MAY 15, 2001

Serial No. 29

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN, Chairman

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

LAMAR SMITH, Texas

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

RIC KELLER, Florida

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts

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

TODD R. SCHULTZ, Chief of Staff

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel

JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas,

Vice Chair

RIC KELLER, Florida

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GLENN R. SCHMITT, Chief Counsel

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Counsel

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

HEARING DATES

Page

May 3, 2001

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

May 15, 2001

CRIMINAL LAW COMPONENTS AT MAIN JUSTICE ................................................. 71

OPENING STATEMENT

MAY 3, 2001

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime ............................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the

State of Texas ....................................................................................................... 2

MAY 15, 2001

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime ............................................ 71

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

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime ............................ 72

WITNESSES

MAY 3, 2001

Mr. Thomas J. Pickard, Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9

Mr. Donnie R. Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

Ms. Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36

Mr. Louie T. McKinney, Acting Director, United States Marshals Service

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 42

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 44

MAY 15, 2001

Mr. Michael Horowitz, Chief of Staff, Criminal Division

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 73

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 75

Mr. Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice

Programs

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 87

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 90

Mr. Ralph J. Justus, Acting Director, Community Oriented Policing Services

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 94

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 96

Page

IV

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

MAY 15, 2001

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the

State of Texas ....................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MAY 3, 2001

Response to questions From the Drug Enforcement Administration .................. 123

Response to questions From the United States Marshals Service ...................... 131

Response to questions From the Federal Bureau of Investigations .................... 135

Response to questions From the Federal Bureau of Prisons ............................... 188

MAY 15, 2001

Response to questions From the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) ..................... 201

Response to questions From the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) ........................................................................................................... 227

Response to questions From the Criminal Division .............................................. 236

References:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs—

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP): Safe

From the Start, Taking Action on Children Exposed to Violence .............. 304

National Institute of Justice, National Evaluation of Weed & Seed, CrossSite Analysis, Research Report ..................................................................... 304

National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief ............................................. 304

(1)

CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., pursuant to notice, in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.

Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. We

welcome all, witnesses and others as well.

As you all know, we had an unexpected vote occur a few minutes

ago, which is why we’re getting off to a little bit of a late start this

morning, but it was unavoidable. I am going to have an opening

statement in a minute, after which I will recognize Sheila Jackson

Lee, who is substituting for the usual Ranking Member, Bobby

Scott, today, although we’re going to at least start off with Bobby

Scott in attendance.

Let me read my statement, and then, Sheila, I’ll recognize you

or Bobby, whoever is going to lead the opening statement.

Today, the Subcommittee on Crime holds the first of two hearings on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice was last reauthorized by Congress in 1980.

Since that time, there has been no complete examination of the authorities under which the department operates.

Chairman Sensenbrenner has stated his intention to introduce

legislation to reauthorize the department this year. To prepare for

the consideration of that legislation, he has asked all the Subcommittees to hold hearings on the activities of the DOJ components over which they have oversight jurisdiction, with particular

emphasis on the Administration’s proposed budget request for

those components. The Subcommittee on Crime is charged with

oversight of the seven the DOJ components, four of which are before us today.

Today’s hearing focuses on the criminal law enforcement agencies of the Justice Department. They are the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, United States Marshal

Service, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The remaining three

criminal law components of the Justice Department will be the subject of a hearing before the Subcommittee on May 15.

The FBI is the nation’s premier law enforcement agency. Its

27,000 employees, including over 11,000 special agents, work in 56

field offices, approximately 400 satellite offices, and 39 foreign liaison offices. The FBI has the broadest mission of any other law enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
2

forcement agency, ranging from violent crime to white collar fraud

to domestic terrorism and espionage.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is the world’s preeminent

drug law enforcement agency. Created in 1973, it is one of the newest Federal agencies and is responsible for enforcing the provisions

of the control substances and chemical diversion trafficking laws

and regulations of the United States. It employs over 8,000 people

in 22 domestic field divisions in the 77 international offices in 56

countries.

The U.S. Marshal Service is the nation’s oldest Federal law enforcement agency. Since 1789, U.S. Marshals have served in a variety of law enforcement activities. Today, the almost 4,000 employees of the service perform a variety of missions, including fugitive

apprehension, court security, prisoner transportation and custody,

witness protection, and asset seizure.

The 34,000 employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons are

charged with the custody of over 150,000 Federal prisoners in controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities.

Over 126,000 of these prisoners are incarcerated in the 98 institutions that the BOP presently operates.

The 73,000 employees of these four agencies are ably led by a talented group of officials. I am pleased that four of them are here

with us today. We look forward to hearing from each of you about

the challenges you face and the ways in which Congress can help

you accomplish your goals.

At this point, I’ll recognize the gentlelady from Houston, Ms.

Jackson Lee, for her opening statement. And before I do that, Mr.

Scott, I was just going to say for the benefit of those in the audience—do you want to explain why you need to move on in a short

period of time?

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re in a markup in

education, and I’ll be going back and forth. So I’ve asked the

gentlelady from Texas to serve as Ranking Member today, and she

has graciously consented.

Mr. SMITH. Very good. Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I’d be happy to yield to the gentleman to

submit—if he wishes to now offer his statement in the record, that

would be fine.

Thank you very much. I’m delighted to assist because there’s important work going on in both Committees.

Good morning, and let me thank the witnesses for their able representation, the very able agencies who we are very much in support of and particularly the American people. It is interesting the

great responsibility that the Department of Justice has for the very

concept of justice, and people do look to the department for the justice that they so rightly deserve.

So this morning, Mr. Smith, Chairman Smith, I thank you and

the Ranking Member for holding this oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice. It is certainly my view

that the Department of Justice should be properly funded to provide essential protection for the American people. It must have our

full support to do the job. The Members of this Committee have

begun to reach consensus or should begin to reach consensus on

3

funding priorities, and there can be little question that many of us

share common goals and aspirations.

Additionally, I would say that it is important to have this opportunity to reauthorize the Department of Justice. It gives us the appropriate opportunity to review its work and to look for ways that

it can improve its work. With respect to the efforts of prevention,

rehabilitation, and alternatives to incarceration, I believe in the

Year 2001, it’s appropriate to address those questions, even with a

department that heavily focuses on law enforcement.

With respect to drug enforcement, we need to continue to look for

innovative and effective programs that treat addiction, abuse, as

opposed to merely incarcerating offenders, but yet we must also

provide the training and support systems that help engage our men

and women who are on the front line.

We also need to do more to hire and diversify our Department

of Justice as relates to minorities and women. 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 percent of those employed

by the Department of Justice were African American. The Department of Justice consisted of 37.7 percent women. That number was

over 9 percent underrepresentative of what it should have been

based on hiring practices regarding women in the civilian work

force.

I also believe that it is important that the Department of Justice

take on very difficult challenges, and one of them, of course, that

the Congress has been grappling with and States have been grappling with include the whole concept of racial profiling. It is well

known that there is representation, that the DOJ is undergoing a

study. I would only suggest that this is an important enough crisis

that we move with all due and deliberate speed, and if there is the

opportunity to provide insight and instruction in the reauthorization, then I think, Mr. Chairman, we should be engaged in that

process, because this is an effort that should be looked upon by

both the executive as well as the legislative.

I am particularly interested—today, we have the law enforcement agencies. I’m particularly interested in hearing reports as it

relates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We just had a hearing on

prison industries that I think generated a lot of controversy, and

so we’ll be asking those questions.

I know that Mr. Marshall is engaged in a collaborative effort to

protect this country as it relates to—I say drug infestation, but as

you well know, I am heavily committed to rehabilitation and treatment, but I’m also committed to the right kind of equipment, and

I will be concerned about the unfortunate circumstances that generated—though you may suggest that you were not particularly engaged in that effort, but I certainly want to know the tragedy that

occurred with respect to the missionary plane and the fact that we

need to be more astute in the work that we’re doing.

So, Mr. Chairman, let me say that each and every one of the representatives here, we will look forward to hearing their testimony,

but also I hope that they will appreciate our inquiries and inquisitiveness from the perspective of trying to improve the work of the

Department of Justice for all America.

4

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. Before I introduce the

witnesses, I’d like to thank two other individuals for their presence

here.

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, sir.

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Actually, I was just getting ready to recognize

the gentleman from Michigan, but I do so a little bit prematurely,

and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. CONYERS. I didn’t want to let this opportunity go by, Mr.

Chairman. So I appreciate you recognizing me.

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is the

Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and he’s recognized for an opening statement or other remarks.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much.

We welcome the witnesses, and I hardly know where to begin.

We’re dealing with two departments of government that are presenting increasing difficulties that have been going on during the

course of my career in the Congress. Let me start with the drug

policies that come out of the DEA. The problem is that we’re dealing with policies that have been unsuccessful, to put it generously.

The cost benefit of drug interdiction is completely out of touch with

reality. Prevention treatment is not even on the books.

The RAN Corporation has found that $34 million invested in

treatment would reduce cocaine use as much as an expenditure of

$336 million for interdiction or $246 million for enforcement.

The racism involved in the justice process is pretty well known.

Blacks are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged,

more likely to be convicted, more likely to get longer sentences,

more likely to end up on death row. If anybody cares to comment

about that, I’d be happy to entertain it during question period.

Now, the prisons, where are we on the prisons? I think we’re approaching two million people in prisons. Many of them, one-third,

are for marijuana arrests, mere possession. There’s much overcrowding. We’ve got a disgraceful situation. Thanks to the body in

which I serve, we’ve now started privatizing prisons, and we use

it as a basis for industry spurts for small towns around the nation.

We’re trying—we have—any kind of correction or bringing prisoners around is hardly in existence. The conditions are terrible for

prisoners and sometimes for corrections officials as well. We’ve got

a disgraceful situation in our Federal prisons, and so as the authorizing committee, we’ve got a lot of explaining, discussion, and meeting to do beyond this small brief meeting that we’ll be holding here.

I think the prisons are in a disgraceful state of condition, and

they’ve been that way. This isn’t something new.

The FBI is in pretty bad shape, I also might add. I think some

of the gentlelady from Texas—in all of these things, the question

of how minorities are being treated as Federal employees in these

systems is in serious question and will be revisited and analyzed

to a great extent.

So if you get the idea that I’m unhappy with the work of every

agency here, save the U.S. Marshals, you’re absolutely correct, and

I’d love to discuss matters further with you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.

5

I also appreciate the attendance of two other Members who are

here, Mr. Chabot of Ohio and Mr. Hutchison of Arkansas, and are

there any statements that you all wish to make?

[Mr. Chabot and Mr. Hutchison gesture in the negative.]

Mr. SMITH. If not, we’ll proceed, and I’ll introduce the witnesses.

Mr. Thomas Pickard is the deputy director of the FBI, a position

he has held for the last 2 years. Prior to his current assignment,

Mr. Pickard served as assistant director for the FBI’s criminal investigative division. He began his career as a special agent in 1975

in the FBI’s New York field office. In his 25 years of service, Mr.

Pickard has worked on such cases as the trial of the New York

Trade Center’s bombers and the TWA Flight 800 investigation. Mr.

Pickard received his bachelor’s degree from St. Francis College and

a master’s degree from St. John’s University.

Mr. Donnie Marshall is the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Marshal began his career in law enforcement in 1969 as a special agent with the Bureau of Narcotics and

Dangerous drugs, a predecessor agency of the DEA. Mr. Marshal

has served in a number of positions with the DEA, including resident agent in charge of Austin, Texas, county attache in Brazil,

chief of domestic operations, and chief of operations. Mr. Marshal

received his bachelor of science degree from Stephen F. Austin

State University.

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer has served a director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for over 8 years. She is a career public administrator in BOP and only the sixth director since it was established

in 1830. She has held numerous positions within the BOP, including serving as warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in

Butner, North Carolina and as the bureau’s chief of staff training,

being responsible for the bureau’s three training centers. She received her bachelors degree in psychology from Wheeling Jesuit

College in Wheeling, West Virginia and her master’s degree and

doctorate of education degree in counseling and rehabilitation from

West Virginia University.

Mr. Louie McKinney was appointed as the acting director of the

United States Marshal Service by President Bush in February.

Prior to his appointment, he served as acting deputy director and

special assistant to director of the Marshal Service. Mr. McKinney

began his career with the Marshal Service in 1968. During 26

years with the Marshal Service, Mr. McKinney served as the chief

inspector for INTERPOL, as well as United States Marshal for the

U.S. Virgin Islands. Mr. McKinney holds a degree in police administration from the University of Maryland.

Now, we welcome all of you, and I just have to add that I’ve had

the privilege of meeting with you all personally, most recently with

Mr. McKinney yesterday, as a matter of fact; prior to that, a couple

of weeks ago, with Dr. Sawyer when I had a wonderful—when

Bobby Scott and I had a wonderful tour of five prison facilities in

Pennsylvania. Mr. Marshal, we’ve talked before, and Mr. Pickard

as well.

It’s nice to know you all personally. It’s nice to have you all here.

The chief counsel, Glenn Schmitt to my right, reminds me that we

are doing something unusual today, and that is giving you all 10

minutes to testify. All I can say is it will be appreciated if you deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
6

cide not to use the full 10 minutes, just because of our late start

and because of the fact that we, unfortunately, expect perhaps

some procedural votes on the House floor during the course of the

day, though we don’t know when they’re going to occur.

In any case, we welcome all of you, look forward to your expert

testimony, and I’m sure you look forward to our questions after

that.

Mr. Pickard, we’ll begin with you.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PICKARD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. PICKARD. Thank you, Chairman.

Chairman Smith, Congressman Scott, Congresswoman Jackson

Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the FBI’s budget and authorization issues. The

processes of authorization and oversight are vital, and we appreciate the efforts you and your staffs are making to examine our authorities and resource needs.

As all of you know, Louie Freeh announced Tuesday that he was

stepping down as director of the FBI. It was a day all of us in the

FBI knew would come eventually, but regret it has arrived. He enjoys enormous respect and admiration in the ranks, both for his vision and leadership and equally for his ethical expectations and integrity. No greater example can be set than he provided the right

example for all of us to follow regardless the strength of the

storms.

Externally, Director Freeh was known for much, things like

greatly expanding our capabilities against terrorism, redesigning

our crisis response capabilities, making us effective against international crime in a global arena, substantially enhancing our cyber

crime fighting capabilities, and helping to reduce the level of violent crime against our citizens. Internally, it is other things not

often public recognized. He put in place core values to guide all of

us, including mandatory ethical training. He greatly expanded our

employee assistance programs to help those in crisis.

He meets every new agent and contacts every family of those

who have died. He speaks at the funerals of all those who are

killed in the line of duty and personally comforts their families. He

talks to every police chief who loses an officer in the line of duty

and offers our assistance. He calls agents who are injured in the

line of duty and ensures they’re getting the best of available care.

He has met with the families of those lost in terrorist cases in the

incident in Kobar and the bombing of the Cole. He promises their

deaths will not be forgotten and reminds us all of us every day that

other things in our lives are very important and should not be unattended.

His devotion to his family extends to his FBI family. Louis Freeh

is our director, and we are very, very proud of him and the vision

he has brought to the FBI.

As for our budget, as many of you know, the FBI focuses its investigative resources and submits its budget requests consistent

with our long-term strategic plan. The plan, implemented 3 years

ago by Director Freeh after consultation with Congress, requires

that we prioritize our efforts based upon a tiered approach, calVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
7

culated on factors such as potential harm to the national security,

economic harm, public integrity, and other issues: Briefly, Tier I,

those matters affecting national and economic security such as foreign counter intelligence, terrorism, cyber terrorism; Tier II, those

crimes that affect the public safety or undermine the integrity of

American society, such as organized crime, public corruption, civil

rights, and international crime; and Tier III, those crimes that affect individuals and property where there is a substantial benefit

in adding the Federal resources.

Guiding the implementation of our national priorities are the

FBI’s core values I mentioned that were put in place by Director

Freeh. Briefly, they are a rigorous obedience to the Constitution,

respect for the dignity of all those we protect, compassion and fairness in all we do, and uncompromising personal and institutional

integrity.

With the above backdrop, the FBI’s fiscal 2002 budget request is for a total of $3,500,000 [sic] and 24,938 permanent positions,

which includes 10,420 FBI agents. Included are 106 million for adjustments to base and 170 million in program increases. The program increases would provide 279 new positions, including 76

agents, and fund four critical initiatives in counterintelligence,

counterterrorism, cyber crime, and infrastructure, all consistent

with our strategic plan. This funding includes money to address

preparation for the upcoming winter Olympics in Salt Lake and our

Trilogy information infrastructure.

In addition to direct funding, the FBI requests 2,826 anticipated

reimbursable work years in programs such as health care fraud, organized crime, drug enforcement, and other programs. Our statement submitted for the record contains detailed descriptions for our

strategic plan and these initiatives.

For the sake of brevity, our accomplishments for this past year

will be left with the statement in the record, but I would like to

briefly touch on two very current and very critical issues, the

Hanssen case and CI-21 or counterintelligence in the 21st Century.

While the Hanssen case represents extraordinary investigative

work that he has alleged to have spied without detection for a

number of years, very simply, our internal security policies and

practices are not adequate. We are approaching that possibility as

rapidly and aggressively as we can, believing that while all risk

can never be eliminated, we can and should do more to reduce the

risk.

Director Freeh and Attorney General Ashcroft asked Judge Webster to review our internal security from top to bottom and identify

anything and everything that needs to be improved or implemented. He is doing so with an able staff. They have complete and

unfettered access and cooperation of the FBI, and I understand

they are making substantial progress.

In the interim and in coordination with Judge Webster, Director

Freeh has taken other actions to address the urgent vulnerabilities.

Director Freeh has instituted broadened polygraph policy, enhanced information security auditing, enhanced background reinvestigations, placed an internal security expert from the CIA in

charge of our security program, and has changed the reporting

lines so this individual reports directly to myself and the director.

8

He has also appointed a task force headed by Assistance Director

Bob Dies to identify those security policies that are lacking. I fully

expect many additional changes to be forthcoming from that task

force, from Judge Webster’s commission, and also from the inspector general.

The second issue is CI-21. While counterintelligence is not normally before this Committee, I mention CI-21 because counterintelligence is a significant part of the FBI’s mission and represents a

dramatic change in the Government’s approach to counterintelligence. Borne out of the FBI’s own self-evaluation, CI-21 represents the best opportunity ever for a government-wide coordinated approach to counterintelligence consistent with the national

strategy designed to protect the nation’s most valuable national security investigation, whether it is privately held or held by the

Government. We appreciate those efforts, and CI-21 is a joint effort

by DOD, CIA, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to produce

in a formal way a common strategy and coordinated taskings.

The FBI’s 11,000 agents are deployed in 56 field offices, as you

said, Mr. Chairman, and 400 smaller independent resident offices,

44 legal attaches around the world, and are at our training academy located at Quantico. At any given time, we have nearly

100,000 investigative matters pending. During Fiscal Year 2000,

the FBI investigations led to over 21,000 convictions and a host of

other recoveries and fines.

What has become one of the most important aspects of our operation is our international component. With a little over 100 agents

in 44 countries, we have made a significant difference as evidenced

by the U.S.S. Cole bombing and also by the recent release of three

Americans who were held hostage in Kenya.

The Subcommittee has received extensive briefings about the

FBI’s ongoing project to rebuild our obsolete information infrastructure. We call this Project Trilogy. As you know, Director Freeh

brought in Bob Dies, a 30-year veteran of the IBM Corporation to

lead this effort, which Congress has approved and begun funding.

Your staff has asked about our previous exception from title V

for hiring and retention. More than any other time in history, we

have a need for highly-trained computer scientists, engineers, and

forensic experts. A short pilot project of this program demonstrated

its utility, producing results we would overwise not obtain. As the

FBI is becoming increasingly more proactive, increasingly more

technical, we must have the skills and abilities to deal with this.

Many of you have asked about the National Instant Criminal

Background System or NICS. Last year, total NICS inquiries were

4,489,000. There were over 3,000,000 immediate proceeds and

nearly 72,000 denials in that year, and the NICS system is now

achieving a 99.7 percent availability. NICS relies on other systems,

and as a result, sometimes has an availability of only 96.3 percent.

Finally, let me mention the Boston informant situation, so important to some of you. The conduct alleged is deplorable and reprehensible and deserving of the strongest possible condemnation.

While I cannot comment on the pending criminal matter, Director

Freeh and the attorney general established a task force of prosecutors and investigators to review the allegations going back to the

mid-1960’s. One former agent has been indicted, along with two alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
9

leged organized crime figures. Much more needs to be done, including investigation of the circumstances involving the murder of

Teddy Deegan. We are fully committed to uncovering every detail

and bringing every—and bringing before prosecution every facet of

that investigation, just as we did in the Birmingham civil rights

bombing. We cannot permit acts that happened 30 years ago to go

on when justice must be ultimately served.

In the interim, the department has issued new guidelines for us

on informant oversight, and we look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickard follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PICKARD

Good morning, Chairman Smith, Congressman Scott and other members of the

Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear this morning as the Subcommittee considers

the reauthorization for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The work of the FBI, whether it is catching criminals, drug traffickers, terrorists,

and spies; providing training, investigative assistance, and forensic and identification services to our law enforcement partners; or developing new crime-fighting

technologies and techniques, is made possible by the strong support of this Subcommittee. On behalf of the employees of the FBI, I thank you for your support.

CHALLENGES FACING THE FBI

I would like to begin by highlighting for the Subcommittee several of the challenges facing the FBI, and then update you on the implementation of the FBI Strategic Plan that we adopted in 1998 to prepare the FBI for the 21st Century. This

plan and its vision of the FBI is especially important given the challenges and

changes facing the FBI. I would then like to give you with an overview of our Fiscal

Year 2002 budget request and conclude with a discussion of our evolving internal

security strategies.

Increasingly, the crime problems and national security threats facing the FBI are

transcending the traditional investigative programs under which the FBI operates.

For example, the Southwest Border and East Caribbean crime strategies are based

upon a coordinated attack against drug trafficking (organized crime/drugs program),

violent crimes and gangs (violent crimes program), and public corruption (white-collar crime program). Emerging criminal enterprises from Eastern Europe and Eurasia tend to be involved not only in ‘‘traditional’’ organized crime activities, such as

extortion, loan sharking, and street crime, but also complex money laundering, tax

evasion schemes, medical fraud, and other ‘‘white-collar’’ offenses and international

trafficking in prostitution.

We are also facing a growing internationalization of crime. Increasingly, cases

being worked by FBI Agents on the streets of America are developing leads that

take us to foreign lands for resolution. Recent events, such as the abductions and

brutal murders of Americans in Uganda and Colombia, required the FBI to exercise

its statutory extraterritorial jurisdiction and deploy investigative teams overseas.

Organized criminal enterprises are often involved in related illegal activities on several continents. Communications networks and the Internet allow criminals in foreign countries to commit theft and fraud or to distribute child pornography in the

United States without leaving their homelands.

To respond to these types of emerging crime problems and national security issues

more quickly, the FBI must focus its efforts and resources along broader investigative strategies.

Another challenge facing the FBI is the changing demographics of our workforce.

Since September 1993, when Director Freeh took the FBI’s helm, we have hired and

trained approximately 4,800 new Special Agents. Agents hired since September

1993 represent about 41 percent of the agents on board today. While I am immensely proud of our agent workforce, I am also aware that it is a young workforce

in terms of experience. Similarly, we have hired nearly 7,800 new support employees since September 1993 representing nearly 36 percent of our current support employees.

Keeping current with the fast pace of technology and more complex crime problems and issues requires a more technically trained and competent workforce. This

applies not only in terms of our investigators, but also with respect to the scientists,

engineers, analysts, and other support staff who help our agents do their jobs. We

10

are also recognizing that technically trained specialists are becoming an increasingly important part of our investigative teams.

Emerging technologies present both a challenge and an opportunity for the FBI

to develop new methods and capabilities for preventing and investigating crime and

protecting the national security. Criminals, terrorists, and foreign intelligence

agents, mirroring legitimate businesses and society in general, have embraced information technology and recognize the potential of new efficiencies and capabilities in

developing and maintaining criminal enterprises and other illegal activities. Traditional crimes, especially financial and commercial crimes, are now being committed

in a digital world. Paper trails are now electronic trails. Records which were once

written and stored in a safe are now written to electronic media and encrypted. At

the same time, the same efficiencies and capabilities being exploited by criminals

and others to commit crimes can also be used to improve the effectiveness of the

FBI and law enforcement in fighting those very same illegal activities. We must be

able to upgrade existing investigative techniques and technologies and to take advantage of emerging technologies to develop new capabilities to keep abreast of

changing criminal problems and national security issues.

Ensuring an infrastructure to support the operational, information technology, administrative, safety, and security requirements of the FBI also presents challenges.

The FBI employs over 27,000 employees, located in 56 major field offices, approximately 400 smaller resident agencies, four information technology centers, a fingerprint identification and criminal justice information complex, a training academy,

an engineering research facility, and FBI Headquarters. We also operate Legal Attache Offices in 44 foreign countries on the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North

and South America, and Australia. Tying these offices together are large, complex

radio communications and telecommunications networks. In addition, we also operate and maintain a nationwide criminal justice, forensic, and investigative information systems and services, such as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, the National Crime Information Center, the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS), Law Enforcement On-line, the Violent Criminal

Apprehension Program, and the Combined DNA Identification System, that are relied upon by federal, state and local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

FBI STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE

Three years ago, we issued the FBI Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. This plan represented the culmination of work performed over a year’s time by a strategic planning task force. This group conducted strategy sessions with every FBI investigative

program, both criminal and national security, and met with FBI Special Agents in

Charge and other field office representatives. In doing so, the task force not only

identified the strategic direction and national priorities for the FBI, but it also performed a self-assessment of the FBI’s capacity to achieve these goals. This self-assessment identified deficiencies and performance gaps that must be improved or

completely eliminated if we are to be successful in dealing with emerging crime

problems and more challenging threats and issues related to protecting the national

security. Some of these deficiencies and performance gaps are being corrected by reengineering processes and implementing policy decisions, while others may require

funding and resources to mitigate.

Guiding the implementation of our national priorities is a statement of core values for performing the mission of the FBI, which Director Freeh personally wrote.

Briefly, the core values established for FBI employees can be summarized as follows:

• rigorous obedience to the Constitution;

• respect for the dignity of all those we protect;

• compassion;

• fairness; and

• uncompromising personal and institutional integrity.

To accomplish the mission of the FBI, we must follow these core values. The public expects the FBI to do its utmost to protect people and their rights. Director Freeh

emphasizes to FBI employees that observance of these core values is our guarantee

of excellence and propriety in meeting the Bureau’s national security and criminal

investigative responsibilities.

The FBI Strategic Plan, 1998-2003, identified three major functional areas that

define the FBI’s strategic priorities. These three national priorities are: national and

economic security; criminal enterprises and public integrity; and individuals and

property. Within these three functional areas the FBI identified nine strategic goals

11

emphasizing the FBI’s need to position itself to prevent crimes and counterintelligence activities, rather than just reacting to such acts after they occur, as follows:

National and Economic Security. Our highest national priority is the investigation

of foreign intelligence, terrorist, and criminal activities that directly threaten the

national or economic security of the United States. We have established four strategic goals for this area:

• Identify, prevent, and defeat intelligence operations conducted by any foreign

power within the United States, or against certain U.S. interests abroad, that

constitute a threat to U.S. national security;

• Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur;

• Create an effective and ongoing deterrent to prevent criminal conspiracies

from defrauding major U.S. industries and the U.S. Government; and

• Deter the unlawful exploitation of emerging technologies by foreign powers,

terrorists, and criminal elements.

Key Tier 1 Performance Indicators, 1999-2000

1999 2000

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Applications Processed 531 562

Counterespionage (CE) Arrests and Locates 16 11

CE Information and Indictments 18 9

CE Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 17 6

Terrorist Incidents Prevented 7 tbd

Joint Terrorism Task Forces 23 29

Counterterrorism (CT)-related Arrests and Locates 305 596

CT-related Information and Indictments 139 223

CT-related Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 186 241

FBI Field Computer Intrusion (CI) Squads/Teams 10 16

National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) Crisis Action Teams Activated 6 3

NIPC Threat and Warning Notices Issued 33 36

Key Assets Identified 2,745 5,384

Infragard chapters 8 31

Infragard participants 18 392

CI-related Arrests and Locates 40 62

CI-related Information and Indictments 49 66

CI-related Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 54 62

Health Care Fraud (HCF) Arrests and Locates 376 361

HCF Information and Indictments 696 819

HCF Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 607 635

HCF Recoveries and Restitutions ($000) 312,861 580,607

HCF Fines ($000) 51,724 137,351

Criminal Enterprises and Public Integrity. Our second national priority is crimes

that affect the public safety or which undermine the integrity of American society.

These investigations are often targeted at criminal organizations, such as the La

Cosa Nostra, cartels and drug trafficking organizations, Asian criminal enterprises,

and Russian organized crime groups that exploit social, economic, or political circumstances. Another focus within this area is public corruption and civil rights. For

this area, we have established four strategic objectives:

• Identify, disrupt, and dismantle existing and emerging organized criminal enterprises whose activities affect the United States;

• Identify, disrupt, and dismantle targeted international and national drug-trafficking organizations;

• Reduce public corruption at all levels of government with special emphasis on

law enforcement operations; and

• Deter civil rights violations through aggressive investigative and proactive

measures.

12

Key Tier 2 Performance Indicators, 1999-2000

1999 2000

U.S. based drug organizations affiliated with 13 national priority targets that were

Ðidentified 64 201

Ðdismantled 8 16

Percent of La Cosa Nostra members incarcerated 18% 22%

Eurasian Criminal Enterprises dismantled 3 6

Asian Criminal Enterprises dismantled 4 15

Safe Streets Task Forces (SSTFs) 165 175

SSTF Arrests and Locates 17,473 16,147

SSTF Information and Indictments 2,049 1,989

SSTF Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 2,576 2,300

Violent Gang Task Forces 45 49

Violent Gang Arrests and Locates N/A 5,987

Violent Gang Information and Indictments N/A 2,549

Violent Gang Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions N/A 2,315

Violent Gangs affiliated with 7 national target groups that were dismantled 31 37

Public Corruption (PC) Arrests and Locates 355 422

PC Information and Indictments 597 606

PC Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 552 551

Civil Rights (CR) Arrests and Locates 240 145

CR Information and Indictments 204 149

CR Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 257 195

Individuals and Property. Our third national priority is crimes that affect individuals and property. Within this area, we will develop investigative strategies that reflect the public’s expectation that the FBI will respond to and investigate serious

criminal acts that affect the community and bring those responsible to justice. Our

strategic goal for this area is:

• Reduce the impact of the most significant crimes that affect individuals and

property.

Key Tier 3 Performance Indicators, 1999-2000

1999 2000

Crimes Against Children (CAC) Resource Teams 35 35

CAC Arrests, Locates, Summons 872 1,004

CAC Information and Indictments 621 731

CAC Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 591 802

Number of Missing Children Located 90 92

``Innocent Images'' National Initiative (IINI) Undercover Operations 10 14

IINI Arrests, Locates, Summons 337 482

IINI Information and Indictments 307 421

IINI Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 315 476

Safe Trails Task Forces (STTFs) 6 6

Indian Country (IC) Arrests and Locates 668 733

IC Information and Indictments 819 755

IC Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions 726 735

[Note: in some instances, data shown reflect updated information from the Department of Justice FY 2000 Performance Report and FY 2000 Performance Plan issued April 2001]

Overall, during FY 2000, FBI investigations led or contributed to the indictment

of 19,134 individuals, the conviction of 21,420 individuals, and the arrest of 36,387

persons on federal, state, local, or international charges. Additionally, FBI investigaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
13

tive efforts led or contributed to $946,811,505 in fines being levied, $1,012,851,257

in recoveries of stolen property, and $3,259,384,477 in court-ordered restitutions.

To achieve the strategic objectives that we have identified, the FBI has developed

five operational support strategies that are designed to build enhanced investigative

capabilities and effectiveness. These operational support categories are: intelligence,

information technology, applied science and engineering, management, and assistance to state, local, and international law enforcement partners.

Key Support Performance Indicators, 1999-2000

1999 2000

Students trained, FBI Academy:

New FBI Special Agents 718 312

FBI employees (in-service, advanced) 11,250 11,767

State, local, and international 4,881 5,796

Other students trained (regional, local):

State, local 117,599 120,233

International 7,105 7,709

Countries represented 121 161

Forensic examinations performed:

Federal agencies 727,354 651,751

Non-federal agencies 139,354 120,101

Fingerprint identification services:

Criminal cards processed 5,926,920 8,577,911

Civil card processed 6,496,415 6,743,428

Civil submissions with criminal records 565,929 701,164

Civil submissions using false identity 66,213 82,036

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) transactions 764,189,606 850,351,631

National Instant Check System:

Checks performed by States 3,480,832 4,511,866

Checks performed by FBI 3,346,743 4,489,113

Persons with criminal records prevented from purchasing firearms

(FBI checks) 62,189 71,890

For the FY 2002 budget, FBI program managers continued to use the FBI Strategic Plan, 1998-2003, and the five operational support strategies as guides for developing their resource requirements. Through an integrated strategic planning and

budget framework, the FBI has significantly sharpened its focus for allocating resources based upon national priorities and strategic objectives that concentrate on

the most significant crime problems and threats to the Nation.

OVERVIEW OF FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST

For FY 2002, the FBI is requesting a total of $3,507,109,000 and 24,938 permanent positions (10,420 agents) and 24,490 workyears for its Salaries and Expenses

($3,505,859,000) and Construction ($1,250,000) appropriations. For FBI Salaries and

Expenses, this amount represents a net increase of $277,377,000 from the current

year and consists of $106,569,000 for adjustments to base and $170,808,000 for program increases. The adjustments to base include such items as the proposed 3.6 percent pay raise for FY 2002, higher federal employee health insurance costs, additional General Services Administration (GSA) rent costs, and annualization of prior

year increases and pay raises provided by Congress. Program increases proposed for

FY 2002 would provide 279 new positions, including 76 new agents, and

$170,808,000 for four budget initiatives: Counterintelligence; Counterterrorism;

Cybercrime; and Infrastructure.

In addition to direct funded resources, the FY 2002 budget request assumes a

total of 2,826 reimbursable workyears, including 1,041 agents. Under the auspices

of the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (ICDE) program, the FBI would

be reimbursed for a total of 912 workyears, including 547 agents, and $115,436,000

for FBI drug and gang-related task force investigations and operations. Pursuant to

the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the FBI will receive $101,000,000 in FY 2002 to fund 793 workyears, including 455 agents, for

health care fraud enforcement. For user fee programs of the Criminal Justice ServVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
14

ices program, a total of 692 workyears are planned, based on estimated fees. The

remaining reimbursable workyears are used to facilitate a variety of other activities,

including victim/witness assistance, name checks for other federal agencies, facility

and maintenance support to other agencies sharing FBI facilities, pre-employment

background investigations, and detail assignment to other agencies.

At this point, I would like to describe in more detail the four budget initiatives

proposed for FY 2002.

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

Despite the fall of the Iron Curtain and the emergence of democracy in many of

the countries formerly under the rule of communism, the threat posed to U.S. national, military, and economic security from foreign countries remains significant.

Investigations in this area have become more complex as foreign intelligence services have expanded their focus from traditional military-related targets to new

areas, including technology, intellectual property, economic espionage, and proliferation. The FBI continues to work closely with the intelligence community to identify

and reduce the presence of hostile intelligence services in the U.S.

To keep pace with the changing counterintelligence threat to the U.S., the FBI

is proposing a counterintelligence initiative that would provide an additional

$31,277,000 and 182 positions (62 agents) in four areas of this mission-critical responsibility:

• enhancing field investigative activities focused on identifying, preventing, and

defeating intelligence operations conducted by any foreign power within the

U.S. or against U.S. interests abroad that pose a threat to U.S. national security;

• improving national-level program management and coordination of field investigative activities;

• developing and acquiring technology to support FBI counterintelligence activities; and

• improving security countermeasures to ensure the reliability of FBI personnel

and contractors and security of information and facilities. I will be discussing

this at length later in my testimony.

COUNTERTERRORISM

The United States continues to face a serious, credible threat from terrorists both

abroad and at home. The number of groups and individuals capable of carrying out

a terrorist act has increased over the past several years. Of continuing concern to

the FBI are groups and individuals for which political or religious beliefs constitute

sufficient motivation for carrying out a devastating terrorist act.

To deal effectively with domestic and international terrorism, the FBI must concentrate on both prevention and response. The FBI’s counterterrorism strategy is focused upon five inter-related elements to build and maintain an operational capacity

for identifying, preventing, deterring, and investigating terrorist activities.

First, the FBI must have the capacity to respond to acts of terrorism committed

in the U.S. and abroad when those acts are directed against the U.S. government

or its interests. Second, the FBI must have the capacity to receive, react to, and disseminate counterterrorism information. Third, the FBI must develop its internal capacities to support proactive counterterrorism programs and initiatives. Fourth, the

FBI must have the capacity to establish and maintain sound and productive relationships with other domestic and foreign law enforcement and intelligence counterparts. Fifth, the FBI must have the capacity to use all of the necessary assets and

capabilities of the FBI and other U.S. government agencies to support and initiate

complex investigations and operations against domestic and international terrorists

and terrorist organizations. For FY 2002, the FBI is requesting increases totaling

$32,059,000 and 42 positions (8 agents) to improve and enhance existing

counterterrorism capabilities and operations.

2002 Winter Olympics Preparation. The 2002 Winter Olympic Games have been

designated a National Special Security Event. Consistent with FBI lead-agency responsibilities for intelligence collection and crisis management as contained in PDD39 and PDD-62, the FBI is working closely with the United States Secret Service

and other federal, state, and local law enforcement and consequence management

agencies to plan for security and public safety issues for the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games that will be hosted by Salt Lake City, Utah.

For FY 2002, the FBI requests increases totaling $12,302,000 for 2002 Winter

Olympic Games deployment. The funding requested will cover travel, per diem, vehicle lease, utilities, telecommunications, and FBI overtime costs for the planned deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
15

ployment of over 800 FBI personnel for the event period. The Salt Lake City games

will be conducted at 20 official Olympic venues spread over a 6,000 square mile

area. Olympic competition will take place simultaneously at 10 venues in 3 major

cities and 6 remote mountain resort areas.

Recurring Security Services. The FBI is committed to implementing the security

standards contained in the June 1995 Department of Justice report entitled, ‘‘Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities.’’ FBI facilities are often the target of potential terrorist threats. Safeguarding agency employees and physical security must

be a priority. For FY 2002, the FBI requests an increase of $2,020,000 to acquire

contract guard services for 6 stand-alone field office facilities where GSA does not

provide such service ($1,600,000), replace an outdated closed-circuit television

(CCTV) security system at FBI Headquarters ($320,000), and replace three guard

booths at FBI Headquarters to facilitate new visitor identification procedures

($100,000).

Incident Response Readiness. Consistent with the provisions of PDD-62, the FBI

initiated a long-term program in FY 2000 to develop law enforcement capabilities

for the technical resolution of a weapons of mass destruction incident involving

chemical, biological, or radiological threats or devices. Initial funding for this effort

was provided through an interagency agreement with the Department of Defense.

For FY 2002, the FBI requests 42 positions (8 agents) and $17,737,000 to support

ongoing efforts in the areas of threat assessment, diagnostics, and device render safe

equipment.

CYBERCRIME

In recent years, technological advances have fundamentally changed the way of

life in this country. Computers and networks allow millions of individuals to access,

on a daily basis, a broad range of information services, databases, commerce, and

communications capabilities that were previously unavailable. A combination of reduced cost for computer technology and increased storage capacity allows the accumulation, storage, and management of large amounts of information by individuals

on personal computers and peripheral devices.

Many FBI investigations, especially those involving organized crime, drug trafficking, crimes against children, white-collar crime, counterintelligence, and

counterterrorism, are encountering the use of computer technology to facilitate illegal activities. As a result, the FBI must develop the investigative and forensic capacities and capabilities to deal with the use of computer technology by criminals

and others to commit crimes or undermine national security. For FY 2002, the FBI

is requesting an increase of 33 positions (6 agents) and $28,144,000 for providing

specialized technical assistance to field investigators and for developing investigative tools for law enforcement to counter the use of digital technology by criminals,

terrorists, and others.

Technical Support to Field Offices. Criminals and other subjects of FBI investigations are employing advanced, complex physical and electronic security technology

to protect their operations from competing criminal groups and to thwart law enforcement from executing lawful searches of premises and conducting court-approved interceptions of communications. The ability of the FBI to overcome such defensive measures is often critical to the success of high profile investigations and

operations and the collection of evidence. The FBI’s Laboratory Division provides

technical support to FBI field offices, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Customs Service, and other federal, state, and local law enforcement encountering such problems. To be able to continue providing this assistance,

the FBI is requesting an increase of 10 positions (4 agents) and $1,358,000.

Network Data Interception. In the Omnibus Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,

Congress provided the FBI with the basic legal authority to conduct the interception

of oral, wire, or electronic communications in criminal investigations. The statutory

authority to intercept communications in national security cases was provided by

Congress in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The use of court-authorized

intercepts is the investigative tool of last resort, and allowed only after all other logical investigative avenues are exhausted. Often, the evidence collected through the

use of court-authorized intercepts of communications is critical to the prosecution

of criminal enterprise leadership who are otherwise able to insulate themselves

through the use of intermediaries from direct ties to criminal acts and illegal activities. The increasing use of the Internet and world-wide web by criminals, terrorists,

and intelligence agents to commit illegal acts and carry out conspiracies against

U.S. national security has presented the FBI and law enforcement with new challenges in conducting court-approved interceptions of communications and obtaining

evidence and intelligence.

16

Increasingly, affidavits for the interception of communications are including emails, file transfers, and Internet Relay Chat messages, within the scope of court

orders. Emerging new digital technologies, such as Internet telephony, digital subscription lines, cable Internet, wireless Internet, and satellite communications, are

likely to be exploited by criminals and others in their continuing efforts to thwart

law enforcement detection. Law enforcement requires the development of capabilities and techniques for conducting court-approved interceptions of communications

in existing and emerging digital environments.

For FY 2002, the FBI requests an increase of 7 positions (2 agents) and

$7,664,000 to develop and procure network digital interception technologies; to provide on-site assistance to field offices, pursuant to court-approved orders; and to provide training to FBI technically trained agents.

Counterencryption. The widespread use of digitally-based technologies and the expansion of computer networks incorporating privacy features and capabilities

through the use of cryptography presents a significant challenge to the continued

ability of law enforcement to use existing electronic surveillance authorities. The

FBI is already encountering strong encryption in criminal and national security investigations. In 1999, 53 new investigations encountered encryption. The need for

a law enforcement cryptanalytic capability is well documented in several studies, including the National Research Council’s 1996 report entitled, ‘‘Cryptography’s Role

in Securing the Information Society.’’ The report recommends high priority be given

to the development of technical capabilities, such as signal analysis and decryption,

to assist law enforcement in coping with technological challenges.

The Administration supports the enhancement of a centralized law enforcement

capability within the FBI for engineering, processing, and decrypting lawfully intercepted digital communications and electronically stored information. For FY 2002,

the FBI requests an increase of $7,000,000 to further develop an initial operating

capability that will allow law enforcement to obtain plain text and meet the public

safety challenges posed by the criminal use of encryption. With this funding, the

FBI intends to work with existing national laboratories and other government agencies to ensure all existing resources are used in executing processing functions. This

approach will prevent duplication of effort.

Additionally, the FBI plans to acquire necessary computer hardware, software

tools, technical expertise, and services to develop capacities in four

counterencryption program areas: (1) analytical engineering; (2) signal analysis research; (3) counterencryption deployment; and (4) industry-assisted technology

transfer. The FBI also requests an increase of 13 positions and $1,202,000 for the

collection and examination of evidence (devices and communications) which include

encrypted materials and other electronic analysis forensic and technical examinations.

Electronic Surveillance Data Management System. With funding appropriated by

Congress in FY 2001, the FBI is acquiring and installing new digital collection systems to update existing analog equipment currently being used in FBI field offices.

For FY 2002, the FBI requests an increase of 3 positions and $10,920,000 for the

Casa de Web project which would serve as a distributed database that provides

agents and analysts with access to minimized (not unprocessed) recordings of audio,

data, and reports generated by digital collection systems. The Casa de Web system

will consist of two separate databases, one for criminal law enforcement data and

one for foreign counterintelligence data. This separation ensures compliance with

Executive Order 12333 that prohibits the commingling of such materials. Firewalls

and security protocols will prevent data from being accessed by unauthorized users

and prevent external access of the system. The Casa de Web project is being coordinated with Trilogy, the FBI’s information technology upgrade program.

Casa de Web will allow authorized agents, analysts, and translators to share and

analyze minimized data on an inter and intra office basis. Analytical tools planned

for Casa de Web, such as key word speaker identification, and speech recognition,

will improve information and intelligence sharing capabilities and permit FBI

Agents and analysts to view, listen, and act on collected minimized electronic surveillance information on a more timely basis.

INFRASTRUCTURE

To be successful, the FBI must have the capacity for collecting, storing, managing,

analyzing, and disseminating case and intelligence information on a timely basis to

its own investigative personnel, as well as other federal, State, and local law enforcement and the intelligence community. Existing systems and capacities must be

upgraded to meet increased investigative demands. New technologies also present

opportunities for making for effective and timely use of case information and intelVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
17

ligence currently being collected. On a daily basis, the FBI depends on its core infrastructure to ensure its agents and support staff can perform their jobs. A strong,

solid infrastructure is necessary for providing everyday tools and services, such as

replacement and safe automobiles for responding to and conducting investigations

and equipment and supplies for conducting forensic examinations of evidence.

Trilogy. Trilogy is the FBI’s three-year information technology infrastructure upgrade initiative. Trilogy consists of three key components: User Applications, a collection of user-specific software applications and tools to enhance the ability of

agents and support employees to organize, access, and analyze information; Information Presentation, replacement computer hardware and office automation software within each office to link employees at their desks with counterparts throughout the FBI; and Network, upgrades to acquire high-speed local and wide area networks and telecommunication circuits to deliver information between users and locations securely and quickly.

Congress provided the approval to proceed with the first year of the Trilogy implementation plan in FY 2001 and authorized the expenditure of $100,700,000 in appropriated and unobligated prior year funds. Since receiving approval to proceed

with this project, the FBI acquired the services of Mitretek Systems to provide management and techncial assistance to the FBI Trilogy Program Office and the services of GSA’s Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM) to act

as the acquisition agent for the project. The FBI also selected the GSA Millenia contract as the acquisition vehicle for the project. In January 2001, the FBI, through

FEDSIM, issued two task order requests (TORs) to the Millenia contractors. One

TOR addresses the User Applications component of Trilogy, while the second TOR

addresses the Information Presentation and Network components. In April 2001,

after separately reviewing vendor proposals for both TORs, the FBI selected vendors. Contractor work is expected to commence by June 2001.

Second year implementation costs of the Trilogy project are estimated at

$142,390,000. To help meet this requirement, the FBI plans to allocate $38,230,000

of existing base funding and apply $36,500,000 of unobligated prior year funds toward Trilogy in FY 2002. To complete second year funding requirements, an enhancement of $67,660,000 is required. Second year activities of the Trilogy project

will focus on implementing multi-case analytical tools, intranet upgrades, and multimedia electronic case files; continuing office automation upgrades in field offices;

and continuing upgrades to local and wide-area networks and telecommunications

circuits. The third year of implementation will complete the office automation upgrades in field offices and at Headquarters, provide for additional wide-area network

circuits, and permit additional improvements to FBI case databases.

Telecommunications Services. An enhancement of $6,500,000 is requested to begin

the replacement and upgrade of telecommunications equipment used to provide

connectivity between FBI legal attache offices and the Department of State’s (DOS)

worldwide network and to provide telecommunications support for FBI participation

in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) multi-agency investigations and

meet special case needs. The DOS Diplomatic Telecommunications Service (DTS) is

upgrading its telecommunications network over the next five years. This upgrade

will require the FBI to replace its legacy equipment with new equipment compatible

with the DTS network.

Motor Vehicle Program. An increase of $4,007,000 is requested for the FBI motor

vehicle program, including $2,557,000 to replace an additional 110 vehicles with

mileage exceeding 80,000 miles, $450,000 for automotive diagnostic tools, and

$1,000,000 to upgrade the Vehicle Management System to enhance fleet management and maintenance.

FBI Laboratory Activation. Occupancy of the new FBI Laboratory facility at

Quantico, Virginia, is scheduled to begin in Summer 2002. Activation of the facility

will require an increase of 22 buildings and facilities management employees and

$1,161,000 to properly operate and maintain the new building.

Additionally, the FY 2002 budget proposes that $40,000,000 from the Department

of Justice Working Capital Fund be used to meet costs associated with the activation of the new facility. These costs include the following:

• $3,868,750 for the transfer of 125 Laboratory Division employees;

• $15,000,000 for general and specialized equipment;

• $4,695,812 for office furniture and shelving;

• $600,000 for information technology equipment, such as network routers,

hubs, and multiple access units;

• $908,438 for moving services;

18

• $792,000 for part-year FY 2002 operations and maintenance costs, such as

utilities; maintenance supplies; environmental testing, trash removal, and

other miscellaneous services; and housekeeping, landscaping, and other building maintenance; and

• $14,135,000 for decommissioning and renovation/ alteration of existing Laboratory Division space in the J. Edgar Hoover Building being vacated. This

amount includes $3,000,000 for abatement and clean-up activities and disposal of hazardous materials/waste and $11,135,000 for renovations and alterations of approximately 131,000 square feet of space.

RELATED DEPARTMENTAL FUNDING REQUESTS

Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight several requests for funding included

within other Department of Justice programs that are considered important to FBI

initiatives and programs.

State and Local Bomb Technician Equipment. Within the funding proposed for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), $10,000,000 is included to continue an FBI Laboratory-managed program of training and equipping approximately 386 accredited

State and local bomb squads located in communities throughout the United States.

Congress appropriated $5,000,000 for this program in FY 2000 and $10,000,000 in

FY 2000. In FY 1999, the Department of Justice provided $25,000,000 from the

Working Capital Fund to initiate this effort.

Continuation of funding for this program will ensure State and local bomb squads

are properly trained and equipped to deal traditional improvised and explosive devices, as well as the initial response to devices that may be used by terrorists or

others to release chemical or biological agents. Through this program, the FBI has

provided State and local bomb squads with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

protective search suits, real-time x-ray devices, multi-gas monitoring systems, portable radiation detectors, and computers to access the Chemical and Biological Organisms-Law Enforcement database. This initiative compliments the State and local

bomb technician training and accreditation program that the FBI Laboratory provides at the Hazardous Devices School, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Grants for DNA Convicted Offender and Crime Scene Backlog Reduction. Also, requested under Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program is

$35,000,000 for grants to reduce the backlog of DNA profiles for entry into the FBI’s national Combined DNA Information System (CODIS) database ($15,000,000), and

to reduce the backlog of crime scene evidence awaiting DNA testing ($20,000,000).

These proposals are related to several on-going FBI Laboratory initiatives for improving State and local crime-fighting and forensic capabilities.

White-Collar Crime. The OJP, Justice Assistance appropriation proposes $9,230,000 for the operations of the National White-Collar Crime Center (NW3C).

The FBI has entered into a partnership with the NW3C to staff the Internet Fraud

Complaint Center (IFCC), which opened in May 2000. The IFCC serves as a focal

point for receiving and analyzing complaints from citizens and private industry victimized by Internet fraud and as a resource to federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Mr. Chairman, the FY 2002 budget request includes several general provisions

proposed by the FBI, including: danger pay, foreign cooperative agreements, railroad

police training, and warranty reimbursement authorities. Director Freeh and I encourage the Subcommittee to include these general provisions as part of the FY

2002 Justice Appropriations Act.

Danger Pay. Section 108 would extend to the FBI the same authority that the

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) currently enjoys for authorizing danger

pay for personnel assigned to high risk overseas locations. For the FBI, this is both

a pay equity issue for FBI Agents assigned to DEA Country Offices and a recognition of the increased threat facing FBI personnel performing extraterritorial investigations in foreign locations due to our counterterrorism responsibilities. At times,

FBI personnel are deployed to overseas locations where, due to the nature of our

work, they face a threat or hostile environment that does not always extend to all

members of the United States diplomatic team in a particular country. This authority would allow the FBI to address those situations. This authority has been requested by the Administration in each of the past three budgets.

Foreign Cooperative Agreements. Section 109 would allow the FBI to credit to its

appropriation funding that is received from friendly foreign governments for that

country’s share of joint, cooperative projects with the FBI. This authority would facilitate projects with friendly foreign governments, especially in support of our naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
19

tional security mission. The authority was first proposed by the Administration last

year, was adopted by the House, but did not make its way into the final Conference

bill.

Railroad Police Training. Section 110 would allow the FBI to establish and collect

a fee to pay for the costs of railroad police officers participating in FBI law enforcement training programs authorized by P.L. 106–110, and to credit those fees to its

Salaries and Expenses appropriation to cover the costs of providing such training.

P.L. 106–110 authorized railroad police officers to attend FBI training programs,

but directed that no federal funds be used to provide such training. Railroad police

officers are willing to pay for such training; however, the law does not provide an

authority for the FBI to collect and retain the fees to pay for the training. This provision provides the requisite authority.

Reimbursement for In-house Warranty Work. Section 111 would allow the Attorney

General to seek and retain reimbursement from vendors for warranty repairs and

maintenance performed in-house by Department of Justice employees when it is not

possible for the vendor to perform such services. For example, FBI motor vehicles

are equipped with radios that use government encryption devices. As a result, these

vehicles cannot be left unattended at vendor repair facilities for servicing. FBI mechanics currently perform warranty work that normally would be provided at no

cost by the vendor. Many vendors are willing to reimburse or credit the FBI for the

cost of the warranty work provided in-house. This provision would provide the authority needed to enter into such agreements when there is a law enforcement, security, or mission-related reason that precludes vendor servicing and permits the crediting of payments received to the appropriate appropriation.

FBI INTERNAL SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close my statement with an accounting of the FBI’s

evolving internal security strategies.

In the wake of the arrest of Special Agent Robert Philip Hanssen on espionage

charges, Director Freeh asked Judge William H. Webster to conduct a thorough review of the FBI’s internal security functions and procedures and to recommend improvements. As a former FBI Director, CIA Director, and Director of Central Intelligence, Judge Webster is, of course, uniquely qualified to undertake this review.

Judge Webster has assembled an impressive team of highly credentialed individuals

to assist him in conducting this review. Those members are: Clifford L. Alexander,

Jr., Griffin B. Bell, William S. Cohen, Robert B. Fiske, Jr., Thomas S. Foley, and

Carla A. Hills. Director Freeh is committed to providing Judge Webster and his

team complete and timely access to FBI records, personnel, and resources to complete this task.

I understand that Judge Webster has also established a team of investigative attorneys to assist in this review. Those attorneys are currently conducting interviews

and reviewing documents in order to formulate recommendations to improve FBI security policies and procedures. We welcome their recommendations and are committed to implementing them as expeditiously as possible.

In the meantime, Director Freeh has created an internal FBI Task Force made

up of eight Assistant Directors to identify and implement interim changes to the

FBI’s security programs that are sufficiently urgent that we should not await the

outcome of either Judge Webster’s review or that of the Department of Justice Inspector General. To date, the FBI Task Force has implemented the following

changes:

Enhanced Computer Audit Procedures: The FBI’s most sensitive information is

contained in electronic case files in the Automated Case System. Access is determined both by one’s assignment and restrictions placed when the case is opened or

data entered.

Director Freeh has instructed our personnel to implement regular reviews on our

most sensitive cases—reviews that can highlight all individuals who have looked at

the case files—so that the case agents and their supervisors can be responsible for

assuring these cases are being accessed by only those with a need to know.

The FBI’s Electronic Case File (ECF) Document Access Report (DAR) shows accesses to all documents in a particular case file for a specific period of time. The

DAR shows the user who conducted the captured activity, the date and time, and

the actions taken, i.e., list serials, view text, print, or download.

Case Agents will review the DARs every 90 days and, with their supervisors, will

be responsible for resolving unexplained accesses. As part of the resolution process,

the Agent and his supervisor may decide that more frequent monitoring of a specific

case is warranted to determine whether accesses were anomalous and accidental or

repeated and unauthorized.

20

This procedure should act as a strong deterrent as well as identify unusual entries into sensitive files. It will not stymie the flow of information necessary for effective counterintelligence. If this monitoring system had been in place, Hanssen

would have known that every time he accessed a case or program as a result of

‘‘surfing,’’ his entry would have been identified to the case Agent and questioned.

And even though Hanssen did not conduct an unusual number of searches against

FBI records, the fact that he was conducting these searches at all would have been

immediately apparent and raised suspicions.

Expanded Polygraph Program: Currently, the FBI conducts polygraphs of all new

employees prior to them beginning their service. In addition, individuals with access

to certain sensitive programs or cases are polygraphed and, of course, the polygraph

is used during serious internal inquiries to resolve unexplained anomalies and ambiguities.

As an interim measure, we have identified for periodic polygraph examination

those individuals who, by the nature of their assignment, have broad access to the

FBI’s most sensitive information. This includes any level of employee in any field

who has access to our most sensitive information, such as data base administrators.

These polygraph examinations are currently underway. In addition, we are conducting polygraph examinations of those employees leaving for and returning from

permanent foreign assignments.

Judge Webster will closely examine the entire polygraph issue to include random

polygraphs and inclusion of the polygraph as part of the five-year reinvestigation

every employee now undergoes.

As there are elsewhere in the Intelligence Community, there will be unexplainable

false positives and, as we saw in the Ames case, false negatives. On balance, however, Director Freeh and I believe the potential for damage to be done by traitors

outweighs these concerns. Accordingly, Director Freeh implemented this interim

step with the full expectation that Judge Webster will examine this issue in its entirety and make further recommendations.

Reassignment of Security Countermeasures Section: The FBI Task Force recently

recommended, and Director Freeh agreed, to temporarily establish the Security

Countermeasures Section of the National Security Division as a separate entity run

by a senior level executive from outside the FBI who will report directly to me. That

status will remain as we pursue the necessary authority to effectuate this change.

This initial elevation of having Security Countermeasures report to me is intended to help implement the substantial policy and procedural changes under development by the AD Task Force and that will precipitate from the review by Judge

Webster and the Inspector General.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, Director Freeh and I are especially proud of the work being performed everyday by the employees of the FBI. Their ability to do that work—the

work asked of us by the Congress through the laws it passes, by the President

through executive orders, and by our federal, state, local, and international law enforcement partners—is a reflection of the strong fiscal support given to the FBI by

this Subcommittee.

The budget proposed for the FBI for FY 2002 addresses the critical resource needs

identified through our Strategic Planning process. These important investments will

allow the FBI to meet the investigative and technological challenges we face as the

FBI enters the 21st Century. These investments will also enable us to develop the

core competencies that will allow us to be successful in investigating crimes, protecting national security, developing and sharing technical and forensic expertise,

and working better with our federal, state, local, and international partners. I believe that the national priorities and objectives we have put forth reflect the expectations for the FBI that are held by the American people, as well as the Congress.

Congress, and this Subcommittee in particular, has been extremely generous in

its support of the FBI over the past several years. Our successes in the field, whether they be preventing pedophiles from luring children over the Internet, to bringing

terrorists from foreign lands back to the U.S. to stand trial for their actions, to protecting our Nation’s critical infrastructure from cyber attacks, to fostering greater

cooperation with foreign law enforcement through our Legal Attache Offices, were

made possible because of your support for the FBI. As we look forward to FY 2002,

I am hopeful that we can continue to depend upon your support.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. Did I mispronounce your name? Is

it Mr. Pickard?

21

Mr. PICKARD. You can call me anything.

Mr. SMITH. It just dawned on me. I think it is Mr. Pickard.

Mr. PICKARD. It’s Pickard, somewhat like the TV show.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pickard, for your testimony.

Mr. Marshall.

STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ADMINISTRATOR,

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

Mr. MARSHALL. Chairman Smith, good morning, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and other Members of the Committee. It is indeed

a pleasure to be here this morning as you hold these hearings, and

thanks for having me.

Before I begin my testimony, I want to thank the entire Subcommittee. I really believe that without your support on both sides

of the aisle, DEA could not continue to effectively and safely meet

the growing challenges that are posed by today’s what I consider

to be very ruthless and predatory criminal drug trafficking organizations.

As members of the world’s premier drug enforcement agent sill,

DEA personnel are really international crime fighters, and those

employees every day courageously confront and neutralize the

world’s most sophisticated international drug trafficking organizations. Whether we’re working in South America or Asia or communities all across America, DEA is present at the cutting edge of law

enforcement, and we’re continuously adapting to the ever-changing

dynamics of the criminal organizations and enterprises that we

confront.

And I believe that DEA’s efforts have had a major impact against

global drug trafficking. As examples, I want to mention the demise

of the Medellin and Cali cartels, and that demise is due in very

large part to DEA’s aggressive investigations and programs of

international cooperation. By destroying those international syndicates, the cocaine threat in the U.S. appears to be leveling off

somewhat, and other—the Columbian cartels are looking to Europe

and other countries around the world to create their new markets.

Likewise, the neutralization of the Southeast Asia-based drug insurgence groups, such as the Shang United Army, has all but

eliminated the availability of Southeast Asian heroin in the United

States.

Mexican-based methamphetamine traffickers, who during the

early and mid-1990’s flooded the U.S. market with the product of

their methamphetamine superlabs, have also been hurt by our intensive law enforcements and chemical control efforts, and those efforts have resulted in price increases and purity decreases in methamphetamine and lower methamphetamine emergency room incidents.

That good news, however, I think is tempered by the challenges

that lie ahead of us, continued challenges. We see that the Columbian-based traffickers are always ready to exploit their infrastructure, and they have very quickly capitalized on the voids that were

created by our successes in Southeast Asian, and we see that Columbian groups now dominate the U.S. heroin market, and further,

by relinquishing a part of that you domestic cocaine distribution

network to Mexico-based operators, the Columbian traffickers have

22

really further insulated themselves from U.S. law enforcement

intervention, and in the process they have empowered those Mexico-based organizations to the extent that the Mexico-based organizations are now the premier poly-drug traffickers threatening our

nation.

Now, DEA has grown and developed tremendously over the years

from a small start. We now have about 9,000 dedicated, courageous, and talented men and women, and we are committed to improving the quality of lives of citizens of the United States. Under

my administrator’s vision for DEA, we are committed to intelligence-based operations, and we place a premium on maintaining

the public trust and confidence, ethical practices, integrity, training, technology, and last, the success of each and every individual

employee of DEA.

We now have a 5-year strategy that’s—that I have here, and

we’ve discussed it with your staff. It’s derived from the administrator’s vision, and it directs our skills and resources on our core competency, which is the disruption and dismantling of major drug

trafficking organizations wherever they operate in the world. That

overall strategy focuses on DEA’s efforts on international, national

and regional, and local impact targets with the ultimate goal always being to destroy the major drug trafficking organizations by

investigating, indicting, and imprisoning their leaders.

DEA now maintains 78 offices in 57 countries. These offices support DEA domestic investigations through foreign liaison, training

of host country officials, bilateral investigations, and intelligence

gathering. Domestically, as you said, Mr. Chairman, we operate 21

fields divisions in addition to our special operations division at

DEA headquarters, and we have offices in almost 350 U.S. cities

in every State.

Some of our significant successes include Operation Mountain

Express where we successfully target the methamphetamine precursor chemical providers; Operation Impunity II, which resulted

in the seizure of over 5,000 kilograms of cocaine and arrested 141

of the top leaders of that organization; Operation White Horse,

which we recently completed with the Columbia authorities and

State and local authorities here in the United States was responsible for immobilizing an organization that was sending large quantities of heroine from Columbia to the northeastern United States.

Now, I have long said that the fight against drugs cannot be won

through law enforcement alone, and I very deeply believe that. I

believe in what I refer to as a holistic approach that includes a

very strong element of law enforcement, but also includes treatment, education, and prevention. It’s important, I think, that each

one of those elements be strongly supported, and none of those elements should be implemented at the expense of others.

Now, in light of DEA’s view of the threat posed by international

drug trafficking in our country and in the world today, I want to

outline for you some of the things that are in our 2002 budget request. For our salaries and expenses appropriation, the DEA is requesting a total of one and a half billion dollars, 7654 positions.

That’s an increase of about $120 million and 134 positions over our

currently-enacted 2001 levels.

23

We’re seeking those increases in three initiatives. The first is for

our special operations division and communications intercept initiative. We’re seeking 15.1 million and 62 positions under that initiative, which is very critical to us because it will allow us to enhance

staffing levels in key investigative units within the special operations division, and that will include support for drug enforcement

investigations against the major organizations associated with the

southwest border, Latin America, Caribbean, and Europe, and

Asian. Now, that special operations division that’s dealt with in

this initiative has actually proven to be our very most effective tool

against these criminal organizations.

Secondly, is our Firebird initiative. We’ve requested an increase

of $30 million in three positions for the global Firebird network.

That is our primary office automation infrastructure. It also serves

as the communication backbone for our MERLIN intelligence network, and it’s a platform for a lot of other mission-critical data

bases and operational systems.

Now, finally, we’re requesting $13.1 million and 69 positions, including 46 chemists, in our laboratory operations initiative, and

this will allow us to meet mission-critical requirements within that

laboratory support services program. Our chemists are very dedicated and talented people, and they provide a variety of essential

services, including drug and evidence analysis, on-site assistance,

very often essential for officer safety in clandestine laboratory seizures, and crime scene investigations. They provide vital courtroom

testimony to support our prosecution efforts.

Now, collectively, I believe that the three initiatives that we’ve

presented will really enable us to be more effective and go about

meeting more effectively the mission requirements of our special

agent work force, and it will also allows us to better support the

prosecution of the command and control of drug offenders that are

in charge of the major global drug trafficking organizations.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks, and I’ll be

happy to take questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am happy to appear before

you today as you hold hearings on reauthorizing the Department of Justice. It has

been more than 20 years since the Congress passed a new authorization bill for the

Department, so I would like to review with you today some of the major DEA programs and initiatives that the Congress should be aware of as it considers crafting

a new authorization.

Before my testimony today, I would like to take this time to express my sincere

gratitude for your ongoing support. Without your support, DEA could not continue

to safely and effectively meet the growing challenges posed by increasingly sophisticated and dangerous international drug trafficking organizations operating throughout the global community. Your efforts work to send a message to these traffickers

that their assault on the citizens of this nation will not be taken lightly, and that

we will continue to fight to ensure that our streets remain safe for generations to

come.

The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (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 and/or distribution of

controlled substances destined for illicit traffic in the United States. The DEA also

recommends and supports non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on both domestic and international markets.

24

To accomplish this mission, DEA works with international, federal, and state and

local law enforcement partners to target and immobilize the organizations of major

drug traffickers operating at all levels of the drug trade.

I have long said this fight can not be won through law enforcement alone. There

must be a ‘‘holistic’’ approach to a global problem. DEA has in place a five-year strategic plan, which addresses the problems posed by illicit drug availability and abuse

and provides for a comprehensive balanced approach. There is no doubt that interdiction and enforcement, coupled with education, prevention and treatment, are the

essential elements for reducing the supply and demand of illicit drugs in this country.

DEA, in its capacity as the world’s leading drug enforcement agency and the only

single-mission federal agency dedicated to drug law enforcement, has developed the

unique ability to direct resources and manpower to identify, target, investigate and

dismantle drug organizations headquartered overseas and within the United States.

DEA’s strategy to successfully accomplish these goals is straightforward, requiring

that the agency’s resources and manpower be focused on all three levels of the drug

trade: the international, national/regional, and local levels. Each of these categories

represents a critical aspect of the drug continuum, which affects communities across

the nation.

The 9,000 dedicated men and women of the DEA are committed to improving the

quality of life of the citizens of the United States. The agency directs and supports

investigations against the highest levels of the international drug trade, their surrogates operating within the United States and those traffickers whose violence and

criminal activities threaten towns and cities across the country. These investigations

are intelligence-driven and frequently involve the cooperative efforts of numerous

other law enforcement organizations.

DEA’s strategy to reduce drug trafficking at all levels of operation is flexible and

reflects the constantly changing nature of the drug trade. In concert with the Department of Justice, our sister law enforcement agencies, and the Office of National

Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), DEA has crafted an innovative and effective program

to keep pace with developments and shifts in the drug trafficking spectrum and

bring both national and international drug traffickers to justice.

DEA targets, investigates, and dismantles the most powerful drug syndicates operating around the world which are responsible for supplying drugs to American

communities. The most significant drug syndicates operating today are far more

powerful and violent than any of the other organized criminal groups that we have

experienced in the history of American law enforcement. Unlike traditional organized crime, these new criminals operate on a global scale with transnational networks to conduct illicit enterprises simultaneously in many different countries. DEA

has grown in sophistication and effectiveness to meet the challenge posed by international drug trafficking in the new century.

THE CHALLENGE POSED BY INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS

The main challenge DEA faced during the late 1980’s was posed by the major

drug traffickers from Medellin, Colombia. These drug lords were investigated, arrested and prosecuted by the Colombian National Police (CNP), the DEA, and U.S.

Federal prosecutors, beginning with the landmark return of Carlos Lehder to face

drug charges in the United States, and ending with the death of Pablo Escobar at

the hands of the CNP. During this same time frame, narcotics investigations by the

DEA and other Federal, state and local entities created a choke point in South Florida and the Caribbean, through which most of the illicit drugs arriving in our country were being transported. These enforcement strategies led to the demise of the

Medellin Cartel.

As the Medellin traffickers disintegrated, the Cali traffickers quietly coalesced

and assumed power equal to that of their predecessors. Due to law enforcement’s

response to the trafficking in the Caribbean, the Cali traffickers would later form

an alliance with Mexican trafficking groups in order to stage and transport drugs

across the Southwest Border. The drug traffickers from Cali were far more sophisticated than the Medellin group and eventually became deeply involved in all aspects

of the cocaine trade, including production, transportation, wholesale distribution

and money laundering. Whereas the Medellin traffickers seemed to revel in the terror and violence that became their trademark—and ultimately contributed to their

downfall—the Cali traffickers attempted to avoid indiscriminate violence and sought

to build their image as legitimate businessmen. The Cali leaders—the RodriguezOrejuela brothers, Jose Santacruz Londono, and Helmer ‘‘Pacho’’ Herrera-Buitrago—

amassed fortunes and ran their multi-billion dollar cocaine businesses from highrises and ranches in Colombia. Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela and his associates comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
25

prised what was, until then, the most powerful international organized crime group

in history.

During 1995 and 1996, intense law enforcement pressure was focused on the Cali

leadership by the brave men and women of the Colombian National Police. As a result, all of the top trafficking leaders from Cali were either in jail or killed. During

that time frame, U.S. law enforcement agencies were effectively attacking Colombian cells operating within the United States. With the Cali leaders imprisonment

in Colombia and the successful attacks by law enforcement on their U.S. cells, traffickers from Mexico took on greater prominence. A growing alliance between the Colombian traffickers and the organizations from Mexico worked to benefit both sides.

Traffickers from Mexico had long been involved in smuggling marijuana, heroin,

and cocaine across the U.S.-Mexico border, using entrenched distribution routes to

deliver drugs throughout the United States. The Mexico-based organizations’ emergence as major methamphetamine producers and traffickers also contributed to

making them a major force in international drug trafficking. The Mexican traffickers, who were previously paid in cash by the Colombian traffickers for their

services, began to routinely receive up to one-half of a shipment of cocaine as their

payment. This led to Mexican traffickers having access to multi-ton quantities of cocaine and allowed them to expand their markets and influence in the United States,

thereby making them formidable cocaine traffickers in their own right.

The U.S./Mexico border is now the primary point of entry for cocaine shipments

being smuggled into the United States. According to a recent assessment, more than

half of the cocaine smuggled into the United States crosses the Southwest Border.

Today, traffickers operating from Colombia continue to control wholesale level cocaine distribution throughout the heavily populated northeastern United States and

along the eastern seaboard in cities such as Boston, Miami, Newark, New York City,

and Philadelphia. Traffickers operating from Mexico, however, control wholesale cocaine distribution throughout the western and Midwestern United States. The distribution of multi-ton quantities of cocaine once dominated by the Colombia-based

drug groups is now controlled by Mexico-based trafficking groups in cities such as

Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco,

and Seattle.

Members of international crime groups today pose a much greater threat than did

their Medellin and Cali predecessors. They have at their disposal the most sophisticated communications technology as well as faxes, the Internet, and other communications equipment. Additionally, they have in their arsenal radar-equipped aircraft, weapons and an army of workers who oversee the drug business from its raw

beginnings in South American jungles to the urban areas and core city locations

within the United States. All of this modern technology and these vast resources

enable the leaders of international criminal groups to build organizations which, together with their surrogates operating within the United States, reach into the

heartland of America. The leaders of these crime groups work through their organizations to carry out the work of transporting drugs into the United States, and franchise others to distribute drugs, thereby allowing them to remain beyond the reach

of American justice. Those involved in drug trafficking often generate such tremendous profits that they are able to corrupt law enforcement, military and political officials in order to create and retain a safe haven for themselves.

Successes against the Medellin and Cali drug lords accelerated the decentralization of the international cocaine trade. In this new century, we are seeing ‘‘second

generation’’ traffickers emerge on the scene as major players in the Colombian cocaine trade. They tend to be less willing to directly challenge government authority

and are much more sophisticated in their methods of operation. They employ extensive utilization of wireless communication devices, which they change with great frequency. Other emerging characteristics are the use of computerized communications, elaborate concealment of clandestine cargo, and avoidance of becoming directly involved in retail distribution or even direct distribution to the U.S. market.

The successful identification, investigation, and prosecution of these violators have

become an even greater challenge to law enforcement both in the United States and

Colombia.

THE RESPONSE: TODAY’S DEA

We can and should continue to identify and build cases against the leaders of the

new criminal groups from Colombia. These criminals have already moved to make

our task more difficult by withdrawing from positions of vulnerability and maintaining a much lower profile than their predecessors did. Just as there is a new generation of international drug traffickers operating in the world today, we have built

26

what is in many ways a new DEA, far more sophisticated than that which was created in the 1970s.

As an organization, DEA has grown and changed tremendously over the years.

From 1,446 agents and 1,422 support personnel in 1973, we have grown to 3,772

agents and 4,340 support staff at the end of 2000. From our first budget of $74 million in 1973, which increased to $256 million in 1983, DEA’s budget authority has grown to $1.44 billion for the current year.

Domestically, we now operate through 21 Field Divisions, in addition to the Special Operations Division at DEA Headquarters, with offices in every State. Also

within the United States, we work through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement

Task Forces (OCDETF) program. This program was initiated in 1982 to combine

federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts into a comprehensive attack against

organized crime and drug traffickers. DEA remains today as the leading initiator

of OCDETF cases.

Our State & Local Task Force program carries out one of the DEA’s priority initiatives-addressing the problem of drug-related violent crime with our state and

local counterparts. These are currently 1,134 Special Agent positions dedicated to

this enforcement effort working alongside 1,868 State or local police officers in 203

Task Forces. Of this number, 45 task forces are funded through the HIDTA program.

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program was authorized by

the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and is administered by the Office of National Drug

Control Policy. Its mission is to reduce drug trafficking throughout the country by

coordinating federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts.

To ensure that criminals do not benefit financially from their illegal acts, federal

law provides that profits from drug-related crimes. Asset forfeiture is an effective

weapon because it removes the profit from such illegal activities. Asset forfeiture

can also financially disable drug-trafficking organizations. Property is seized by the

DEA only when it is determined to be a tool for, or the proceeds of, illegal activities

such as drug trafficking, organized crime, or money laundering. The DEA has also

launched major operations specifically targeting the money-laundering capabilities

of major trafficking organizations.

Most of the drugs in the illicit traffic are products of illicit processing or synthesis.

Until recently, there were virtually no legal impediments to obtaining the chemicals

necessary to manufacture drugs of abuse, no records required to be maintained for

inspection, and no penalties for negligence or willful diversion. The Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 extended the concept of commodity control to those

chemicals most often used for the manufacture and synthesis of drugs of abuse.

With the support of the State Department, the DEA pursued the same goal for incorporation into the U.N. Convention Against Illicit Drug Traffic of 1988 (the Vienna Convention). On these legal bases, DEA has established controls over a list

of critical chemicals commonly diverted for the production of the major drugs of

abuse.

Finally, Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) were conceived in 1995 in response

to the overwhelming problem of drug-related violent crime in towns and cities across

the nation. MET teams assist local law enforcement officers in identifying major

drug traffickers and organizations that commit homicide and other violent crimes,

collecting, analyzing, and sharing intelligence, arresting drug traffickers and assisting in the arrests of violent offenders and gangs, seizing assets, and assisting prosecutors. METs have completed 294 deployments so far, with 18 more currently

under way. There are 262 DEA Special Agents assigned to the MET Program nationwide, comprising 24 teams.

Overseas, the DEA now maintains 78 offices in 57 countries. These offices support

DEA domestic investigations through foreign liaison, training of host country officials, bilateral investigations, and intelligence gathering. Through the International

Visitor Program, DEA provides foreign officials and U.S. diplomats with briefs on

drug trafficking trends and national and international counter narcotics activities.

DEA is also in the forefront of the forensic science industry. DEA’s eight Regional

laboratories make up the largest accredited federal lab system in the United States.

They provide the best available forensic drug analysis to the law enforcement community. These Labs each serve a region of the country. The Northeast Laboratory

is located in New York City, the North Central Laboratory in Chicago, the Southeast Laboratory in Miami, the South Central Laboratory in Dallas, the Southwest

Laboratory in National City (CA), the Western Laboratory in San Francisco, and the

Mid-Atlantic Lab in Washington, DC. In addition, the Special Testing Laboratory

is in the Washington, D.C. suburbs.

The DEA’s Computer Forensics Program (CFP) is the application of computer

technology and specialized seizure and evidence handling techniques to retrieve inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
27

formation from computer systems for investigative or intelligence purposes. Like

many other business people, drug traffickers rely on computers and electronic pocket organizers to store information. Modern law enforcement routinely encounters

and seizes home computers, laptops, computer networks, pocket organizers, and

magnetic media in every conceivable size and format. These items, when seized, are

forwarded to the CFP for duplication and extraction of information in such a way

as to preserve the integrity of the evidence in a court-admissible manner. The Computer Forensics Program was established in October 1994, and has processed hundreds of computer items and pieces of electronic equipment each year since then.

Over the last five years, the number of cases and computer seizures have increased

by approximately 30 percent each year.

Electronic surveillance is critical to our success in combating the drug problem in

the United States. In fact, the vast majority of court authorized electronic surveillance actions are directly tied to enforcement of the controlled substances laws and

regulations of the United States. Without this essential tool, we in drug law enforcement would be unable to prevent, investigate, and solve many of the crimes associated with the growing, manufacture, or distribution of illegal drugs. In order to

meet the challenges presented by these sophisticated drug trafficking organizations,

it is necessary for us to attack the command and control mechanisms of these organizations. Our center for targeting command and control is the Special Operations

Division (SOD), a combined DEA, U.S. Customs, FBI, IRS/Criminal Investigations,

and DOJ/Criminal Division effort that supports ongoing investigations by producing

detailed and comprehensive analyses of data revealing the activities and organizational structures of major drug trafficking and drug-related money laundering organizations and identifying relationships among traffickers and their related enterprises.

Today’s international drug trafficking organizations are the wealthiest, most powerful, and most ruthless organized crime entities we have ever faced. We know from

our investigations that they utilize their virtually unlimited wealth to purchase the

most sophisticated electronic equipment available on the market to facilitate their

illegal activities. The Special Operations Division has enabled us to build cases

against the leaders of these powerful organizations by targeting their command and

control communications with multi-jurisdictional criminal investigations based on

state-of-the-art, court approved Title III electronic interceptions. We rely on the information and evidence gathered from these Title III interceptions of their communications to build a picture of the organizations, identify the individual members,

and obtain evidence enabling us to make arrests and take apart whole sections of

the criminal organizations at a time. The capability provided by SOD is at the core

of our ability to make cases against the leadership and U.S.-based infrastructure of

these powerful organizations that control the drug trade in our hemisphere.

Using the law enforcement tools available to today’s DEA, as outlined above, in

the past several years we have participated in a number of very significant investigations. These actions demonstrate not only the new sophistication of drug trafficking organizations at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century, but also the significance of the law enforcement response.

We continue to carry out cutting-edge, sophisticated investigations like Operation

Millennium, which successfully targeted major traffickers who had previously operated without fear of capture or prosecution in the United States, believing that only

their low-level operatives were at risk. These operations underscore the importance

of cooperation among international drug law enforcement agencies. Such operations

benefit from the closest possible cooperation between the DEA and our foreign counterparts. These investigations will continue to lead to the dismantling of major portions of the most significant drug trafficking organizations operating today. Allow

me to review just a few of DEA’s recent successes.

Operation Millennium, brought to a successful conclusion in 1999, effectively demonstrated that even the highest level traffickers based in foreign countries could not

manage drug operations inside the United States with impunity. Operation Millennium was made possible by direct support from the governments of Colombia and

Mexico. Operation Millennium effectively targeted major cocaine suppliers who had

been responsible for shipping vast quantities of cocaine from Colombia through Mexico into the United States. Operation Millennium specifically targeted drug kingpin

Alejandro Bernal-Madrigal, who, by his own admission, had been smuggling 30 tons,

or 500 million dosage units, of cocaine into the United States every month.

Operation Mountain Express was a joint operation between DEA’s Special Operations Division and the Office of Diversion Control. Mountain Express targeted traffickers of the methamphetamine precursor, pseudoephedrine. Existing regulations

make it possible for California-based Mexican criminal organizations to purchase

multi-ton quantities of pseudoephedrine for use in methamphetamine production.

28

Since January 2000, SOD coordinated a number of multi-jurisdictional investigations targeting pseudoephedrine traffickers, many of whom were of Middle Eastern

origin, using 11 wiretaps during the course of the investigations.

Operation Tar Pit was a DEA led multi-jurisdictional investigation targeting a

Mexican heroin transportation and trafficking organization based in Tepic, Nayarit,

Mexico. Primarily, this organization imported multi-kilogram quantities of black tar

heroin from Mexico into the United States. During the course of the operation, more

than 30 Federal Title III investigations were conducted. In June 2000, a nationwide

takedown occurred against Operation Tar Pit targets, which included the principal

Mexican command and control members in Mexico, U.S. based cell heads, workers

for each cell, couriers, and customers.

In November 2000, the DEA, FBI, U.S. Customs Service, and Federal prosecutors

culminated an 18-month investigation targeting a multi-ethnic, transnational

MDMA (Ecstasy) and cocaine distribution organization, following-up on enforcement

action by Dutch police in the Netherlands. The investigation, known as Operation

RED TIDE, was a textbook example of the new multi-agency, multi-national law enforcement cooperation needed to thwart organized crime in the 21st Century. As a

result of this cooperative effort, Customs agents seized 1,096 pounds (2.1 million

tablets) of MDMA, the largest single seizure of the drug in history. The head of the

organization, Tamer Adel Ibrahim fled the U.S. after the seizure, but was quickly

traced to Mexico and then to Europe by the multi-agency team. Ibrahim, along with

others, was arrested and the Dutch National Police seized 1.2 million tablets of

MDMA.

Operations like RED TIDE exemplify the unprecedented level of international law

enforcement cooperation in effect today. The investigation targeting a transnational

MDMA and cocaine trafficking syndicate was a cooperative effort by the U.S. law

enforcement agencies, as well as the Dutch National Police/Regional Team South,

Mexico’s Fiscalia Especializad Para La Atencion De Delitos (FEADS), the Israeli National Police, the German Federal Police (Bundes Kriminal Amt), the Cologne Germany Police Department, the Duissburg Germany Police Department, the Italian

National Police and the French National Police.

This investigation is extremely important because MDMA (Ecstasy) is a new

threat with the potential to cause great damage, especially to America’s youth. Operation Red Tide has ensured that a large volume of Ecstasy that would have made

it into the hands of our youth never hit the streets, and sent a strong message to

the traffickers that the DEA is leading a truly global response to the drug threat.

Last December, the DEA, together with U.S. Customs and the FBI, completed Operation Impunity II, resulting in 141 arrests and the seizure of 5,266 kilograms of

cocaine, 9,325 pounds of marijuana, and approximately $9,663,265 in U.S. currency

and assets. Impunity II follows earlier successes dating back to 1996 in Operation

Limelight and Operation Impunity I and was the result of the outstanding coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and prosecutors

across the country.

Operation Impunity II was a multi-agency law enforcement effort that targeted

a wide-ranging conspiracy to smuggle thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuana

from Mexico, across the southwest border into Texas, for distribution throughout the

United States. Impunity II targeted an organization that placed managers in the

United States and retained the organizational command and control elements in

Mexico. In addition to remnants from the Carrillo-Fuentes organization, agents

learned that some members of the Mexican Gulf Cartel had also become associated

with the organization, including Osiel Cardenas-Guillen, allegedly a former Gulf

Cartel lieutenant. In addition to the domestic enforcement activity in this country,

the United States Government presented provisional arrest warrants for extradition

for eight Mexican nationals in Mexico and one Dominican national in the Dominican

Republic.

In January of this year, Operation White Horse targeted a large scale heroin trafficking organization, directed by Wilson SALAZAR-Maldonado, which was responsible for sending multi-kilogram quantities of heroin from Colombia to the Northeastern United States via Aruba. The investigation was conducted jointly by the Colombian National Police, DEA Bogota, Curacao, Philadelphia and New York, and the

Special Operations Division. This investigation resulted in 96 arrests, as well as the

seizure of multi-kilograms quantities of heroin and cocaine, weapons and U.S. currency.

DEA remains committed to its primary goal of targeting and arresting the most

significant drug traffickers in the world today. Our successes range from participation in the historic destruction of the Cali and Medellin Cartels to the recent operations just mentioned. In the future as well, DEA will meet the ultimate test of

bringing to justice the drug lords who control their vast empires of crime, which

29

bring misery to so many nations. As we sustain a relentless assault against drug

traffickers, we must insist that these drug lords be arrested, tried and convicted,

and sentenced in their own countries to prison terms commensurate with their

crimes, or, as appropriate, extradited to the United States to face justice in U.S.

courts.

THE CURRENT DRUG TRAFFICKING THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

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

world. As such, it attracts the most ruthless, sophisticated, and aggressive drug

traffickers. Drug law enforcement agencies face an enormous challenge in protecting

the country’s borders from drug traffickers who smuggle in cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine for distribution in U.S. neighborhoods as well as from

domestic suppliers of these drugs.

Diverse groups traffic and distribute illegal drugs. Criminal groups operating from

South America smuggle cocaine and heroin into the United States via a variety of

routes, including land routes through Mexico, maritime routes along Mexico’s east

and west coasts, sea routes through the Caribbean, and international air corridors.

Furthermore, criminal groups operating from neighboring Mexico smuggle cocaine,

heroin, methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana into the United States.

These criminal groups have smuggled heroin and marijuana across the Southwest

Border and distributed them throughout the United States since the 1970’s. In addition to distributing cocaine and methamphetamine in the West and Midwest, these

Mexico-based groups now are attempting to expand the distribution of those drugs

into eastern U.S. markets.

Besides these criminal groups based abroad, domestic organizations cultivate,

produce, manufacture, or distribute illegal drugs such as marijuana, methamphetamine, PCP, and LSD. By growing high-potency sinsemilla, domestic marijuana

growers provide a product that easily competes with other suppliers. As demand for

methamphetamine grows, especially in the West and Midwest, so, too, does the

number of illicit laboratories that supply methamphetamine to a growing number

of addicts. Finally, a small number of chemists manufacture LSD that is subsequently distributed primarily to high school and college students throughout the

United States.

COCAINE TRENDS

The primary U.S. drug threat is cocaine, particularly in its smokable form known

as ‘‘crack’’ cocaine. The trafficking, distribution, and abuse of cocaine and crack cocaine over the past decade, along with increasing drug-related violence, seriously debilitate the quality of life in many cities and towns across the country. Most of this

nations drug law enforcement assets are directed against cocaine traffickers.

Crack, the inexpensive, smokable form of cocaine, continues to be distributed and

used in most major cities. While cocaine use in the United States has declined over

the past decade, the rate of use in recent years has stabilized at high levels. Crack

cocaine usage, which drove these rates, has reached the saturation point in large

urban areas throughout the country. Street gangs, such as the Crips and the Bloods,

and groups of ethnic Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and Jamaicans dominate the retail

market for crack cocaine nationwide.

HEROIN TRENDS

Heroin is readily available in many U.S. cities as evidenced by the unprecedented

level of average retail, or street-level, purity. The increased availability of high-purity heroin, which can effectively be snorted, has given rise to a new, younger user

population. While avoiding the stigma and additional health hazards of needle use,

this user group is ingesting larger quantities of the drug and, according to drug

treatment specialists, progressing more quickly toward addiction.

South American Heroin

The availability of South American (SA) heroin, produced in Colombia, has increased dramatically in the United States since 1993. South American heroin is

available in the major metropolitan areas of the Northeast and along the East

Coast. Investigations also indicate the spread of South American heroin to smaller

U.S. cities as well. Within the United States, ethnic Dominican criminal groups

have played a significant role in retail-level heroin distribution in northeastern markets for at least the past two decades. Currently, Dominican groups dominate retail

heroin markets in northeastern cities such as New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

30

Mexican Heroin

Mexican heroin has been a threat to the United States for decades. It is produced,

smuggled, and distributed by polydrug trafficking groups, many of which have been

in operation for more than 20 years. Nearly all of the heroin produced in Mexico

is destined for distribution in the United States. Organized crime groups operating

from Mexico produce, smuggle, and distribute the black tar heroin sold in the western United States. Once the heroin reaches the United States, traffickers rely upon

well-entrenched polydrug smuggling and distribution networks to deliver their product to the market, primarily in the metropolitan areas of the Midwestern, southwestern, and western United States with sizable Mexican immigrant populations.

Southeast Asian Heroin

High-purity Southeast Asian (SEA) heroin dominated the market in the United

States during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Over the past few years, however, all

indicators point to a decrease in SEA heroin available domestically. Despite the recent decline in trafficking of SEA heroin, Chinese criminal groups based in Asia remain the most sophisticated heroin trafficking organizations in the world.

Southwest Asian Heroin

While a large portion of Southwest Asian (SWA) heroin is consumed in Western

Europe, Pakistan, and Iran, traffickers operating from Middle Eastern locales smuggle SWA heroin to ethnic enclaves in the United States. Criminal groups composed

of ethnic Lebanese, Pakistanis, Turks, and Afghans are all involved in supplying the

drug to U.S.-based groups for retail distribution. West African traffickers, who primarily smuggled SEA heroin to the United States in the 1990s, now also deal in

SWA heroin.

METHAMPHETAMINE TRENDS

Domestic methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse are concentrated

in the western United States. Methamphetamine is also increasingly available in

portions of the South. Clandestine laboratories in California and Mexico are the primary sources of supply for methamphetamine available in the United States.

Over the last decade, the methamphetamine trafficking and abuse situation in the

United States changed dramatically. In 1994, ethnic Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating ‘‘super labs’’ (labs capable of producing in excess of ten pounds

of methamphetamine in one 24-hour production cycle) based in Mexico and California began to take control of the production and distribution of methamphetamine

domestically. The entry of ethnic Mexican traffickers into the methamphetamine

trade in the mid-1990s resulted in a significant increase in the supply of the drug.

The primary points of entry into the United States for methamphetamine produced in Mexico have traditionally been California ports of entry, particularly San

Ysidro. Although a great amount of methamphetamine still transits this area, portsof-entry in south Texas are experiencing significant increases in smuggling activity.

The vast majority of methamphetamine precursor chemicals diverted to clandestine laboratories in the United States are dosage-form pseudoephedrine or ephedrine drug products. They are usually purchased from U.S. manufacturers and distributors who sell case quantities of the tablets. The finished methamphetamine is

then distributed throughout the U.S. through preexisting smuggling methods to the

traffickers.

MARIJUANA TRENDS

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

United States with an estimated 11.5 million current users. At least one-third of the

U.S. population has used marijuana sometime in their lives. The drug is considered

a ‘‘gateway’’ to the world of illicit drug abuse . . .

Marijuana smuggled into the United States, whether grown in Mexico or transshipped from other Latin American source areas, accounts for most of the marijuana

available in the United States. Marijuana produced in Mexico remains the most

widely available. Moreover, high-potency marijuana enters the U.S. drug market

from Canada. The availability of marijuana from the Far East, primarily Thailand,

generally is limited to the West Coast. U.S. drug law enforcement reporting also

suggests increased availability of domestically grown marijuana.

MDMA TRENDS

Commonly referred to as Ecstasy, XTC, Clarity or Essence, the chemical substance known as 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is a synthetic

psychoactive drug possessing stimulant and mild hallucinogenic properties. In the

31

early 1990s, MDMA became increasingly popular among European youth. However,

it is within the last five years that MDMA use in the United States has increased

at an alarming rate.

Although the vast majority of MDMA consumed domestically is produced in Europe, a limited number of MDMA laboratories operate in the United States. Law enforcement seized seven clandestine MDMA laboratories in the United States in 2000

compared to 19 seized in 1999. It should be noted that these labs were primarily

capable of limited drug production. While ‘‘recipes’’ for the clandestine production

of MDMA can be found on the Internet, acquiring the necessary precursor chemicals

in the U.S. is difficult.

MDMA is manufactured clandestinely in Western Europe, particularly in the

Netherlands and Belgium. Much of the MDMA is manufactured in the southeast

section of the Netherlands near Maastricht. International MDMA traffickers based

in the Netherlands and Belgium consistently use other European countries, such as

France, England, Germany, and Spain as transshipment points for MDMA shipments destined for the United States. Russian, Israeli and European criminal organizations, the principal traffickers of MDMA worldwide, supply the United States

with the drug.

IMPACT ON THE UNITED STATES

None of the major drug traffickers headquartered overseas could operate without

the assistance of national and regional drug trafficking organizations which are responsible for trafficking huge quantities of drugs into U.S. communities. These organizations are comprised of a network of operatives who transport, store and distribute drugs and collect and repatriate drug proceeds throughout the United States

and whose activities are directed by drug lords based in foreign countries. In many

cases, national and regional drug trafficking organizations are comprised of numerous cells whose directors are responsible for specific tasks such as communications,

financial matters and/or logistics. These cell heads are sent to the United States for

a period of time to carry out the business mandates of the top drug lords and are

given specific tasks to accomplish. The national and regional drug syndicates have

infiltrated many states and communities, bringing with them the crime and violence

once limited to major urban areas. A survey of recent DEA investigations revealed

that over 400 investigations stemming from Operations Reciprocity and Limelight

involved drug traffickers from foreign countries who had set up operations in various cities across the United States.

Local violent drug trafficking organizations also operate across the United States

and are responsible for eroding the quality of life in many American communities.

Previously centered in major urban areas, violent drug trafficking groups are now

part of the landscape in smaller cities and rural areas. Fueled in large part by

methamphetamine production and trafficking, violent drug trafficking organizations

are now affecting the crime rates in smaller cities such as Spokane, Washington and

Cedar Rapids, Iowa. While these local, violent groups appear to be unrelated to the

large international drug trafficking organizations headquartered overseas, it is important to note that all of the cocaine and heroin that is trafficked by these groups

is produced overseas and transported to the United States for eventual distribution

on the local level.

DEMAND REDUCTION

The number one goal of the National Drug Strategy is to educate and enable

America’s youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco. DEA believes

that there is a role for everyone to play in this goal, including law enforcement. Law

enforcement may not take the lead in demand reduction efforts, but it has a unique

perspective and wealth of experience to bring to the prevention arena. DEA special

agents have seen first hand the terrible impact of drug abuse in communities, and

speak with a compelling authority in explaining to citizens why this problem needs

to be conquered. They also have great expertise in planning, organizing and implementing proactive efforts to deal with drug abuse.

As an example of DEA’s contribution to drug prevention, Demand Reduction Coordinators (DRC’s) have been instrumental in working with media to place public

service announcements from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America in support of

the President’s Youth Media Campaign. Demand Reduction Coordinators worked

collaboratively with state and local authorities to produce an educational video (several thousand distributed to date) for adults and adolescents in the Midwest to educate them about the dangers of methamphetamine. In New York and Washington,

D.C., Demand Reduction Coordinators developed an ad campaign geared to engaging youth that is being posted on busses, subway trains, and taxis. And the Demand

32

Reduction Section has participated in satellite video conferences that were broadcast

all over the United States.

Additionally the Demand Reduction Section, the Bureau of Justice Assistance,

and the National Crime Prevention Council have conducted seminars for teams of

community leaders from cities and towns that received MET deployments. The objective is to educate community leaders to start programs that prevent the return

of the drug trafficking and violent crime that plagued their neighborhoods. CPD

hosted a group of national experts in drug and crime prevention to review the proposed curriculum for this training.

The DEA web page is yet another way of reaching a large segment of the public

with demand reduction information both for young people and their parents. But not

everyone has access to computers, or is computer-literate. Therefore, DEA also

reaches the public through publications and direct contact such as seminars, conferences and meetings with youth, parents, employers, employees, businesses, community and civic groups, teachers, coaches, clergy, prisoners, as well as law enforcement personnel.

The driving force behind DEA’s demand reduction program has always been the

particular credibility that law enforcement, and especially federal law enforcement

officers bring to the drug prevention arena. DEA agents possess a certain authority

because of their background and job experiences, which play an important role in

the overall drug demand reduction picture. This is why DEA’s current demand reduction program has been so successful.

DEA’s Strategic Plan

In order to meet the enormous challenges posed by internationally-based narcotics

traffickers and their surrogates within the United States, DEA has developed a fiveyear Strategic Plan which is a key part of our commitment to establish and maintain a clear focus on the outcome of our efforts. In its unique capacity as the world’s

leading drug enforcement agency, DEA carries out its legal mandate for enforcing

provisions of the controlled substances and chemical diversion, trafficking laws and

regulations, and serves as the single point of contact for the coordination of all international drug investigations.

To ensure mission success, DEA attacks all levels of drug trafficking using both

traditional and innovative drug control approaches, focusing its enforcement operations on the full continuum of drug trafficking. 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 tool in successfully destroying 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.

In view of this assessment, DEA’s investigative efforts are directed against the

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 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

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.

33

In each of the aforementioned forums, DEA seeks to identify, target, investigate,

disrupt, and dismantle the international, national, state, and local drug trafficking

organizations that are having the most significant impact on America. DEA’s strategic goals reflect the agency’s efforts to use its unique skills and limited resources

in a manner designed to achieve maximum impact. This requires maintaining a

clear focus on Deals core competency—the destruction and dismantlement of drug

trafficking organizations. The implementation of DEA’s strategic plan is carried out

with the ‘‘holistic’’ approach, which I mentioned at the beginning of my statement.

This approach addresses the problems posed by illicit drug availability and abuse

and provides for a comprehensive approach of interdiction and enforcement, coupled

with education, prevention and treatment.

FY 2002 BUDGET REQUEST

For FY 2002, DEA is requesting a total of $1.6 billion, 8,314 positions, and 8,171

FTE, of which $1.5 billion, 7,654 positions and 7,515 FTE are funded by our Salaries

and Expenses (S&E) Appropriation, and the remainder is funded by the Diversion

Control Fee Account. For the S&E Appropriation, this represents an increase of

$120.6 million and 134 positions over the FY 2001 enacted levels. The increase consists of $62.5 million needed to maintain our current level of operations and $58.2

million and 134 positions (including 13 Special Agents) for three program initiatives:

a Special Operations Division (SOD) and Communications Intercept Initiative, a

FIREBIRD initiative, and a Laboratory Operations Initiative. I will briefly discuss

each in turn.

First, DEA is seeking $15.1 million and 62 positions (including 13 Special Agents)

under the Special Operations Division and Communications Intercept Initiative to

provide critical enhancements to its SOD and Investigative Technology programs.

SOD is a comprehensive enforcement operation designed specifically to coordinate

multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional and multi-national Title III investigations against

the command and control elements of major drug trafficking organizations operating

domestically and abroad. These resources will be used to enhance staffing levels in

key investigative units within the SOD, to include support for drug enforcement investigations associated with the Southwest Border, Latin America, the Caribbean,

Europe, and Asia. This request also augments DEA’s funding base for contract linguists, and enhances DEA’s investigative technology programs through new resources for equipment, technical support personnel, and training.

Second, under our FIREBIRD Initiative, DEA requests an enhancement of $30

million and 3 positions for the global FIREBIRD network. FIREBIRD is DEA’s primary office automation infrastructure. It provides essential computer tools for

agents and support staff, including E-mail, uniform word processing, and many

other forms of office automation software. FIREBIRD also serves as the communications ‘‘backbone’’ for DEA’s MERLIN intelligence network, and serves as the platform for numerous other mission critical databases and operational systems. DEA

is requesting funding to complete deployment of the system, provide vital network

security, and support technology renewal of the system. The technology renewal resources will allow DEA to replace outdated technology and adopt a reasonable replacement cycle for FIREBIRD equipment.

Third and finally, DEA requests $13.1 million and 69 positions (including 46

chemists) pursuant to our Laboratory Operations Initiative to meet mission-critical

requirements within our laboratory services program. DEA’s forensic chemists provide a variety of essential services, including drug and evidence analysis, on-site assistance for clandestine laboratory seizures and crime scene investigations, and vital

courtroom testimony to support prosecution efforts. Likewise, the recent success of

DEA’s Operation Breakthrough program in providing the US Government with new

scientific data on coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia has demonstrated the crucial role played by DEA forensic chemists and intelligence analysts

in supporting the critical intelligence needs of senior US policy makers and the

counterdrug intelligence community. We must be able to enhance our capability to

carry out this type of strategic analysis and reporting. The requested funds and

staffing are needed to address a growing backlog of exhibits and establish a laboratory equipment base that will better support program operations. Collectively, these

resources will enable DEA to more effectively meet the mission requirements of its

Special Agent workforce and better support the prosecution of drug offenders

through timely analysis of evidence.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to take any

questions you may have for me at this time.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

34

Dr. Hawk Sawyer.

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. I’m also pleased to be appear before you

today, and let me just thank you again, Chairman Smith and other

Members of the Committee, for your great support of the Bureau

of Prisons.

The Federal inmate population has increased more than six-fold

in the last two decades from approximately 25,000 inmates in 41

institutions in 1980 to more than 150,000 in 98 institutions today.

To address the population growth, the bureau’s budget has grown

from approximately $330 million and 10,000 staff in 1980 to more

than $4 billion and about 34,000 staff today.

The FY 2002 budget requests about $4.7 billion. 3.8 billion of

that is for operations and 833 million is for capital budget. We estimate that rising utility costs could increase our expenses by nearly

$40 million within this year, and we believe this could go even

higher in future years. Also, nearly 70 percent of our operating

budget is consumed by staffing expenses. Thus any unfunded pay

raises and benefit increases which must be absorbed have a dramatic impact.

The rapid growth of the inmate population has led to systemwide crowding of 32 percent above rate of capacity, with the most

severe crowding at medium and high security institutions, which

are 57 and 48 percent above capacity, and these institutions house

our more intractable, more violent inmates. Three new facilities

will be activated by the end of FY 2001, and we have an additional

26 new prisons under development. These will bring the total number of prisons to 127. The new institutions will provide approximately 33,000 new beds.

Despite the dramatically increasing inmate population and

crowding levels, the bureau has experienced significant reductions

in assaults on both staff and inmates, homicides, suicides, escapes

from secure institutions, and other serious misconduct over the

past several years. Our effective management of the inmates in institutions is due to our dedicated loyal and hard working staff. Direct supervision of inmates, including good communication, has

proven to be a critical element of successful prison management.

The bureau employs an inmate classification system that minimizes the likelihood that vulnerable inmates will be housed with

more sophisticated dangerous criminals. In recent years, the bureau has improved prison design and construction, made many

physical plan improvements, and taken advantage of technological

developments to further enhance our institutions’ security.

Inmates typically have greater health care needs than the average citizen, and through variation 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 due to increasing

numbers of inmates of all ages who have inordinate health care

35

needs and the steep increase in the cost and use of pharmaceuticals.

All sentenced inmates in Federal prisons are required to work

except the relatively small number who are medically unable to do

so. Approximately 25 percent of the bureau’s medically able sentenced inmates work in Federal prison industries, or FPI, and we

consider that our most important correctional program. By statute,

FPI’s mission is to employ and provide work skills training to the

greatest possible number of inmates combined within the Bureau

of Prisons. Research has demonstrated that inmates who worked in

prison industries or completed vocational programming were 24

percent less lightly to recidivate than those who did not and were

14 percent more likely to be employed following release from prison

and earn higher wages than their nonparticipating peers. This research has also demonstrated that FPI programs provide even

greater benefits to minorities who are at greater risk for recidivism.

By employing 25 percent of the bureau’s work eligible inmates,

FPI assists in the management of crowded prisons, contributing directly to the safety of staff and inmates. FPI does not receive appropriated funding for its operations and by statute must be economically self-sustaining. Operating only from sales revenues, FPI

precludes the need for alternative inmate programs, lowering annual prison costs to taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition to work, all bureau institutions offer a variety of educational and vocational training programs through which inmates

gain knowledge and skills that help them become gainfully employed upon release. These programs have been shown by research

to reduce recidivism, and the bureau is committed to addressing

the educational deficits of all of our inmates.

The most intensive drug abuse treatment in the bureau is our

residential drug treatment program. This treatment is designed for

the approximately 34 percent of our inmate population that’s been

clinically diagnosed with a substance abuse or dependency disorder. The bureau continues to meet the statutory mandate of providing residential substance abuse treatment to all eligible inmates. Analysis of the bureau’s residential drug program reveals

that 3 years after release from custody, inmates who completed the

bureau’s drug abuse program were significantly less likely to be rearrested and to reuse drugs.

The bureau places most of its inmates in community corrections

centers or halfway houses prior to their release from custody in

order to help them adjust to life in the community and find suitable employment and housing. Inmates in community correction

centers are required to work and to pay a subsistence charge of 25

percent of their income to defray the costs of confinement.

And, recently, the bureau has given responsibility for carrying

out Federal death sentences. Federal executions will be conducted

at the execution facility at the United States Penitentiary at Terre

Haute, Indiana, which is also the site of our special confinement

unit or death row. Lethal injection is the method to be used in Federal executions. There are 21 individuals housed on the Federal

death row. The last Federal execution was carried out in 1963.

There are two executions scheduled for FY 2001. Timothy McVeigh

36

has a scheduled execution date of May 16, and Juan Raul Garza

has a scheduled execution date of June 19.

I’m very proud of the Bureau of Prison staff and the job they do

each and every day. Despite our record-setting population growth,

evidenced by the net increase of 1800 new inmates in the bureau

last month alone, our effective prison management is very evident.

Such success cannot be expected to continue, though, with dramatic

population increases and record-setting crowding without the resources we’ve requested to bring new capacity on line.

The bureau’s mission involves myriad program and policy issues,

and today I’ve just touched on a few of the key ones, and I again

would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I’d be very happy to take any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hawk Sawyer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the operations of the Federal

Bureau of Prisons. Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Smith, 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 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.

POPULATION GROWTH AND RESOURCES

The Federal inmate population has increased more than six-fold in the last two

decades, from approximately 25,000 inmates and 41 institutions in 1980 to more

than 150,000 inmates and 98 institutions today. (Of the 150,000 total, approximately 127,000 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 new legislation that dramatically altered sentencing in the Federal

criminal justice system. The bulk of the growth since the mid-1980’s resulted from

increased sentences based on the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (which established

determinate sentencing, abolished parole, and reduced good time) and mandatory

minimum sentences enacted in 1986, 1988, and 1990. The past three fiscal years

are particularly telling: in FY 1998, the population increased by 10,027 inmates

(representing an 8.9 percent increase); in FY 1999, the increase was 11,373 (9.3 percent); and during FY 2000, the population increased by 11,436 inmates (an 8.6 percent increase).

To address this population growth, the Bureau of Prisons’ budget has grown from

approximately $330 million in 1980 to more than $4.3 billion today. The Bureau’s

approved staffing levels have risen from just under 10,000 in 1980 to nearly 34,000

in FY 2001. Approximately $3.47 billion (81 percent) of the total budget is for daily

operations (70 percent salaries and expenses), with the remainder for capital budget

projects including construction, modernization and repairs, and for contract confinement and detention space.

The FY 2002 budget request totals almost $4.7 billion; $3.8 billion for operations

and $833 million for the capital budget. The operating budget will fund all existing

facilities, including the five new facilities scheduled to be operational by the end of

FY 2002 and nearly 20,000 more inmates we project will be in our custody. The

budget request includes an increase of approximately $128 million to cover the costs

of housing Federal 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 correctional facilities and in community corrections centers.

One of our operating budget challenges this year and anticipated for next year

is the cost of utilities across the country. We currently estimate that rising utility

costs could increase our expenses by nearly $40 million this year above last year,

and we believe this could go even higher in future years, depending on weather patVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
37

terns and energy source costs. Additionally, nearly 70 percent of our operating budget is consumed by staffing expenses, thus any unfunded pay raises or benefit increases which must be absorbed have a dramatic impact. 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

presentenced offenders. The Bureau currently confines approximately one-third of

the USMS detainee population. The Bureau also assists the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by confining approximately 3,000 INS detainees in Bureau

institutions and contract facilities.

We expect the inmate population to continue to increase for the next several years

due to ongoing Federal law enforcement initiatives, particularly with respect to immigration, drugs and weapons offenders. In addition, we will be housing all District

of Columbia sentenced felons (approximately 8,000 inmates) by the end of 2001 (as

required by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement

Act of 1997).

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the female inmate population often grew at

a faster rate than the male population, but that trend has stopped and women have

consistently represented approximately 7 percent (or less) of the Federal inmate

population. The Bureau’s current projections indicate the total inmate population

could reach as high as 200,000 by 2006.

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 32

percent above the rated capacity, with the most severe crowding at medium-security

and high-security institutions, which are 57 and 48 percent above capacity, respectively. Prison crowding contributes to increased inmate idleness due to an increased

demand on limited services and facilities. It can also lead to an increased potential

for inmate violence and staff turnover. These concerns are heightened for the Bureau because the higher levels of crowding are at the higher-security institutions

(where the more-intractable, more-violent inmates are confined). 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 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, preferably on surplus or donated property; (3) utilize alternatives to traditional imprisonment, such as community corrections centers, for appropriate offenders; and (4) contract selectively with the private sector

and State and local correctional agencies, with full consideration of costs and public

safety. The Bureau has had success in contracting with the private sector for the

confinement of minimum- and low-security inmates, but has concerns with the private sector’s ability to manage medium- and high-security inmates. Over the years,

the private sector has had significant problems with the incarceration and management of inmates who would be classified by the Bureau as medium- and high-security. Also, a cost analysis (using the A-76 methodology) of the privately managed

Taft Correctional Institution indicated that for the first two years of operations it

would have been less expensive to the taxpayer to have the Bureau of Prisons operate the facility. Three new facilities will be activated by the end of FY 2001: USP

Atwater, CA; USP Coleman, FL (this activation is imminent); and FDC Honolulu,

HI. The Bureau of Prisons has 26 new facilities under development; these will bring

the total number of institutions to 127: 10 are high-security United States penitentiaries, 15 are medium-security Federal correctional institutions, and one is a secure

female facility. Of these 26, 19 facilities are fully-funded by Congress, and the remainder have site development and planning monies appropriated. In total, the new

institutions will provide an additional 33,000 beds.

INMATE MANAGEMENT

The Bureau protects public safety by ensuring that Federal offenders serve their

sentences of imprisonment in institutions that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and

appropriately secure. The Bureau helps reduce future criminal activity by encourVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
38

aging inmates to participate in a range of programs (described below) that are proven to help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle upon their return to the community.

These programs are an essential component to effective inmate management, and

they are as important to the security and good order of Federal prisons as fences,

daily counts and cell searches.

Safety and Security

Despite the increasing inmate population and crowding levels that have climbed

from 22 percent over capacity in 1997 to 32 percent over capacity today, 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. Only 2 staff have lost their lives in the line of duty.

Our effective management of the inmates and institutions is attributable to our

dedicated, loyal and hardworking staff. The Bureau’s commitment to instill in all

staff the agency’s culture and philosophy has been challenged in recent years as we

hire large numbers of new staff to keep pace with the Bureau’s aggressive activation

of new facilities to help manage the increasing inmate population. We have met this

challenge through formal training (mostly provided at our staff training centers) and

mentoring by experienced staff at all of our institutions.

Bureau of Prisons wardens and other prison administrators employ the ‘‘Management By Walking Around’’ philosophy. Direct supervision of inmates, including good

communication, has proven to be a critical element of successful prison management. Additionally, regardless of the specific discipline in which a staff member

works, all employees are ‘‘correctional 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 custodial and security matters, as well as in their particular

job specialty. Additionally, as part of the culture and philosophy of the Bureau of

Prisons, all staff serve as positive role models for inmates, thereby further emphasizing the behavioral changes that are encouraged in many of the inmate programs.

There are, of course, a very small proportion of staff who engage in misconduct, for

which they are sanctioned in accordance with the law and regulations. All allegations of staff misconduct are fully investigated, and, where warranted, referred for

prosecution.

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 housed with predators or that first time non-violent offenders will be housed with

sophisticated and dangerous criminals. In recent years, the Bureau of Prisons 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 deter and

detect illicit inmate activities.

In order to detect, deter and control illegal drug use in Federal prisons, institution

staff routinely search inmates and their property. Additionally, 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. In fiscal year 2000, the random testing of inmates

resulted in a positive test rate of 1.1 percent; the overall rate was 2.1 percent due

to the inclusion of suspected inmates and inmates who have a history of drug use.

Since the late 1990’s, the Bureau has been employing ion spectometry drug detection systems at many Federal prisons, which has bolstered our existing efforts to

control the introduction of drugs into Federal prisons through inmate visiting rooms.

INMATE CARE AND PROGRAMMING

Medical Care

Inmates typically have greater health care needs than the average citizen. Many

offenders have long-standing medical and dental concerns which either have been

neglected in the past, or which have resulted from dysfunctional lifestyles involving

drugs or alcohol abuse. As a result, many inmates may be as much as 10 years older

physiologically than their chronological age—a fact that has clear implications for

health care programming and costs.

The Bureau has developed and implemented several major health services initiatives designed to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the Bureau’s medical care.

39

These include an increased emphasis on managed care and infectious disease treatment programs.

Despite the national trend of rising health care costs, 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 continually

increasing numbers of inmates of all ages who have inordinate health care needs,

and steep increases in the use and 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 precertification 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 which 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). Some of the programs are described below, and

others include the Sex Offender Treatment Program; the Trauma Treatment Program for female offenders who have been victimized by physical/sexual abuse and/

or domestic violence; and both in- and out-patient programs for mentally ill offenders.

Work Programs

All sentenced inmates in Federal correctional institutions are required to work,

except for the relatively small number who are medically 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 25 percent of the Bureau’s medically able,

sentenced inmates work in Federal Prison Industries (FPI), 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 Federal Bureau of Prisons. FPI directly contributes to public safety by

providing inmates with skills necessary to successfully reintegrate into society after

release from prison. Rigorous research conducted by the Bureau of Prisons Office

of Research and Evaluation has demonstrated that inmates who worked in prison

industries or completed vocational programming 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 (and paid more in taxes), 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 off 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: 73 cents of every dollar in FPI revenue is

spent on purchases of raw materials and supplies from the private sector (in Fiscal

Year 2000, this equated to $410 million, 63 percent of which was directed to small,

women- and minority-owned businesses) and 20 cents on each dollar is spent on

staff salaries. The remainder (approximately 7 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

40

to vendors in the community. In Fiscal Year 2000, inmates working in FPI paid $2.5

million for victim restitution, fines, and child support.

In keeping with the statutory mandate to employ as many Federal inmates as

possible, FPI has increased its operations, including the volume of sale and numbers

of products, to keep pace with the increasing Federal inmate population. This

growth has drawn increased attention to the program, and not all of it positive. Several industry trade associations and organized labor unions are actively opposed to

FPI and any expansion of its operations. These groups suggest that FPI’s impact

on private industry and free labor is too great. They have, therefore, pursued legislatively, the elimination of FPI’s ‘‘mandatory source’’ status for Federal procurement. The Bureau disagrees with this characterization of FPI’s impact and strongly

opposes the abolishment of FPI’s mandatory source status without providing some

type of alternative (such as providing FPI with the authority to offer its products

to the commercial market) which would allow FPI to generate the business necessary to occupy its inmate workforce. FPI would also need ample time to transition

to such new alternatives. With the Bureau inmate population projected to increase

33 percent by the year 2006, the greatest challenge facing FPI in the future will

be its ability to continue to generate the requisite number of new inmate jobs, and

thereby help prisoners prepare for a crime-free return to their community after release.

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 by Bureau research 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 more 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 are available in every Bureau institution. Treatment includes individual and

group therapy, as well as specialty seminars and self-improvement group counseling

programs.

The most intensive drug abuse treatment in the Bureau is the residential drug

abuse treatment program which is provided in 47 Bureau institutions. This treatment is designed for the approximately 34 percent of offenders with a diagnosed

substance abuse or dependency disorder. Inmates who participate in the residential

program are housed together in a separate unit of the prison that is reserved for

drug treatment. The residential program provides intensive treatment, 5 to 6 hours

a day, 5 days a week for 9 months. The remainder of each day is spent in education,

work skills training, and other inmate programs. Upon completion of a residential

substance abuse treatment program, aftercare treatment services are provided in

the general population and in community corrections centers to ensure an effective

transition from the residential program to the community.

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 treat inmates toward the end of

their sentence. While we have waiting lists for the programs, primarily the result

of the statutory opportunity for a sentence reduction, we are able to treat all eligible

offenders prior to release.

A rigorous analysis of the residential drug treatment program conducted by the

Bureau’s Office of Research and Evaluation revealed that three years after release

41

from custody, inmates who completed the Bureau’s 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.

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. Previous studies have

shown a strong relationship 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. The Bureau

also operates the Mothers and Infants Together (MINT) program for minimum security inmates who are pregnant. These offenders are housed in a community corrections center during their last two months of pregnancy, and remain there for three

months after giving birth, in order to bond with the child.

Religious Programs

The Bureau of Prisons’ religious programs are intended to provide inmates with

opportunities to grow spiritually; to deepen their religious beliefs; to strengthen

their religious convictions; and to reconcile with their God. Bureau institutions

schedule services and meeting times for inmates of many religions and faiths. 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 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. A religious alternative diet is available to

those inmates whose religious beliefs include special diets.

Faith Based Programs. The Bureau is developing a residential faith-based pre-release pilot program for male and female inmates of various security levels. We expect to implement the program with Fiscal Year 2002 funding, at four geographically different sites. The initiative—which will be 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 the ‘‘faith factor’’ to change behavior. This model initiative has a strong mentoring component

during the pre-release phase and post-prison aftercare 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 told to begin ‘‘planning’’ for their eventual release and

begin preparing to undertake 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 prisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
42

on. Mock job fairs are also provided 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. The length of placement

varies, up to 6 months, depending on the offenders’ need to make arrangements to

reintegrate into the community (such as establishing a residence and securing 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. After release from the halfway house or from the institution

(for inmates not released through a halfway house), most inmates have a period of

supervised release under the supervision of the U.S. Probation Office.

FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY

Recently, the Bureau was given responsibility for carrying out Federal death sentences. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 made the death penalty available as a possible punishment for certain drug-related offenses. The availability of capital punishment in federal criminal cases expanded significantly with enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. No inmate has been executed

under these provisions, but there are 21 individuals currently housed on the Bureau

of Prisons’ death row.

Federal executions will be carried out at the Execution Facility at the United

States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, which is also the site of the high-security

Special Confinement Unit (SCU or death row). Lethal injection is the method to be

used in Federal executions. The United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute was selected based on its central location and the presence of an existing Federal penitentiary already on site. The last Federal execution was carried out in 1963. There are

two executions scheduled for Fiscal Year 2001; Timothy McVeigh has a scheduled

execution date of May 16, 2001 and Juan Raul Garza has a scheduled execution

date of June 19, 2001.

CONCLUSION

I am very proud of the Bureau staff and the job they do each and every day. Despite our record-setting population growth, evidenced by the net increase of 1,800

new inmates in the Bureau last month alone, we see indications of our effective

prison management. However, such successes cannot be expected to continue in the

face of the dramatic population increases and record-setting crowding we project will

occur in the next several years. Without the resources we have requested to bring

additional capacity on line, our record of service may be in jeopardy.

The Bureau of Prisons’ mission involves myriad program and policy issues. Today

I have touched on just a few key topics. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Ranking Minority Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide an update on the operations of the Bureau of Prisons. This concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you

may have.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Hawk Sawyer.

And Mr. McKinney.

STATEMENT OF LOUIE T. McKINNEY, ACTING DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

Mr. MCKINNEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. Let me begin by thanking you on behalf of the men and women of the United States Marshals Service for your strong support. We look forward to continuing our successful working relationship with the Subcommittee.

On February 9th, President Bush appointed me acting director.

My career with the Marshals Service, however, began in 1968. DurVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
43

ing my career, I’ve worked alongside thousands of dedicated people

and held a number of leadership positions. I have served as a chief

deputy U.S. marshal, chief inspector at INTERPOL, chief of the enforcement division, and I was appointed as U.S. marshal twice. I

also helped initiate what became the witness security program.

Mr. Chairman, I’m honored to serve as acting director of the Federal Government’s oldest law enforcement agency. As you know,

the service must respond to a wide range of responsibilities. While

we’re part of the executive branch and report to the attorney general, our primary mission is to protect the Federal courts. We also

confine, transport and produce prisoners for judicial proceedings.

We apprehend violent fugitives. We execute court orders, including

seizure, maintenance, and disposal of assets, and we return extradited criminals to the U.S.

Today, I would like to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2002

budget request, and I’d like to describe our workload trends. For

the next fiscal year, we request 4,128 permanent positions and

slightly more than $618 million for salaries and expense appropriations. In short, we are requesting 94 additional positions.

Allow me to discuss some key areas where these new employees

would work. First, the Marshals Service has 2,272 persons engaged

in protecting and supporting the judiciary. Those positions amount

to almost $303 million. For FY 2002, President Bush requests an

increase of $9.4 million for these judicial security missions. This is

the lion’s share of our budget request. The potential for danger to

the judiciary is ever present. Unless the judiciary is adequately

protected, our nation would be deprived of a cherished right: justice.

Another part of our work of which I am personally proud is our

witness security program. It has been a true success story. Since

1971, over 16,000 witnesses and family members have entered the

program. To date, no witness who has followed the rules has been

harmed or killed.

Second, we also request $6.6 million and nine additional positions for our construction appropriations. These resources are needed to help with the planning, design, and renovation of Marshals

Service space and courthouses and Federal buildings.

Third, is prisoner detention. In recent years, the biggest change

in our daily workload involves a growing number of prisoners. We

must keep pace with Federal prosecutions of terrorist, criminal

aliens, drug offenders, and violent criminals. Since 1995, the Marshals Service prison population had grown by 67 percent. That 67

percent national increase in prisoners doesn’t paint the entire picture.

It’s true that such numbers are climbing in all of our districts,

but there is a regional impact as well. In our southwest border district, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, and California, the number

of prisoners has skyrocketed by 178 percent. The cost of housing

and caring for them is also climbing. $725 million are needed for

the Federal prison detention appropriation. That’s about $128 million increase over the last year.

Finding new jails and bed space for court prisoners is difficult everywhere. We find bed space at the lowest cost to the Government,

using State and local agreements and private contracts, but our

44

budget reflecting a staggering fact. Next year, we will need the pay

for 10.6 million jail days nationwide.

Fourth, moving our prisoners is another challenge. Mr. Chairman, the best known part of the prison transportation program is

the Justice Prison and Alien Transportation System or JPATS.

This is the real life Con Air. Last year, JPATS carried 250,000

prisoners and detainees for the Marshals Service, BOP, and INS.

We also transported prisoners for the Department of Defense, Department of State, and a growing number of local and State law

enforcement agencies. The JPATS system involves more than just

planes. It requires a scheduling component just like any commercial airline. Overall, the President is requesting an additional $3.5

million to handle the anticipated increase in the number of Marshals Service air transport movements.

Finally, there is our fugitive apprehension. Next year we’ll devote

over $120 million to this effort. This will allow us to pursue 25,000

individuals wanted in Federal felony cases. It will fund much of our

task force work and help us catch Federal, State, and local fugitives. It provides funding to catch and extradite international fugitives as well. Within our borders, we coordinate over 100 multiagency task forces that join our deputies with State and local agencies.

Last year, this committee authorized the Marshals Service to establish permanent fugitive task forces. Task forces are a very effective tool. Allow me to give you an example. During the search for

the Texas Seven last winter, we worked jointly with State, local

and Federal offices. That task investigated numerous leads across

the region. A tip from a citizen in Colorado helped deputy marshals

and local officers pinpoint the fugitives. Six of the Texas Seven

were then arrested, and the Marshals Service transported them

back to Texas.

Catching bad guys is one of the things that we do best. Our fugitive hunters offer a proven return to the taxpayers. Here’s the bottom line, Mr. Chairman: Since 1995, our tax forces have apprehended more than 58,000 Federal, State, and local fugitives. The

U.S. Marshals Service’s contribution to this nation is as old as the

Constitution itself. We provide the safety for our judicial system.

We protect judges, transport prisoners, and apprehend fugitives.

The ultimate mission hasn’t changed.

The U.S. Marshals guarantee that our citizens enjoy the same

rights our founders promised in 1789. The first 13 marshals made

a commitment to President Washington, one we still honor today,

to provide a secure system where all Americans can pursue equal

justice under the law.

Thank you for having me to speak to you, and today I look forward to answering any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIE T. MCKINNEY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. Let me begin by thanking you, on behalf of the men and women of the

Marshals Service, for your strong support. We look forward to continuing our successful working relationship with the Subcommittee.

On February 9th, President Bush appointed me Acting Director of the U.S. Marshals Service. However, my career with the Service began in 1968. I’ve worked

45

alongside hundreds of dedicated people, and have held a number of leadership positions. These include two appointments as a U.S. Marshal, and Chief of the Enforcement Division, (the division now known as the Investigative Services Division)

which is responsible for fugitive investigations and arrests. I also helped initiate

what became the Witness Security Program. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I am honored to serve as Acting Director of the Federal Government’s oldest law enforcement

agency.

As the members of this Subcommittee well know, the Service is truly unique. It

is a reflection of the great federal experiment our founders launched in 1789. The

Service began as a highly practical, but not strictly centralized, law enforcement organization. Over the past two hundred and twelve years, our mission has remained

distinctly broader in scope than our companion federal law enforcement agencies.

In addition, while we are part of the Executive Branch and report to the Attorney

General, our primary mission is to protect and support the Judiciary. Consequently,

we must respond to a diverse range of responsibilities. I personally have also participated in numerous special assignments and operations. These operations, like so

many to which the Marshals Service responds, are precipitated by destructive

events such as hurricanes or civil disturbances, or a rapid and unforeseen increase

in the number of prisoner arrests, or prosecutions such as those now occurring along

our Nation’s southwest border. Whatever the mission, the men and women of the

United States Marshals Service are prepared to meet the challenge.

AGENCY MISSION

One thing about our mission is certain. The oldest and greatest challenge for the

Marshals Service is to protect the federal courts and ensure the secure operation

of America’s judicial system. The Marshals Service must:

• Protect judges and all other participants in the federal judicial system;

• Provide security at federal court facilities and eliminate any safety deficiencies;

• Safely confine, transport, and produce prisoners for judicial proceedings by

using appropriate and cost-effective means whenever possible;

• Apprehend violent fugitives as quickly as possible;

• Execute court orders, including the seizure, maintenance, and disposal of assets;

• Secure the return of extradited criminals to the United States;

• Ensure the long-term safety of protected government witnesses; and,

• Serve government and private civil process.

BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW

Today, I would like to discuss both the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2002 budget

request for the Service as well as describe our workload trends. For FY 2002, we

request 4,128 permanent positions, 3,993 full-time equivalents (FTE) and

$619,818,000 in the Salaries and Expenses appropriation. This request represents

an increase of 94 positions, 98 FTE, and $48,383,000 over the FY 2001 enacted

level.

PROTECTION OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

In FY 2001, the Marshals Service will use 2,272 positions and $302,811,000 to

protect and support the Judiciary. The protection of judges and courthouses is one

of the least understood, but most important, functions of American government. If

federal jurists cannot preside over cases and render verdicts free from fear and intimidation, then our citizens cannot expect the judicial system to function fairly and

impartially. In short, without this protection, our Nation would be deprived of its

most cherished and fundamental right—justice.

The Marshals Service maintains this judicial process integrity by: ensuring the

safe conduct of judicial proceedings as well as the personal protection of federal

judges and other members of the court family; conducting detailed security surveys

of both public buildings and the private residences of federal judges; providing enhanced security at federal courthouses and federal buildings housing court operations; stopping the unlawful entry of dangerous persons, weapons or other harmful

devices into judicial areas; preventing the disruption of judicial proceedings; and,

maintaining the custody, protection, and safety of prisoners who are brought to

court for any type of judicial proceeding.

The Witness Security Program (WITSEC) has been a true success story for 30

years. It provides protection for government witnesses and their families whose lives

may be endangered. These witnesses agree to provide critical testimony concerning

46

organized criminal activity, terrorism, or other serious crimes in exchange for security and freedom from prosecution. This protection is provided 24 hours a day to

all such witnesses while they are in a ‘‘threat’’ environment, including trials and

other court appearances. Witness Security Inspectors administer all matters relating to new identities, relocation, and program services to the witnesses and their

family members. The number of convictions (89 percent success rate in cases where

protected witnesses provided testimony) has been achieved because Justice attorneys could utilize this program. Since 1971, 16,181 participants (7,108 primary witnesses and 9,073 family members) have entered the Witness Security Program. To

date not one witness who has followed the established rules has been harmed or

killed as a result of their testimony.

The President requests an increase of 52 positions in FY 2002 (41 deputy marshals, 2 detention enforcement officers (DEOs), and 9 administrative personnel), 26

FTE, and $9,394,000 to secure and equip U.S. courthouses. The request reflects the

new three-tier operational workforce and includes deputy marshals (GS-082) rather

than criminal investigators (GS-1811). We believe that the workload associated with

courtroom protection and prisoner security can and should be accomplished with

deputies.

COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

The Service oversees all new construction and renovation of Marshals Service-controlled space in our courthouses and federal buildings. This program develops policy

and specifications for the engineering, construction, planning, designing, and acquisition of space, and most important—ensures the physical security of both personnel

of the Marshals Service and the Federal Judiciary. This security includes detention

cell-blocks, prisoner circulation corridors, courtroom holding cells, prisoner/attorney

interview rooms, prisoner elevators, vehicle sallyports, and vehicle parking areas. The Marshals Service requests a total of 9 positions, 9 FTE, and $6,621,000 in

the FY 2002 Construction Appropriation. This funding will facilitate the renovation

of Marshals Service space. Of the $6,621,000 requested, $5,949,000 is to initiate six

renovation projects in 2002 and $672,000 is for personnel compensation.

PRISONER DETENTION

The Marshals Service accomplished 516,854 prisoner productions and had in its

custody an average daily prisoner population of 34,528 individuals during FY 2000.

Since FY 1995, our prisoner population has increased 67 percent nationwide. The

major force driving this increase is prisoner population growth along the Southwest

Border (SWB), where the percentage has grown by an astonishing 178 percent.

The Federal Prisoner Detention (FPD) appropriation provides funding for housing,

subsistence, medical care, and medical guard services for all federal detainees in our

custody. The Marshals Service requests a total of $724,682,000 for the FPD appropriation which includes a program increase of $48,787,000 to house and care for detainees. These funds will allow us to keep pace with the accelerated prosecutions

of violent criminals, drug offenders, criminal aliens, and terrorists.

The Marshals Service depends on state and local governments and the Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) to house its detainees. We acquire detention bed space for federal detainees at the lowest cost to the government through IGAs, a program where a daily

rate is paid to state and local governments, and the Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP) with state and local governments. With a CAP, capital investment funding is provided in exchange for a guarantee of a certain number of bed spaces. A

daily rate is paid when these CAP bed spaces are used. The Marshals Service request supports 10.6 million IGA, CAP and contract jail days.

Although CAP resources are included in the Office of Justice Programs appropriation, the Marshals Service manages and administers this program. In addition to

enabling the state and local governments to renovate their facilities, the CAP program provides a boost to communities through both the initial capital investment

and the payments that are made when we use those jail beds. The acquisition of

jail bed space through the CAP program helps avoid the most expensive bed space

acquisition option, the construction of federal jail facilities. In FY 2000, the Marshals Service awarded over $17 million in CAP funds to state and local facilities.

In the State of Texas alone, we awarded $10.3 million in CAP funds over the past

five years, and in Virginia the five-year total is over $8 million.

TRANSPORTATION—JPATS

Mr. Chairman, the most well-known component of our prisoner transportation

program is the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS). Last

year JPATS transported more than 250,000 pre-trial and sentenced prisoners and

47

detainees in the custody of the Marshals Service, BOP, or INS. Approximately 60

percent of the movements are accomplished via air and the remainder are ground

movements. Our aircraft also provide prisoner transportation for Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State, as well as a growing number of local and state

law enforcement agencies. On any given day, the system’s reservation and location

components perform like booking and information operations at commercial air and

bus lines.

Although the Service manages JPATS, it is also a customer. As such, we are

charged on a cost-per-seat basis payable to the JPATS Revolving Fund. Non-federal

prisoners are handled on a reimbursable, space-available basis. When JPATS aircraft or ground transportation are unavailable or are not cost-effective, we use chartered or commercial aircraft, air ambulances, BOP buses, commercial buses, and

trains. In FY 2001, JPATS received congressional funding of $13.5 million to purchase two small aircraft to cost effectively replace its aging Sabreliners in the fleet.

We estimate moving 56,731 of our own prisoners via JPATS aircraft in FY 2002. For FY 2002, the President is requesting an additional $3,458,000 to assist us with

these air movements.

SPECIAL DETENTION NEEDS

The Marshals Service houses an ever-growing detainee population nationwide, but

with unique regional impact. Between 1995 and 2000, our average daily detainee

population grew 67 percent (from 20,652 to 34,528). During the same period, the

Southwest Border districts’ (District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Southern

District of Texas, Western District of Texas, and Southern District of California) average daily population has collectively grown 178 percent (from 3,795 to 10,537 detainees). Most of the growth in the Southwest Border (SWB) districts is a result of

increased INS enforcement.

Law enforcement efforts along the SWB have significantly increased the number

of apprehensions and arrests which, in turn, have generated an increased need for

detention space for the Service. The number of prisoners processed has almost tripled in the Western District of Texas, where the average daily prisoner population

is over 3,200 nearly 10 percent of our national total. It also has more than tripled

in the District of Arizona to more than 2,100 average daily prisoners. A Deputy

Marshal in a border district handles an average of 50 prisoners per day compared

to a national average of 18. Successfully housing a detainee population of this magnitude, both nationwide and specifically in the Southwest Border districts, represents a constant challenge.

FUGITIVE APPREHENSION

The Marshals Service has primary responsibility for apprehending federal, state

and local fugitives from justice to include: prison escapees; bail jumpers; parole and

probation violators. The Marshals Service also enforce warrants from agencies without arrest power, bench warrants issued by federal judges, and warrants referred

by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). We project 915 FTE and

$120,240,000 to fugitive apprehension in FY 2002. These positions address the nationwide inventory of over 25,000 active federal felony arrest warrants as well as

state and local fugitive warrants. We are also responsible for the administration and

execution of federal misdemeanor warrants and federal traffic warrants.

In FY 2002, the President’s budget requests a program increase of15 positions, 8

FTE and $1,002,000 for fugitive investigations in the District of Columbia, resulting

from the increased warrant workload generated by the National Capital Revitalization Act of 1997.

The Marshals Service coordinates multi-agency task forces by teaming up with

other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to concentrate apprehension

efforts on violent fugitive felons and drug offenders. Let me give you an example

of one of our success in this area. During the search for the seven violent Texas

jail escapees last December and January, we worked jointly with federal agents and

state and local officers to locate them. The Marshals Service investigated numerous

leads both within and outside Texas. The Marshals Service Northern, Eastern,

Southern, and Western Districts of Texas devoted all available resources to the investigation and conducted a lengthy and arduous surveillance. In addition to using

traditional investigative techniques, we participated in command posts that received

thousands of tips and reported sightings of the escapees nationwide and in Canada.

All of these were reviewed, evaluated, and directed to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation. A citizen’s tip helped Deputy U.S. Marshals, along

with local law enforcement, coordinate their efforts with a command post. The deputies conducted interviews, corroborated details, and helped establish surveillance on

48

a mobile home park. Six of the ‘‘Texas Seven’’ were subsequently arrested and the

Marshals Service returned the prisoners to Texas.

In 1993, as part of the Attorney General’s Anti-Violent Crime initiative, we joined

with Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to create a number of permanent fugitive task forces. The Marshals Service currently sponsors 106 task forces

nationally. Since FY 1995 our task forces have apprehended more than 58,000 federal, state and local fugitives. In December 2000, President Clinton signed the Presidential Threat Protection Act. A portion of this act included a provision authorizing

the Marshals Service to establish permanent fugitive task forces.

In addition to domestic fugitive investigations, our fugitive authority reaches beyond the boundaries of the United States to arrest fugitives who have fled the country. As an INTERPOL member, the Marshals Service works with foreign law enforcement officials and cooperates with DEA and Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) officials in foreign locations to apprehend and extradite fugitives. In FY 2000,

the Marshals Service performed 279 international extraditions and provided coordination and support for foreign law enforcement agencies in 65 instances where fugitives were extradited from the United States to another country. Furthermore, the

Marshals Service recently assigned deputies to the U.S. embassies in Mexico City;

Kingston, Jamaica; and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

SEIZED ASSETS MANAGEMENT

The Asset Forfeiture Program is one of DOJ’s most potent weapons against organized crime, particularly when it targets large illegal drug enterprises. The success

of the program relies on the close coordination between the FBI, DEA, INS, the U.S.

Attorneys Office, and the Marshals Service. We have two primary roles relating to

the asset forfeiture program: law enforcement and administrative. Deputy Marshals

are responsible for executing court orders by physically seizing and securing assets.

Administrative staff are responsible for ensuring that assets are properly managed

and maintained while forfeiture action is pending. Once forfeited, the Marshals

Service ensures that assets are disposed of in a timely and commercially sound

manner. Without a sound property management program, seized assets would fall

in disrepair, lose value and be more difficult for the Federal Government to dispose

of in a timely manner. Currently, the program has 17,800 assets valued at $918 million. Nationwide, the Marshals Service and U.S. Attorneys have entered into cooperative agreements regarding pre-seizure planning to ensure the quality of the forfeiture cases. We provide pre-seizure planning and property services to the DEA,

FBI, INS, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration.

These federal agencies work with state, local and international law enforcement

agencies to investigate seized asset cases.

At the conclusion of forfeiture cases, participating state and local agencies, as well

as foreign governments, can apply for an equitable share of the proceeds. Equitable

sharing not only assists in providing much needed resources to continue the fight

against crime the participating state and local law enforcement agencies, but also

fosters cooperation with them. The Marshals Service processed sharing requests

worth approximately $169 million during FY 2000.

D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

The U.S. Marshals Service district for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is unique in that the office performs all Marshals Service duties, and also functions like the local sheriff’s office for our nation’s capital. At Superior Court, we provide judicial security for 69 judges, 20 senior judges, 15 full-time magistrates, and

17 part-time magistrates. Court activity is conducted in 94 courtrooms and hearing

rooms located in three separate buildings. We also serve process, apprehend fugitives and transport prisoners. The court operates 6 days a week, including holidays,

and handles a wide variety of judicial cases.

As you may know, one of the goals of the National Capital Revitalization Act of

1997 was to close the Lorton prison facility. The impending closure will have a significant impact on the Marshals Service Superior Court office. Because the Marshals

Service will assume increased responsibility for both prisoners and warrants previously performed by the District of Columbia government, the President has requested an increase of 27 positions, 13 FTE, and $1,726,000 for the Marshals Service Superior Court district.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, as the United States Marshals enter their fourth century of service to our Nation, we can be proud of the men and women who serve faithfully and

effectively preserving the security of our federal judicial system. Whether we are

49

protecting judges, transporting prisoners or apprehending fugitives, foremost in our

mission is ensuring that our citizens enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Founders

the year the first U.S. Marshal was appointed—equal justice under the law.

Thank you, for inviting me to speak before you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. McKinney. By the way, I’ve been

watching too many TV programs. When you watch shows, it’s

called witness protection program, but there’s no such thing as witness security program. Is that correct?

Mr. MCKINNEY. That’s correct, sir. There’s no witness protection

program.

Mr. SMITH. Once again, the media is wrong, but no side comments on that.

But anyway, Mr. Pickard, I’d like to start to address my questions to you, and if you would give me brief responses so I can try

to get to several witnesses with my questions. The first, you anticipated, and it had to do with the Robert Hanssen, case and I appreciate everything that the FBI is doing to make sure that kind of

the situation never develops again. However, my question is this:

Is there really any good reason why the FBI over the last 20 years

has not given random lie detector tests to agents in sensitive positions?

Mr. PICKARD. Mr. Chairman, we have given random polygraph

tests to certain people assigned to certain positions within FBI

headquarters. I myself took two random polygraph test while I was

assigned to—— Mr. SMITH. How did Robert Hanssen get through 20 years without a lie detector test?

Mr. PICKARD. Mr. Chairman, we don’t polygraph every employee.

We polygraph the employees that are assigned to specifically sensitive investigations such as internal security or espionage matters.

Mr. SMITH. Okay.

Mr. PICKARD. He was not assigned to one of those areas, and as

a result, he was not polygraphed.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. But in retrospect, anyone who is in such a sensitive position where you could lose agents as a result of leaked information should be polygraphed occasionally, I presume.

Mr. PICKARD. That’s correct, and that’s the new policy we have

now, that 100 percent of the national security division employees

will be polygraphed. We are now completing the polygraph of all

our senior executives, myself included.

Mr. SMITH. Right. I understand.

Mr. PICKARD. And also, we’re looking at other areas of employees

who need to be polygraphed, such as our data base administrators.

Mr. SMITH. I understand. The FBI has also taken a recent new

initiative to investigate child pornography. What specifically is the

FBI doing in that area?

Mr. PICKARD. In that area, we have an initiative called the Innocent Images Task Forces that we’ve been developing around the

country, and we have agents and local police officers working to

find people who are going on the internet dealing in child pornography and also trying to lure children across State lines for illicit

purposes.

Mr. SMITH. And then, lastly, as I recall, about one-third of the

cocaine coming into the United States is now coming from Puerto

50

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. What initiatives is the FBI taking

to stop that one-third of the cocaine coming through those two

areas?

Mr. PICKARD. We’re working closely with the DEA and the Customs Service to address that. We’ve added additional agents to our

office in San Juan, Puerto Rico, specifically to address the numbers

we have down there. I don’t have the exact number of agents we’ve

added, but it’s been substantial, and we’ve had a commitment down

there to that.

Mr. SMITH. What are the circumstances that have allowed individuals to be able to ship that quantity of cocaine just from those

two areas? What is there about Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands that allows that situation to occur?

Mr. PICKARD. Mr. Chairman, I believe part of that is the geography of that situation there where you’re so close to so many other

islands. That is for many drug dealers a first port of entry. They

can bring it in there. Once it’s in there, it’s almost within the continental United States as far as getting it to other areas.

Mr. SMITH. I mean where does the cocaine go next after—from

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Mr. PICKARD. It travels up to New York, also to Florida, but

those are the two may main routes. I think Mr. Marshall could

probably address that better than I could.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Marshall, not only would you address that last question, but

would you also address the question that comes from a hearing we

had about a month ago where we discovered that 62 percent of all

drugs seized in the United States are now seized along the southwest border. So could you tell us what the DEA is doing to counter

that as well as the cocaine coming from Puerto Rico and the U.S.

Virgin Islands?

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I’ll be happy to try that, and

you’re right; and 60 or more percent of the drugs in the aggregate

and particularly cocaine comes through Mexico. We have a southwest border strategy that we work very aggressively in concert

with the FBI, Customs, Immigration, Border Patrol, and many,

many State and local agencies. We also have a presence in Mexico

itself, we work alongside the Mexican authorities there to try to

dismantle the major drug trafficking organizations that are operating in and through Mexico and by extension with their cells inside the United States.

With regard to the Caribbean, we have a similar strategy, but

it’s tailored toward the diverse geography of the Caribbean. We

work with many host country nations there. We’ve established intelligence information sharing networks with many of those countries. We have worked cooperative investigations down there, and

we really believe that we have a comprehensive strategy to attack

the drug organizations in both areas, frankly.

Mr. SMITH. Would you dare to guess how much you’re going to

reduce the flow over the next several years?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, I think that it’s hard to put numbers on

that, Mr. Chairman, but I will say this: There are several positive

things that have developed over the last number of years. First of

all, drug abuse in this country is half what it was at the peak of

51

the drug epidemic in ’79 and ’80 and on into the early eighties.

We’re also seeing the drug trafficking organizations respond to

pressures from U.S. and other law enforcement. We see that the

Colombians are giving part of their U.S. markets over to the Mexico-based traffickers. We see that the Columbia cocaine cartels are

focusing on creating new markets, not in the United States, rather

in Europe and the former Soviet Union and other parts of the

world.

When you see those kinds of fundamental changes in the way the

drug trafficking organizations go about doing their business, I

think you can recognize that we’ve had some success with law enforcement.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Marshall, you’ve answered my question, and my

time is up, and I want to sneak one more question into Dr. Hawk

Sawyer real quickly, and that is that there are a number of privately-owned prisons that are either—privately-run prisons, I

should say, that are either not being used at all or are not being

used to their full capacity. I’m just curious. Why is that?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Well, I can really only speak to Bureau of

Prisons’ use of the private facilities, and we are the second largest

user of private prisons in the country, but we’ve made the decision

based upon the experience we’ve had with private corrections that

the safest population to place in private prisons are minimum and

low security inmates. Private sector prisons have had some very serious difficulty that’s been occurring in the last few years handling

medium and high security inmates. So we reserve private prisons

only to house for us low level criminal alien cases.

Mr. SMITH. So you don’t have enough minimum security prisoners?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. We have enough capacity to house up to a

certain number of minimum and low security inmates, and anything above that—we have not built a new low security institution

for the last several years.

Mr. SMITH. Okay.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. We’ve diverted those into private corrections.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for his

questions.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pickard, what is your budget request for the fiscal year?

Mr. PICKARD. The budget request for the FBI is $3,500,000 [sic].

Mr. CONYERS. And is that larger than the last year’s request?

Mr. PICKARD. Yes, it is. It’s $270 million larger than last year.

Mr. CONYERS. And, Mr. Marshall, what is your request for funds

for the fiscal year?

Mr. MARSHALL. Our total request, sir, is an increase of—I’m

sorry—a total of $1.5 billion, approximately, and that’s an increase

of approximately 120 million over current year funding.

Mr. CONYERS. So what’s the request total?

Mr. CONYERS. $1.5 billion.

Mr. CONYERS. 1.5 billion, and how much is that over last year’s?

Mr. MARSHALL. $120 million, approximately.

Mr. CONYERS. And Dr. Hawk Sawyer?

52

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Our total request is $4.6 billion, and it’s

roughly $300 million more than we requested last year—than we

received last year.

Mr. CONYERS. Is that in your testimony?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Were those figures in your testimony?

[Mr. Marshall and Mr. Pickard gesture in the positive.]

Mr. CONYERS. Let me start with the FBI. Doesn’t the FBI have

responsibility for conducting investigations of violence and brutality under the color of law?

Mr. PICKARD. That is correct.

Mr. CONYERS. Do you know or can you find out for me how many

such investigations have been conducted under Director Freeh?

Mr. PICKARD. I do not know the answer to that, but I’m happy

to get my staff to find that out for you.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Now, we have a problem here of a question

of race and the criminal justice system. I hope you’ve all heard

about it, the fact that for 13 percent of the population, more people

of color, mostly young males are arrested. More of them are convicted. More of them are sentenced to longer sentences, and more

of them end up on death row. So there seems to be some kind of

connection here. Has this come to your attention or has this discussion been raised with you, Mr. Pickard?

Mr. PICKARD. Yes, it has, and we’ve instituted some things to try

to reach out to the community, try to work with the young people.

We have a community outreach program, and a school outreach

Junior Special Agent Program to try to address at an early age

with the youngsters in the fifth and sixth grades values that we’re

looking for them, trying to help them to aspire to become FBI

agents or to go into law enforcement, how to deal with

confrontational situations.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Mr. Marshall, are you aware of this issue

that I raise or is it a new one to you?

Mr. MARSHALL. Certainly, I’m aware of it, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Let’s discuss it. I mean, what’s the problem

here? More and more people of color are being locked up, and some

suggest that because more are arrested and more end up convicted,

more end up with longer sentences and proportionally more end up

on death row. Is this something that you’re sensitive too?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, we’re certainly sensitive to that, Congressman, and I would like to describe a number of things that we’re

doing within our agency. First of all, we are focusing very much on

creating a diverse work force, because the criminal organizations

that we encounter are themselves very diverse. When we bring our

agents in for basic agent training, we do quite a bit of training in

the area of ethics, human dignity, community relations, the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence, and I think that

we carry that throughout our training at all levels within DEA.

In my vision statement for DEA, I’ve articulated the importance

that I place on diversity within the organization among our employees as well as the importance of maintaining public trust and

confidence.

Mr. CONYERS. Excuse me.

Mr. MARSHALL. And, finally, if I could just add——

53

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. I’m going to have to ask for an additional

minute, because my time is——

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Conyers, we’re going to have a second round of

questions. If I could ask you to hold off and finish up then.

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Okay. Please complete your statement.

Mr. MARSHALL. Finally, I would add, sir, that DEA is a criminal

investigative organization. We do not randomly target the potential

defendants that we investigate. We open an investigation when we

receive from a source credible investigation that leads us to believe

that the individual involved is a drug trafficker, and that’s the

basis for all of our investigations.

I would also point out that we don’t investigate, as a normal

course, simple drug possession. Only 5 percent of the drug prisoners in the U.S. prisons—and the majority of those were as a result of DEA investigations. Only 5 percent of those are for simple

possession.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. I am going to have to leave

because I have another engagement that is, unfortunately, in direct

conflict with the last few minutes of this particular hearing, and

I’m going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, to serve

as Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and he will continue

until we finish.

But on the way to my leaving, thank you all for being here. It’s

been very, very helpful.

Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, being Members of Congress, we have the dubious

distinction of being able to be in several places at the same time.

I am still in the Housing Subcommittee just down the hall. I apologize for being late and not being able to be here to hear much of

the testimony, but I do have a few questions I would like the ask.

For Mr. Marshall, there has been, obviously, a rise in the popularity of drugs created in the lab, Ecstasy, methamphetamine. Does

the DEA expect this trend to continue, and what special problems

do these drugs present to law enforcement agencies that are not associated with, for lack of a better term, more traditional agrarian

drugs like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin?

Mr. MARSHALL. Congressman, I certainly hope that the trend

does not continue, but unfortunately I suspect that it will. The

problem we see with chemically-produced drugs that we don’t see

with the agrarian drugs are really several. Number one, it’s difficult to attack these types of drugs because the precursor chemicals that they use very often have many other uses, not only in our

country, but throughout the world. So we are a number of substances that are not illegal per se, but we have to limit the criminals’ access to those chemicals in order to limit the production of

these drugs.

They also present more of a problem because the chemically-produced drugs can basically be produced anywhere, the United States

or any other country in the world, whereas with the agrarian

drugs, save marijuana, those are produced outside the United

States. So we have many, many significant challenges with chemVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.000 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
54

ical drugs that we—that are different from the agricultural-based

drugs.

Mr. GREEN. With those otherwise legal drugs that go into Ecstasy or methamphetamine, how do you limit access to those

chemicals? What can we do?

Mr. MARSHALL. We have a number of programs whereby we have

established what we call listed chemicals, and we try to identify

the current chemicals that are used in various—production of the

various drugs, and the main ones that we establish are List I

chemicals, and we try to attack that through a number of means.

We try to work with Customs to limit import and exports and investigate the backgrounds of companies that are either an importer

or exporter, as well as the destination of those chemicals, and we

do that with going both ways, frankly.

We try to have liaison with the chemical companies themselves,

and we have a number of other programs where when we do encounter chemicals in the actual laboratories that we seize, we have

an operation called Backtrack that tries to trace those chemicals

back but to the companies through which they passed in getting to

that lab, and then sometimes we will work with those chemicals,

or sometimes we establish—I’m sorry—with those companies, or

sometimes we establish that those companies themselves are either

gray market companies or rogue chemical companies, in which case

we have been known to criminally sanction the companies themselves.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you.

Mr. McKinney, switching gears, can you tell me how many outstanding Federal fugitive warrants there are at present?

Mr. MCKINNEY. Yes. As an approximate, 24,000, sir.

Mr. GREEN. I’m sorry?

Mr. MCKINNEY. 24,000.

Mr. GREEN. And how many new ones on average are issued each

year?

Mr. MCKINNEY. Congressman, I can respond to your question as

completely as possible, but please allow me to submit a statement

for the record.

Mr. GREEN. Sure. We will look forward to seeing that. Then, finally, how many fugitives who are subject to a Federal fugitive

warrant were apprehended last year? Do you know? Do you have

that information?

Mr. MCKINNEY. I believe, sir, it’s about 22,000. Correction, sir.

It was 27,000.

Mr. GREEN. 27,000. Thank you. I understand that when special

operations group team members are activated, the local U.S. Marshal in the district where the team member ordinarily works can

deny that team member permission to participate in a special operations group mission. Is that accurate, and if so, why is it?

Mr. MCKINNEY. No, sir, it is not. That’s controlled by headquarters. When the SOG is activated, it’s strictly controlled by

headquarters. They cannot deny the member to go on special assignment, we call it.

Mr. GREEN. So the local command doesn’t have that ability?

Mr. MCKINNEY. No, sir.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I appreciate it.

55

Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Green.

Let me get back to where I was about the question of race and

the criminal justice system return to the prison system. Dr. Hawk

Sawyer, are you familiar with the many claims of race being a factor in the incarceration and treatment of prisoners?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Yes, Mr. Congressman, I am.

Mr. CONYERS. And could we discuss it here in terms of what

steps you’re taking to alleviate this problem?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Well, in terms of alleviating the problem, it’s

a little tough for us to do it completely in that we don’t control who

comes into our institutions.

Mr. CONYERS. But you control what they do after they get there,

completely.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Absolutely. That’s what I was going to say.

We don’t control who comes in the door. We can only control the

opportunities we provide for them once they are there, and we do

several things. One is we assess the deficits of all of our inmates

coming in, and often times our minority inmates do have educational deficits, work skills training deficits. They’ve perhaps been

involved in drug abuse and require drug treatment, and we ensure

that those inmates have those opportunities very readily available

to them.

As I commented earlier in my opening comments, our Federal

Prison Industries program, which is a wonderful work skills development program, has been shown to have a great impact upon recidivism, but also particularly for minor inmates.

Mr. CONYERS. I’m for the Federal Prison Industry system. I’m

one of the few supporters you’ve got on the Committee.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. I know you are, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. But there’s only a fraction of people involved in

that.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Well, 20 percent of our inmates.

Mr. CONYERS. You’ve got to go way beyond that. A lot of—those

have to be the model prisoners, but what about the people that

come in that are functionally illiterate, have never been through

high school and are subject to all kinds of privations both before

they got there and while they’re in the prison?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Absolutely, Mr. Congressman. We have vast

education programs that deal from special education needs. Every

institution is required to have special education programs all the

way up to GED programs. We impact the inmate at whatever level

he comes into the institution.

Our work programs, every inmate has to work. So in addition to

Prison Industries which employs 20 percent, we have vocational

training programs through local technical colleges or from the institution itself, plus apprenticeship programs through Department of

Labor. We try to ensure that every inmate coming in who does not

have an employable skill when they join us, do have an employable

skill when they walk out the door.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that’s good, and we want to continue these

conversations beyond this hearing. I intend to contact all of you.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Very good, sir.

56

Mr. CONYERS. Do you remember your testimony before Appropriations Committee last year when you observed that three-quarters of the female prisoners should not even be in prison, but must

be there because of mandatory minimums?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. I think my comment in a fuller statement

was that if the purpose is simply to impact recidivism and ensure

that they do not return to crime, then three-quarters of them, you

would get the same impact if they were not in prison, because the

vast majority of our female inmates do not recidivate.

Mr. CONYERS. Are there other inmates who shouldn’t be prison

because—but are there otherwise because of mandatory minimum

sentences, which you are not responsible for?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. It depends upon the purpose of incarceration.

If the purpose is truly to ensure that they do not go out and commit new crimes, then there’s a fair number of our population that

do not go out and commit a new crime after their first offense. If

the purpose is incapacitation or other things, then it’s a little different discussion, but if the true purpose is really to ensure they

don’t recommit offenses, then, yes, there are a fair number of our

population.

Mr. CONYERS. But how many are there that never committed violent offenses to begin with? A lot?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Yes.

Mr. CONYERS. So—— Ms. HAWK SAWYER. I’m not disagreeing with you, Mr. Conyers.

It depends upon the purpose of incarceration. If it’s to ensure that

they don’t recommit, the majority of our females do not. Twenty

percent of our inmates that are with us are low level nonviolent offenders. So one could argue that those—— Mr. CONYERS. But a person comes before a judge. They get a sentence. The judge doesn’t say I’m giving you five to twenty because

we want to keep you in prison or I’m sentencing you to this because it is not the purpose of preventing you from committing further crimes. You come before the judge and you get it, and increasingly in the Federal system, the sentences are longer. Those that

are seeking to prosecute and get longer sentencing terms ironically

turn to the Federal system which sends more and more people to

you and have you requesting 800 million more dollars for prisons.

Well, I’m sorry. We’re going to have to figure out something better to do with our money. We can’t keep building prisons from now

on because we’re sending people who haven’t even committed violent crimes there.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. You won’t hear disagreement from me on

much of that, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.

Ms. Jackson Lee, questions?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to

again the witnesses. Let me indicate, Mr. Chairman, that there is

an energy consumption hearing going on about two floors up, and

we are obviously facing some very extreme issues as relates the

question of energy utilization and energy capacity. So I apologize

to the witnesses whose testimony I did not hear. I’m on two Committees that are functioning at the same time.

57

But I do want to pursue the line of questioning of my opening

remarks and some other lines of questioning, particularly, the

Ranking Member was sort of proceeding in the direction that I

think is important to proceed in. It takes a lot of time sometimes

to express the questions, and then we’re shortened on time.

But, Dr. Sawyer, I think that you have the responsibility for presiding over a system, and I would imagine—I don’t want to put

words in your mouth—that you’re not a stakeholder per se in the

increased penalties that come about through the mandatory sentencing, but you fall victim to it, and all of us travel the country

and of course hear so many painful complaints from family members of individuals who did come under that large net that we wish

that those individuals whose crimes were non-violent, etc., would

have some ability to come out.

Let me try to find out, because we were discussing a matter, and

I will pursue that in a one-on-one, but what I was concerned about

is I think what I was hearing as we were discussing the matter

about how much time the person had served and your hands were

tied, are your hands tied or is there something that we can help

in reauthorization to give some leeway with respect to individuals

who may be by their behavior, their health condition, or whatever

their circumstances are, and their particular offense, really even in

your mind, your academic mind, your management mind, warrant

movement from a particular facility to a less secure, more healthful

facility? Do you need legislation? Do you need policies? What do

you need to assist you in that?

Ms. SAWYER. Well, we have authority to move individuals within

our system from a more secure setting to a lesser secure setting.

Where my hands are completely tied is to achieve any early release, early release from custody for anybody. The only options we

have to, in essence, shorten someone’s sentence—when parole was

removed back several years ago, the only thing left to us now is the

potential of up to 1 year off if you successfully complete drug abuse

treatment and a compassionate release situation. If an individual

is near death, has very serious terminal illness, we can petition the

court for early release of those; but short of those two categories,

we have no authority to enable anyone to release from custody earlier.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But do you consider release from custody over

to one of the halfway house circumstances?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. No. A halfway house is simply a lessening

of security for an inmate.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you can do that through internal policies?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. We can. Our current policy indicates that individuals can go to the halfway house setting roughly 6 months

prior to release. There are some exceptional cases that get a little

more than that, but 6 months is our average. Part of that is a costing issue, because we obviously pay separately for the halfway

house than we would for an entire institution, and also, part of it

is that our experience with the halfway houses—and the halfway

house individuals will say that anything more than 6 months in

that kind of the setting really becomes very difficult for an individual because they really have one foot on the street and one foot

inside an institution, and the many different factors that pull on

58

them, whether it be family, job, social, whatever, become very difficult for an extended period of time in that setting.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me raise a point, and I think this is not

something we can sort of pursue as we give and take here, but let

me raise a point. I think that if you have that flexibility, it would

be worthy of you looking at your internal procedures to analyze inmates on a case-by-case situation. You may find that there are

some who are psychologically ready to be able to handle a longer

period of time, being grateful that they have the opportunity to be

in a less secure arena.

And I’ve again taken my time. I don’t want to pursue that, but

I raise a question about that. I’m concerned because I think it falls

heavily on women. I think it falls heavily on minorities, particularly in the low grade offenses. When I say that, I’m talking about

the nonviolent drug offenses that they’ve come in on, wrapped up

in the RICO and the mandatory sentences, and that’s where you

find us, you know, 20 years we’re still there, 9 years we’re still

there, and I think it’s extremely tragic.

Let me also make mention to you that I personally want to engage in the questions dealing with a Federal detention center that

is in the 18th Congressional District, just a private area, particularly on treatment of employees, and the diversity of employees as

well is very important to me. So I would greatly appreciate it. We

had that discussion.

I see the Chairman, but I hope the Ranking Member will get an

extra 5 minutes so that I will be allowed to ask a few more questions, Mr. Chairman, and I’d be happy to yield at this time, but I

would make that request and I’d appreciate it. Good.

Oh, I see—good. I see Mr. Scott is here. So I hope you will allow

us, please.

Mr. GREEN. The Ranking Member has made a request, and the

Chairman agrees. I’d like at this time to recognize Mr. Scott, who

has not had his turn for questions yet.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Scott.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again apologize. We’re

having a markup in education, and things required my attendance.

Ms. Sawyer, I want to thank you for the opportunity to visit with

several of your prisons, looking specifically at the prison industry

and the success we’ve had there in terms of giving meaningful employment opportunities to prisoners so that they would be much

less likely, as we found, to return to prison.

I had a question on a bill we passed either last year or the year

before on co-pay for health care. Is it fair to say that after you’ve

deducted administrative and accounting expenses that we didn’t

save any money by passing that bill?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. The intent was not to save money directly

in terms of the two dollars, the minimal cost we’re going to be asking the inmates to pay. The intent is to reduce the frequency that

inmates abuse sick call and show up in sick call lines when they

really are not sick. We have not implemented that program yet,

Congressman Scott. So I don’t really know yet what the savings or

lack thereof is going to be. We’re still developing the regulations,

59

and then we have to negotiate it with our union. So it’s liable to

be almost a year before that thing is finally activated.

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. We also saw some of your drug rehabilitation

programs. Do you have sufficient funds to enable all that want to

get into drug rehabilitation to, in fact, get into drug rehabilitation?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Yes, sir. In FY 2001, we have had sufficient

funds. We anticipate 14,000 inmates completing residential drug

treatment in 2001. We are hopeful that our budget will allow us

again in 2002, if we can get the amount that we’ve requested, to

be able to ensure once again that all the inmates who need drug

treatment and who are willing to enroll—and so far, 92 percent of

all inmates who need drug treatment have been enrolling and successfully completing the program before release.

Mr. SCOTT. Do you have any evidence that the program is successful?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. Yes, we do. We’ve been tracking them now

for 3 years. Once they finish the program in the institution, they

then go to a 6-month period in the halfway house. Then we’ve

tracked them from 3 years after release from the halfway house,

and we’re seeing significant impact upon drug treatment. In fact,

those who completed the program are 15 percent less likely to be

rearrested 3 years after release, and we’ll be continuing to track

this over time.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I’d like to ask the DEA representative a

question on the—by focusing so much on international—the

gentlelady from Texas mentioned the situation where the plane

was shot down. The effect of focusing so much on the supply side,

what effect is that having on international law enforcement? For

example, how much of the international law enforcement corruption, killing of judges, and so forth is a direct result of United

States drug policy?

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, with regard, sir—you asked several questions. With regard to the shoot down of the airplane, that was not

an operation that DEA was involved in. Our international operations is a small part of DEA’s overall operation. We have about

4500 special agents. We have about 500 of those stationed overseas.

The philosophy there is that we have our overseas people to work

with host country authorities to gather intelligence, to support domestic, primarily domestic prosecutions. I think that the corruption

aspect that you asked about, I think that obviously crime in general and drug crime as well has a corrupting effect on societies, on

institutions and that sort of stuff. We have been, I think, very successful in some countries in providing training and institution

building that go a long way toward countering those corruption—

those corrupting influences, and I hope that we can have more of

that impact in other countries as well.

Mr. SCOTT. Obviously, our goal is to reduce drug use. If you we’re

going to spend another billion dollars on the drug problem, is there

any question in your mind that it all ought to go into rehabilitation

if our goal is to use it as effectively as possible?

Mr. MARSHALL. No, I don’t think it all should go into rehabilitation. I’ve said many, many times, and I’ve believed for many, many

years and I continue to believe that we have to have a balanced

60

approach to our drug policy. If we focus too much on education and

leave the law enforcement component out of it—— Mr. SCOTT. I didn’t say leave. I said if you had an additional— leave everything else as it is, you had an additional billion dollars,

where it could it be put to the best use?

Mr. MARSHALL. I, once again, put it in a balanced approach. I

would increase our education and prevention programs substantially. I would increase law enforcement, perhaps more modestly

than the education and prevention programs, but an increase nonetheless, and I would ensure that treatment was available for those

that need treatment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could I have an additional minute? I

have one additional question.

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. SCOTT. And that is on the—I guess it’s somewhat related to

the issue of profiling.

Mr. Pickard, I guess it would be FBI. Is there any reason why

we can’t strictly enforce exclusionary rules to give—to remove any

disincentive for police officers to break the law and use bigotry as

a standard for who they stop?

Mr. PICKARD. Recently, the chief of police in Chicago, one of his

officers was arrested, and he stated if officers act like criminals,

they’ll be treated like criminals, and I think that’s the appropriate

response we should have. We need the supervision of the officers,

just as we try to make sure our agents are well supervised, and

I think when that breaks down, you have incidents like you had

in Los Angeles where there’s a lack of supervision and other places

where there’s abuse by law enforcement authorities.

Mr. SCOTT. Specifically, on strict enforcement of the exclusionary

rule where illegal evidence should not be admitted in the court?

Mr. PICKARD. I would defer to the decision of the judge in that

particular case as to where they come out on it.

Mr. GREEN. As requested, Mr. Conyers, the chair will yield you

an additional 5 minutes under your control for questions as you see

fit.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I put in a request for the Ranking Member of the Committee, Ms. Jackson Lee,

to get 5 minutes additionally as well?

Mr. GREEN. Sure.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Let me ask if any of you are—if there are any

among you who are unfamiliar with these figures: African Americans constitute 13 percent of the nation’s drug users. They represent 35 percent of those persons arrested for drug possession and

are 55 percent of those convicted for drug possessions and 74 percent of those sentenced to prison for drug possession. Question: Is

there anybody that is unfamiliar with these statistics?

Mr. MARSHALL. That’s the first time I’ve personally heard those

exact numbers. I’m familiar with the concept though.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay.

Mr. PICKARD. I’m also unfamiliar with them.

Mr. CONYERS. I beg your pardon, Mr. Pickard.

Mr. PICKARD. I’m also unfamiliar with those.

61

Mr. CONYERS. This is new to you. Okay. I’d like the subsequently

provide you with the source for these numbers.

Now, Mr. Marshall, do you see drug use as a medical problem

as well as a legal problem?

Mr. MARSHALL. I see it as a medical problem, a legal problem,

a crime problem, a social problem. It’s a very complex problem, and

people use drugs for many, many varying reasons. From my standpoint, I see one of the main reasons is that the criminal organizations are very shrewd and aggressive marketers of their product,

and they market that product to the weak.

Mr. CONYERS. Now, look here—— Mr. MARSHALL. I think it’s all of those problems rolled up into

one.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that’s very nice, but drugs are addictive.

That’s the medical component. Drug users don’t have to do anything but sell their product and addiction kicks in. So if you just

see it out there as, okay, then that’s why you answered Mr. Scott

the way you did. If you had as much money to prosecute, criminalize, bring cases, incarcerate, you still wouldn’t want to put the

money to what gets people off of drugs, and that gets me to the

RAN Corporation study, which I’m going the ask you with what familiarity you may have of it, and you can’t read everything, but the RAN Corporation found that $34 million invested in treatment

would reduce cocaine use as much as an expenditure of $336 million for interdiction.

Are you familiar with that?

Mr. MARSHALL. I’m not sure I’m familiar with those exact numbers, but again, I’m familiar with the concept, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. You get the idea. So if you’re trying to eliminate

the drug problem, this beats interdiction. This would be the way

to go, and so if we keep having nice people that come up and run

the DEA, run the prisons, run the FBI, run the criminal justice

system, and I’m including U.S. attorneys that prosecute, and judges, we still get into the interdiction kick. $1.3 billion into Columbia, a wonderful civil war going on there, which we’re going to

cut off the supply, but the demand is what brings drugs to America. It doesn’t accidentally come here. It comes here because the

biggest market on earth are people that want to use drugs, many

of whom become hopelessly addicted.

Is this a theory you’re familiar with, Mr. Marshall?

Mr. MARSHALL. It’s a theory I’m familiar with. It’s a theory that

I don’t completely agree with, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. You don’t completely agree? Fine. Would you explain the parts where you have some reservation about that?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, I will. First of all, I want to comment, sir,

that I am not opposed to treatment. If you look at everything that

I have written, everything I have testified——

Mr. CONYERS. But you don’t sound like it this morning. That’s all

I’m—I have to say that.

Mr. MARSHALL. If I might, I’ll try to explain.

Mr. CONYERS. I haven’t looked at everything you’ve read and

said, but just from what we’ve heard in a couple hours, it doesn’t

sound like that I could put you in the pro treatment classification,

but go ahead.

62

Mr. MARSHALL. Not at all, sir. You misunderstand what I say.

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, okay.

Mr. MARSHALL. I’m in favor of the balanced approach, which includes treatment, which includes education and prevention, but

which also includes a strong—— Mr. CONYERS. But what don’t you like about my theory that

you’ve had some reservation about?

Mr. MARSHALL. I will try to get to that, if I may, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay.

Mr. MARSHALL. The supply and demand is not as simple as saying demand creates supply.

Mr. CONYERS. It doesn’t happen that way?

Mr. MARSHALL. No, it’s not that way in all cases.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, how does it happen?

Mr. MARSHALL. If you will allow me, I will try to logically explain

my position. It is not a typical supply and demand situation, because we see that we have weak and vulnerable people, young people in our society who are not equipped with the maturity or the

good judgment to make good decisions about whether to use drugs.

We have many people that are ill-informed on drugs and don’t have

the adequate knowledge when they make that first decision to start

using drugs.

On the other hand, we have criminal organizations that aggressively market drugs to our young people to, to weak and vulnerable

people who don’t have the tools that they need to make good decisions. We have these organizations advertising on the internet that

Ecstasy is a safe drug. We have these organizations putting heroin

inside their shipments of cocaine as a condition of selling cocaine.

We have heroin organizations that actively target methadone clinics.

Mr. CONYERS. They’re just doing their jobs.

Mr. MARSHALL. They sell heroin to the very people who are trying to recover from addiction, and the marketing of drugs is a very,

very significant part of our drug problem.

Mr. CONYERS. That does not—everything you said does not compromise my theory a bit. Well, then shouldn’t we invest more

money in prevention?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. I said that in my testimony. I’ve said that

in many op ed pieces. I said it this morning in answer to one of

the other questions. Absolutely yes.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I don’t see what the problem is then.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Conyers, if you could wrap up.

Mr. CONYERS. I’m sorry.

Mr. GREEN. If you could wrap up your questions.

Mr. CONYERS. All right. All I want to do—we’ve got a—this is not

an insignificant discussion we’re having. If you think that my theory is compromised by the fact that criminal drug peddlers try to

market to innocent young children, I quite agree with you, but all

these kids out in the suburbs that are using every drug known on

earth, they’re not being hit up by criminal elements.

Mr. MARSHALL. Oh, quite the contrary. Quite a contrary, sir.

They are.

Mr. CONYERS. Quite to the contrary? They’re getting their supplies—usually they drive into the inner city to get all the supplies

63

they want, which is where we have a lot of problems where people

that get incarcerated for drug possession end up with the Federal

and State prisons when the bigger people go untouched. That’s why

we got a lot of low level people and people that are only in prison

because of possession, filling up the prisons, talking about we need

800 more million dollars, and we need to privatize more prisons.

I think that is not the correct direction.

Mr. MARSHALL. If I may—— Mr. GREEN. I’ll allow your answer. I hate to cut this off, but

we’re running into a time constraint yet again. So finish your question.

Mr. MARSHALL. With all due respect, I am not against treatment,

and if you’ve interpreted my comments as that, then I apologize.

I am not against that.

With regard to the young people going into the inner cities for

drugs, that’s true with some drugs, but it’s not by any means true

with all drugs, and the flip side of my contention that we need to

have a balanced approach would be, really, I think if we focus solely on treatment, we are treating people after they have become addicted. Wouldn’t it be much, much better to prevent them from getting drugs in the first place and to give them the educational and

the informational tools that they need to keep from becoming addicted in the first place?

Once they are addicted, those who become addicted, certainly

they need treatment, and we need to have better and more treatment programs.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Marshall, for your testimony.

The chair would now recognize, finally, Ms. Jackson Lee for 5

minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentlelady allow me 30 seconds?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’d be happy to, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Marshall, the more I think about this, the

more I feel like engaging you. How in the world can we be talking

like this when you must know that at the high school level more

than half the kids have experimented in drugs? Are those criminal

elements that are in there pushing pot and marijuana and Ecstacy?

Come on.

Mr. MARSHALL. I would ask you in return, sir, with all due

respect——

Mr. CONYERS. Yes.

Mr. MARSHALL. How can we possibly abandon our youth who

have not yet made that decision to begin using drugs and simply,

Oh, well, let’s treat them after they become addicted?

Mr. CONYERS. Prevention. That’s what I’ve been talking about all

day. That’s how you prevent them.

Mr. MARSHALL. And so have I, sir. I’ve been talking about law

enforcement, education, prevention, and treatment.

Mr. CONYERS. You’ve been trying to sell me that the criminal elements and drug people that are preying on these youngsters—

they’re experimenting with drugs all the time, and it’s not taking

criminal elements to do anything but provide them with the source

for buying the drugs.

Mr. MARSHALL. That’s a pretty significant role in the equation,

the supply of drugs.

64

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Conyers for that line of questioning.

I going to try and put my questions in bullet points and solicit

answers from you in that context, and let me say, Mr. McKinney,

don’t feel that absence makes the heart grow fonder or we’re not

found of you because we’re absent in questioning you. Let me

thank the U.S. Marshals Service for its work, and I might mention

my United States Marshal, Marshal Contreras, for his great work.

So we appreciate the efforts that you make, and we’ll be looking

at your budget and looking at reauthorization to see how we can

be helpful.

I will ask you a question, if you could get it to me in writing,

and if my memory serves me well, we implemented a new process.

I think the legislation passed dealing with the civil service approach to appointments as opposed to presidential appointments. If

you can give that to me in writing, whether I’m accurate in that,

because I want to—I’d like to see how it’s working, and I’d also like

to pose a question on the professional.

Did not pass. I’ve been informed by counsel that it did not pass.

So we’re still under presidential appointments. So what I will say

to you, my interest would be in the increasing diversity of the U.S.

Marshals. I know that was a problem before, but I also would appreciate in writing if you could tell me what you have implemented

for professional development, for professional training for the Marshals Service. And I apologize for not trying to get that verbally,

but I if I could get that in writing, I would appreciate it very much.

But thank you for the service.

Dr. Sawyer, let me—if I can just get some pointed questions.

About 8 days from now, we are going to be engaged with Senator

Hatch and Senator Clinton in a fundraising effort to help the children of prisoners, and maybe I cannot capture the eloquence of Mr.

Conyers, but if you can understand that a dominant number of individuals who are incarcerated come from our communities over

and over and over and over again.

I note that you have a limit, 300 minutes for these individuals

to be talking to their family members. I always get calls about funerals. Sometimes I think the prison authorities make light of it.

It’s not a situation that is funny in our offices, but many times

they’re denied. Why can’t we extend this 300 minutes? If I could

just get a sentence, then I can expand it, because I’ve got a series

of questions.

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. We absolutely support the relationship between our inmates and their families. It’s a critical link to them

adjusting properly when they release as well as touching their family in a positive way. The 300 minutes is a brand new thing that

we’ve added on to our phones in order for us to get controls over

those who abuse the telephone and commit illegal activity on the

phones. It’s a result of an inspector general investigation of our

phone usage.

Seventy-five percent of our inmates do not even use the telephone for 300 minutes, and if there’s ever a family emergency, we

will always access phones for the inmate. So it’s not intended to

separate them from their families, just to control abusers.

65

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me pursue that with you. I’m thinking

that if we get those numbers, I’d like to see how we can work

through that. I think it’s punitive, and I appreciate the inspector

general’s efforts, but I want to see how we can delineate the familyrelated calls if they want to do 10 hours if they’re legal dealing

with the family.

The other thing is the Human Rights Watch provided a report

on the high rate of prisoner rape. That is one of the most abusive,

violent, direct ways to create a violent person who then goes out

and acts violently if they’re ever released. What are you doing to

address this problem?

Ms. HAWK SAWYER. That’s an issue that we take very seriously

in the Bureau of Prisons, and the incidence, I won’t say is nonexistent, but it’s very, very low. There are three factors involved in

preventing prison rapes. One is that you have a good classification

system which separates your predators from your vulnerable inmates. Our classification system is very sound.

Two is you have a system where staff are out and about the institution all the time in the housing units, ensuring that if anything is happening there that we’re aware of it; and thirdly, we

have a very strong reporting system that once an inmate even let’s

us know that there’s been an indication of a rape, we attack that

very quickly. We send them out for medical care. We do the rape

kit determination to determine whether or not anyone has actually

been raped, and we will go after prosecuting the inmate that’s been

involved in carrying out the rape.

So, therefore, our incidence is very, very low. We need it to be

at zero, but it is very, very low because of those three factors.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I would appreciate it if you would get

that to me in writing, and I probably will want to meet with you

on that. I hope any offices pay attention so that we can schedule

the appointment, because I’m very concerned.

I have some questions on women incarcerated. So let me go forward.

Mr. Chairman, I’d ask an additional minute to pose to these two

gentlemen here, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Pickard.

Mr. GREEN. No objection.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much.

Mr. GREEN. No objection.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Marshall, let me just that please understand the depth of our just being overwhelmed or passionate about

these issues. You are a good friend of mine from Texas, and I was

getting ready to grab your introduction from Mr. Smith, but I just

recall he’s from Texas. So I didn’t have a legitimate excuse to introduce you.

So let me really say to you that I appreciate the work that you’ve

done. You were in the hot seat here the other day in the government oversight on some issues in Houston. I appreciated the way

you handled that.

But what we are seeing is that the members from—say particularly the African American community, I think Mr. Conyers is

making another point that young drug users is just overwhelming.

So we’re trying to find out how we can bust that open other than

what you’re doing, which is the incarceration issue. Do you have

66

any racial profiling language or instructions? Are you sensitive to

the issue of racial profiling, or are you just taking a big net in the

work that you do and just running people into it, and are you

working on that to be assured that you’re working to get those perpetrators, but not just profiling people and saying let me just lock

you up? Let me just get this question so I can get both of you on

the record.

Mr. Pickard, the FBI has always been looked to for the issues of

justice, and I’m sure they’re involved in this recent conviction,

though it was delayed, down in Birmingham. We appreciate that.

I’d like to be assured that when we try to engage the FBI—they

did a very good job in the Jasper case. I wanted to thank you for

that, but I wanted to make sure that when we engage or call the

FBI that you are sensitive that when the community, particularly

minority communities, call because they sense the balance.

I want to know do you have some blocks of responding to discrimination—when I say discrimination calls, say Cincinnati called

you or someone is calling you from Houston, for example, because

I’ve got a family that’s been abused with a cross burning, etc., I’ve

got a little slow response. How do you respond to that? And I also

want to make sure that you are, in fact, implementing lie detector

tests in light on the Hanssen situation.

If I can get quick answers, I think the Chairman will indulge me

on those issues.

Mr. MARSHALL. Ms. Jackson Lee, I’m very sensitive to racial

profiling issue. I feel like I’m addressing that in a number of ways.

First of all, I speak out very strongly against that practice in public

appearances wherever I go, both internal audiences, State and local

police audiences, and audiences with the general public. I’ve covered that in many, many speeches that I give across the country.

Secondly, I strive for a diverse work force within DEA because

I believe the more diverse we are, the more we are able to address

these issues within our society and within our agency.

Third, we conduct a lot of training, both for our own employees

and for State and local police officers, and we try to weave threads

of ethics and threads of human dignity into that type of training,

and all of that training where we—particularly our highway interdiction training that we do for State and local officers has a very,

very strong unequivocal element that we do not condone, tolerate

racial profiling, and on top that, it is bad investigative technique

and should not be practiced in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Pickard.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I’ll be in touch with

you.

Mr. PICKARD. On the incident in Katy, Texas, I was called about

that on Tuesday night. The SAC of the Houston division was up

in a conference that we have with all the special agents in charge.

The ASAC down there, Gail Seavy, I understand she called back

to your office. Working with the local police, we have identified a

17-year-old suspect. We’re trying to see whether his story is accurate or not, but we’re in—we have identified an individual, and I

think the response was appropriate for that, but we were very concerned about the Ross family in light of what had happened.

67

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. I thought the response initially

was very timid. It might be because a Member of Congress was

calling. I did find out a 17-year-old was—has been at least brought

in under the circumstances. But people look to the FBI, and I

thought they were particularly timid and confused about what was

being asked, and the fact that there was history with the Ross family, I think there should have been a more pronounced We have it

under advisement; I’m so glad you called; It is in our jurisdiction;

We’re going to be looking at it, as opposed to I’m talking to this

or that or the constable or waiting to be called. Too timid.

I mean, I’m not asking to violate your procedures. I’m glad they

did call you in Washington, and I’d like them to be more responsive, and it might have been because the SAC was out of town.

Mr. PICKARD. I would hope that that would not be the answer.

The ASACs are there, empowered, and they should be able to respond to those situations.

As far as the Hansen matter, we’re currently polygraphing almost 600 employees. That includes our senior executive service, all

the employees who work national security matters, data base administrators who have the keys to the kingdom of our computer

systems, as well as personnel who travel frequently internationally.

When we complete that, the director and I will be taking a look at

expanding that to other employees, and we’ll also be waiting for the

Webster Commission and the inspector general report.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I see that my colleague and friend, Mr.

Barr has arrived.

Mr. Barr, 5 minutes for questions.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. I apologize for being late. We have a hearing down the hall in the Government Reform Committee, the

Deegan murder case that the FBI I know is very much aware of,

and that’s still going on. So I apologize.

But I do appreciate the witnesses being here today, and I know

there’s been a lot of information. I don’t think, though, that in a

couple of areas, and these concern primarily the FBI, that there

are being questions asked, and I would like to go into a little bit

into the NICS system, the National Instant Check System.

Mr. Pickard, could you explain has the—it’s my understanding

the system has been shut down a couple of times recently. What

occasioned those delays and delays in the National Instant Check

System?

Mr. PICKARD. There were two incidents last year in which the

NICS system was down, one in May and one shortly before the

holidays at the end of the year. The first one in May was occasioned by a change in the software. We were trying to upgrade the

software for the system. It’s a very complex system. I’ve asked Assistant Director Bob Dies, who joined the FBI after 30 years in

IBM, to personally go up there to take a look at the system, and

he’s come back to me with certain recommendations as far as

vulnerabilities in the system and areas that we need to enhance so

we do not have those system failures.

The incident in December of 2000, that occasioned by a power

failure. The wiring of the system could have been done better. We

68

have since changed out that wiring system from when we go from

the outside power to the battery power on the system.

Mr. BARR. So there have not been any shutdowns this year?

Mr. PICKARD. That is correct.

Mr. BARR. Okay. I know Mr. Dies is here. I had the opportunity

to meet with him earlier in the week, and I appreciated that very

much. We didn’t talk about this in particular, but I know he is

looking comprehensively at a lot of areas involving computers and

software and technology and cyber crime for the bureau, and I appreciate that and would look forward to maybe speaking with him

specifically about this at some point.

The other area that I wanted to get a little update on, if I could

from you, Mr. Pickard, has to do with another area that we’ve gone

into in the past and certainly will in the future, and it has to do

not exclusively but essentially with the problems that we see in

Project Carnivore. Now, I know that the name has been changed.

Unfortunately for you all, I think the name Carnivore, which was

such a misnomer in the first place, has sort of stuck, but what has

been done with regard to the comprehensive look that the attorney

general was taking at not just that project, but generally what

needs to be done in order to more properly in the context of 21st

Century technology, which was not with us when the electronics

surveillance laws were last overhauled about three decades ago;

where do we stand now in terms of that comprehensive look, and

is the attorney general or are you, the bureau, prepared to make

some recommendations to us at this point or in the near future

with regard to protecting privacy concerns with the internet and

electronic communications generally in today’s world without unduly inhibiting the ability of law enforcement to gather necessary

information with proper judicial oversight?

Mr. PICKARD. As you know, the world has changed so much from

the telephone systems to the internet now. More and more communications, whether they be by E-mail or by voice, are now going

over the internet systems. The Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute did a study in December of 2000. It was commissioned by the attorney general to take a look at Carnivore. I don’t

think we’ll ever get rid of that word. But they had certain technical

recommendations. We’re taking a look at them now.

The attorney general, John Ashcroft, is looking personally at the

privacy considerations in it, and we’ve been providing briefings to

him on that, and based upon them, we’ll have a decision as to how

to move out smartly so that we can protect the privacy of individuals, but also so that we have this ability to deal with the criminal

element who has moved on to the internet.

Mr. BARR. Do you know at what stage the attorney general is in

that comprehensive review?

Mr. PICKARD. I do not know. I’m sorry.

Mr. BARR. Okay. Would you check on that for us, please? Because that’s something, certainly, not just in this Subcommittee,

but the Committee generally, I think will be wanting to go into and

perhaps some other Committees as well. And will both the bureau

and the Department of Justice make itself available to communicate ideas and work with the Congress to see if there is a legislative framework that we can come up with?

69

Mr. PICKARD. Of course, we would. There are some recommendations that I think would help us greatly in this new information

age.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

And I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank the other witnesses here, and if you would please convey not only mine, but I

speak and anticipate I speak for the entire Subcommittee and the

entire Committee, and please convey to the men and women of

your agencies the tremendous regard and thanks that we have for

the work that they do. Thank you.

Mr. GREEN. I think that’s an excellent note upon which to end

this Subcommittee hearing. I thank all those in attendance for

their patience, and we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(71)

CRIMINAL LAW COMPONENTS AT MAIN

JUSTICE

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:03 p.m., in Room

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Crime will now come to order.

I am going to recognize myself for purposes of an opening statement, and then I recognize Mr. Scott of Virginia for his opening

statement as well, and then we will look forward to hearing from

our three witnesses today.

The Subcommittee on Crime today holds the second of two hearings on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice was last reauthorized by Congress in 1980.

Since then, there have been no complete examinations of the authorities under which the department operates.

Events from last week remind us why it is important for this

Subcommittee to exercise its oversight responsibilities. The Subcommittee on Crime is charged with oversight of seven of the Department of Justice components.

The Subcommittee’s first hearing held on May 3 featured four

law enforcement agencies of the Department of Justice—the FBI,

the DEA, U.S. Marshal Service, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Today’s hearing focuses on the remaining three criminal law components of the Justice Department. They are the Criminal Division,

the Office of Justice Programs, and the Community Oriented Policing Services Office, better known as COPS.

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 responsibility, the division formulates and implements criminal law

enforcement policy and provides legal advice and assistance for

Federal prosecutors and investigative agencies.

The Office of Justice Programs was established in 1984 to provide Federal leadership, coordination, and assistance 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

72

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 Community Oriented Policing Services Office was created by

the Department of Justice to carry out the community policing

grants program in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994. The goal of the COPS program was to promote community policing and add 100,000 new officers on the street by the end

of the year 2000. The COPS mission is to improve public safety in

neighborhoods and communities throughout the country by building partnerships with communities, police agencies, and other public and private organizations.

Today’s witnesses oversee some of the most significant components of our nation’s criminal justice system since guarding public

safety is one of the 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.

Now that concludes my opening statement, and the gentleman

from Virginia is recognized for his.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to join you in

convening this continuing series of hearings on reauthorization of

the Department of Justice criminal law enforcement components.

It is interesting that we haven’t had an oversight hearing like

this because the department has been without authorization, as I

understand it, for about 20 years.

Today we will hear from the department, the various offices, Office of Justice Programs, the Criminal Division and the COPS program, all of which play important roles in the Federal Government’s effort to assist local and State governments to prevent, prosecute, and reduce crime.

Since over 98 percent of crime which occurs in this country is

within the jurisdiction of States and localities, a review of major

entities in DOJ which assist them is clearly in order.

I’d start by indicating that I’ve heard from more than one criminal justice consortium that they are generally very well-satisfied

with the research priorities and support offered by OJP. We told

them we wouldn’t tell anybody if they told us the truth, and they

still said that they were very satisfied.

We’ve also heard the COPS program has been very successful,

particularly because it is administered with a lot less bureaucratic

hassle and delay than most government programs have to deal

with.

While I’ve heard that the Criminal Division has been very successful in its efforts, I’ve heard quite a bit about the growing federalization of minor street crime and the impact on minorities as

a result of that effort. I can scarcely point the finger at the Criminal Division since much of the concentration on minor criminal activity is driven by policies in Congress, all too often by the political

whims of the day.

The concern about federalization has been echoed from the left

and the right. It includes a clarion call from the Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court that we have to rethink the use of our Federal

resources. Yet we still seem to be federalizing more street crime.

73

We heard the announcement yesterday of the president’s nationwide Project Exile Program, which has been criticized in my jurisdiction by the Federal judges who said it turned their Federal

courts into police courts—so I can hardly blame the Criminal Division for its concentration, although you can count on me to continue to criticize it.

I hope that we will take a close look at this overextension into

the street crime area, which is traditionally exclusively a State and

local matter.

So I look forward to the testimony of the witness and to discussing areas of mutual concern.

And again, thank you for convening the hearing.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, is recognized for

his opening statement.

Mr. COBLE. I will please you, Mr. Chairman, and say to you, I

have no opening statement, but it’s good to have our witnesses

with us.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Coble.

We will go to those witnesses, all of whom are from the Department of Justice today, and I will introduce them. They are Michael

Horowitz, chief of staff, Criminal Division; Mary Lou Leary, acting

assistant attorney general, Office of Justice Programs; and Ralph

J. Justus, acting director, Community Oriented Policing Services,

or COPS. We welcome you all, and we will begin with Mr. Horowitz.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ, CHIEF OF STAFF,

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Mr. HOROWITZ. Chairman Smith, Ranking Minority Congressman Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear

before you today to describe the activities of the Criminal Division

of the Department of Justice. With your permission, I would like

to begin with a brief statement and would ask that my full statement be submitted into the record. I presently serve as the chief

of staff——

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Horowitz, let me interrupt you very quickly to

say that the opening statements of all the witnesses will be made

a part of the record. And I noticed yours was 39 pages long, so

we’re particularly happy to make your entire statement a part of

the record.

Mr. HOROWITZ. I want to avoid a filibuster here. [Laughter.]

Mr. SMITH. Please proceed.

Mr. HOROWITZ. As you indicated, I presently serve as chief of

staff in the Criminal Division. I have been a Federal prosecutor for

the past 10 years, having served as a supervisor and line attorney

in the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of

New York, and I’m proud to have worked in the Criminal Division

since January 1999.

I would like to outline for you briefly the division’s unique role

within the Department of Justice and Federal law enforcement.

The mission of the Criminal Division is to work cooperatively with

United States attorneys and State and local law enforcement to

74

deter criminal activity and to ensure that violations of Federal

criminal law are properly and vigorously pursued.

The Criminal Division has responsibility for overseeing the enforcement, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, of more than 900 Federal criminal statutes and advises the attorney general in setting

and developing Federal law enforcement priorities and policies. Additionally, the division develops policies, procedures, tools, and

training on prosecution techniques to improve the nation’s crimefighting capabilities.

One of the most important and growing areas of responsibility

for the Criminal Division involves international law enforcement

coordination. As international crime increases with the expansion

of the Internet and the relative ease of international travel, the division has been hard at work to develop effective strategies to combat it.

For example, the Criminal Division is responsible for providing

assistance to Federal, State, and local prosecutors and obtaining

evidence from foreign governments. The division works with our

foreign counterparts to develop legal assistance relations and partnerships and to strengthen foreign law enforcement institutions.

The effort by the division’s Office of International Affairs to significantly expand the number of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties

has resulted in the growing exchange of evidence and the production of witnesses that leads to successful prosecutions, and it is responsible for the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in drug

and fraud proceeds.

Similarly, the expanding network of extradition treaties form the

basis for retrieving or returning defendants to the country where

they can be most effectively prosecuted.

Another important area of Criminal Division responsibility involves training. For example, the division’s Computer Crime and

Intellectual Property Section has provided extensive training and

practice manuals to Federal prosecutors and investigators regarding the investigation and prosecution of computer crime. In addition, the division provides special prosecutorial experience on a

wide range of issues, including sensitive law enforcement areas

such as title III electronic surveillance matters and the issuance of

attorney subpoenas.

An example is the expertise developed by our Terrorism and Violent Crime Section relating to terrorism cases. Because of their expertise, the section directly participates in the investigation and

prosecution of virtually all international terrorism cases and particularly critical domestic terrorism cases.

Further, it is the responsibility of the Criminal Division to address emerging crime—for example, computer crime and

cyberterrorism—by providing personal support and resources if

necessary.

As you know, communications networks, especially the Internet,

link governments, businesses, and individuals in the same interconnected digital system. These networks offer great benefits but

also provide an easy way to reach within our borders to combat

criminal acts.

In this developing environment, the division’s Computer Crimes

and Intellectual Property Section and the Terrorism and Violent

75

Crime Section work toward preparing and equipping law enforcement to investigate cybercrime and to prevent cyberterrorism.

Increasingly, the type of cybercrime most likely to cause significant harm to consumers and businesses here and abroad is fraud

over the Internet. Since 1999, the Fraud Section has overseen a

comprehensive Internet fraud initiative that the department established to provide a coordinated approach to combating Internet

fraud.

Another area where the Criminal Division plays a critical role is

the coordination of complex, multijurisdictional cases. For example,

an effective mechanism used to achieve the highest level of coordination and support for major narcotics cases is the special Operations Division. Prosecutors in our Narcotics and Dangerous Drug

Section work together in SOD with agents and analysts from the

DEA, the FBI, the Customs Service to support regional, national,

and international criminal investigations and prosecutions, targeting the major criminal drug trafficking organizations threatening the United States.

The division currently operates on a fiscal year appropriation of $110 million. For fiscal year 2002, the president’s budget requests approximately $112 million with enhancements requested to bolster some of the division’s key programs in the areas of

counterterrorism, cybercrime and international law enforcement.

As a result of emerging computer technology over recent years, significant attention has been and continues to be focused on the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to cybercrime and cyberterrorist

attacks.

The division is requesting enhancements of nearly $3 million to

strengthen its leadership role within the department in those

areas. This request will support national strategies and priorities

and help address the rising workload in the division’s sections that

handle the increasingly complex nature of crime resulting from

globalization and a proliferation of technology.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I hope this

overview is helpful to your understanding of the work of the Criminal Division, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that

you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ

Chairman Smith, Ranking Minority Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear today before you to describe the responsibilities

and activities of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

I presently serve as the Chief of Staff in the Criminal Division. I have been a Federal prosecutor for the past ten years, having served as a line attorney and supervisor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and am

proud to have worked in the Criminal Division since 1999.

My testimony today will outline the Criminal Division’s role within the Department of Justice and Federal law enforcement. The mission of the Criminal Division

is to develop, enforce, and exercise oversight involving the prosecution of Federal

criminal laws, in cooperation with the United States Attorneys, and State and local

law enforcement officials. The Division oversees the enforcement of more than 900

Federal criminal statutes and advises the Attorney General in setting and developing Federal law enforcement priorities and policies. The Criminal Division also

develops policies, procedures, tools, and training on prosecution techniques to improve the Nation’s crime-fighting capabilities.

In addition, the Criminal Division provides special prosecutorial expertise on a

wide range of unique domestic and international issues, as well as in sensitive law

76

enforcement areas, such as ‘‘Title III’’ electronic surveillance and attorney subpoenas. (‘‘Title III’’ refers to title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968, as amended.) Further, the Criminal Division addresses emerging

crimes—for example, computer crime and cyber-terrorism—by providing personnel

support and resources, in a flexible manner, as appropriate.

The Criminal Division also facilitates coordination and direction on many complex

multi-jurisdictional cases, frequently working with other Federal, State, and local

investigative agencies and authorities. By doing so, the Criminal Division provides

oversight to ensure consistency and uniformity in developing an effective approach

to fighting criminal activity.

Moreover, the Criminal Division works with our foreign counterparts to develop

legal assistance relations and partnerships, as well as to strengthen foreign law enforcement institutions. The crime problem in the United States no longer rests solely within our borders, and we in the Criminal Division are responsible for providing

assistance to Federal, State and local prosecutors in obtaining evidence from foreign

governments. The Criminal Division is led by the Assistant Attorney General and

five Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. Under their leadership and guidance, the

Division’s Sections and Offices work in various subject-matter areas to address the

law enforcement and criminal prosecution needs of each area. There are approximately 430 attorneys who work within the Criminal Division’s Sections and Offices.

The Division currently operates on a Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation of $110 million.

For Fiscal Year 2002, the President’s Budget requests approximately $120 million,

with enhancements requested to bolster some of the Division’s key programs. The

Division’s FY 2002 request focuses on counterterrorism and cybercrime. As a result

of emerging computer technology over recent years, significant attention has been,

and continues to be, focused on the vulnerability of the critical infrastructure to

cybercrime and cyberterrorist attacks. The Division is requesting enhancements of

nearly $3 million to strengthen its leadership role within the Department in these

areas. Because the Division recognizes the complementary but interdependent roles

played in meeting the emerging challenges of criminal law enforcement, the request

includes not only attorney positions, but also analytical support and infrastructure

protection improvements. In addition, the Division continues to work to implement

effective strategic planning efforts, with the specific goal of developing processes

that will better inform the resource and program decisions made by the Executive

level managers.

In this era of globalization and lightning-fast communications across borders, the

Criminal Division has endeavored to address such transnational threats. Many sophisticated criminal organization —whether drug traffickers, money launderers,

computer hackers, terrorists, spies, or the like—do not limit their activities to one

jurisdiction within borders: they operate throughout the world. Therefore, you will

note throughout my remarks today that most of the responsibilities of the Criminal

Division components span both domestic and international law enforcement.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the Criminal Division’s

recent work and accomplishments in the area of counter-terrorism, cybercrime,

international coordination and assistance, traditional law enforcement concerns, and

providing support for Federal prosecutors nationwide. First, let me address the

growing problems of terrorism and cybercrime, where the Division is seeking enhancements in FY 2002.

COUNTER-TERRORISM

The Division’s Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS) designs, implements,

and supports law enforcement efforts, legislative initiatives, policies and strategies

relating to domestic and international counter-terrorism, in coordination with other

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and foreign counterparts. This

includes direct participation in the investigation and prosecution of virtually all

international terrorism cases and particularly critical domestic terrorism cases.

These efforts are reflected in the Five-Year Interagency Counter-terrorism and

Technology Crime Plan, which serves as the national strategy for counterterrorism.

Coordination of multi-district international counter- terrorism investigations by

the Division supplies specific expertise and promotes consistency in the enforcement

of a nationwide program to attack international terrorism. This involves: coordination with foreign intelligence agencies to obtain necessary information to support

search and arrest warrants; review of the legal sufficiency of charges and pleadings;

and coordination among offices to facilitate the timing of prosecutive steps optimal

to multiple coordinated prosecutions. Many U.S. Attorneys’ Offices rely on the expertise developed by the Division. For example, Division attorneys provided significant support to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle in a major prosecution of terVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.001 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
77

rorism transcending national borders which resulted in the recent conviction of

Ahmed Ressam.

Pursuant to the Department of Justice’s Crisis Response Plan, TVCS serves as a

central coordinator for the receipt and dissemination of information pertinent to ongoing critical law enforcement incidents. This program includes the Attorney Critical Incidence Response Group, a core of Department attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and the Crisis Management Coordinators, designated senior Assistant U.S.

Attorneys in each U.S. Attorney’s Office specially trained in crisis management.

Under this program, instruction and materials are provided by TVCS so that, in the

event of a terrorist or other critical incident, each U.S. Attorney’s Office has a baseline of ‘‘in- house’’ expertise with additional support, as needed.

Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The Criminal Division also participates in and contributes to, on behalf of the Department, the inter-agency process of the Secretary of State’s designation of Foreign

Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), pursuant to the Anti-terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Division has played a key role in the preparation of administrative records to support these designations, so as to withstand legal challenge. In

October 1997, the Secretary of State designated a list of 30 FTOs, pursuant to the

anti-terrorist financing provisions. The list was revised in October 1999. There are

currently 29 FTOs.

Cyber-terrorism

The Criminal Division is similarly responding to the increasing threat posed by

cyber-terrorism. Communication networks—especially the Internet—link governments, businesses, and individuals in the same interconnected digital system. These

networks offer great benefits, but also provide a way to reach within our borders

to commit terrorist acts. For instance, an individual with a computer and an Internet connection anywhere in the world could potentially break into critical systems,

shut down an airport’s air traffic control system, disrupt emergency services for an

entire community, or launch a destructive ‘‘denial-of-service’’ attack.

In this developing environment, law enforcement must be prepared and equipped

to investigate cyber-crime quickly and effectively. When a cyber-attack first occurs,

it is not immediately clear whether the attack is state-sponsored cyber- warfare,

cyber-terrorism by a transnational organization, or non- terrorist criminal activity,

either domestic or foreign. Accordingly, America’s national security will increasingly

depend on strong and capable law enforcement organizations.

The Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) led the

Department’s efforts to combat cyber- terrorism and to ensure critical infra-structure protection through its work on a Five-Year Counterterrorism Strategy, support

to the National Infrastructure Protection Center, and extensive international work.

CCIPS participated in the National Plan for Information Systems Protection process, resulting in the publication of the National Plan in January 2000 by the interagency group and the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office.

COMPUTER CRIMES

Just as computer networks cross borders, computer crime is inherently multi-jurisdictional and international, with victims scattered around the Nation and the

world. Thus, CCIPS plays an important role in coordinating and, oftentimes, leading

multi- jurisdictional and international computer crime investigations and prosecutions.

The Criminal Division has made considerable progress in the fight against

cybercrime. With respect to particular investigations and prosecutions, CCIPS coordinated the investigation and advised in the prosecution of, or took the lead in

prosecuting, a large number of significant cybercrime cases, including the following:

1. The ‘‘denial of service attacks’’ that exposed the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure and gained national and international notoriety in February 2000,

resulting in the successful prosecution of a Canadian juvenile;

2. The ‘‘Melissa Virus’’ (which resulted in a guilty plea and the defendant’s admission to causing more than $80,000,000 in damage at sentencing in December 1999); and

3. A juvenile who unlawfully hacked into a United States military computer

network used by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, leading to one of the

first cases in which a juvenile was sentenced to detention in Federal court

for computer hacking.

78

CCIPS also assisted in a tremendous number of investigations that required

agents and prosecutors to obtain electronic evidence.

In the international arena, the Criminal Division works bilaterally with its foreign counterparts, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, among

others. Moreover, CCIPS continues to chair the Group of Eight Subgroup on HighTech crime and to work internationally in other fora to build international capabilities to fight cybercrime.

Training on Computer Crimes

The Criminal Division provides extensive training and manuals to Federal prosecutors and investigators regarding computer criminal enforcement. CCIPS created

and trained a network of prosecutors, comprised of Assistant U.S. Attorneys from

each U.S. Attorney’s Office, called Computer- Telecommunications Coordinators

(CTCs), to expand and improve expertise among Federal prosecutors. CCIPS also

provided training to thousands of Federal agents, administrators, prosecutors, and

private agents/administrators; conducted highly successful advanced and basic computer crime courses; and led the National Cybercrime Training Partnership in moving forward to teach existing courses and develop additional courses, particularly to

State and local investigators and prosecutors. In addition, CCIPS has recently completed a manual, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (published in December 2000). CCIPS also works

closely with the private sector, encouraging victims to report cybercrime and industry to develop mechanisms to prevent and to address cybercrime.

Internet Fraud

Increasingly, the type of cybercrime most likely to cause significant harm to consumers and businesses here and abroad, and to undermine consumer confidence in

the Internet, is Internet fraud. Since 1999, the Division’s Fraud Section has overseen a comprehensive Internet Fraud Initiative that the Department established to

provide a coordinated approach to combating Internet Fraud. This initiative has six

principal objectives:

a. Development of information of the actual nature and scope of Internet fraud;

b. Training of prosecutors and investigators;

c. Development of investigative and analytical resources;

d. Providing regional, national and international coordination;

e. Providing litigation support and advice; and

f. Conducting public education and prevention programs.

The Division’s accomplishments to date in implementing the Initiative are impressive.

1. The Division has supported the establishment of the Internet Fraud Complaint Center, a joint project of the FBI and the National White Collar Crime

Center. The Fraud Section has also worked with the Federal Trade Commission on providing more information about consumer frauds on the Internet

to law enforcement agencies.

2. The Division has trained more than 260 Federal, State, and foreign prosecutors and Federal agents on Internet fraud since 1999 and has added an

Internet fraud component to the basic Cybercrimes seminar at the National

Advocacy Center.

3. The Division chairs the inter-agency Telemarketing and Internet Fraud

Working Group, which brings together Federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies for closer cooperation. The Section, through the Group of

Eight High-Tech Crime Subgroup, developed a proposal for coordinated action against Internet fraud, which was adopted by the G8 Crime Ministers

in October 1999, and is continuing discussions in the G8 High-Tech Crime

and Projects Subgroups.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES

As computers and networks become more complex, it is increasingly hard to secure them from hackers through technical means. At the same time, our country’s

wealth is increasingly held not in hard assets but in intellectual property, which can

be freely copied and disseminated in digital form over computer networks. In this

developing information society, law enforcement plays a critical role.

With respect to its intellectual property mission, CCIPS continues to advance the

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Initiative. That initiative includes:

79

1. Enhancing enforcement efforts in seven key jurisdictions;

2. Expanding investigator and prosecutor training;

3. Proposing legal and procedural reform; and

4. Streamlining industry referral procedures.

Under this initiative, CCIPS has coordinated charges and prosecutions for

schemes to purchase and resell for profit counterfeit satellite television access cards

in over a dozen cases, supported the investigation and prosecution of cases involving

counterfeit computer chips (one case resulted in a $2 million fine and over $1 million in restitution), and devoted considerable resources to developing the manual,

Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crime, which was published in December 2000.

Now, I would like to turn our attention to the increasing number of international

cases and issues facing Federal criminal law enforcement today.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND COORDINATION

As crime becomes more globalized, the Criminal Division is increasingly being

called upon to work with foreign governments, to coordinate activities and issues

with national, State and local officials, and to provide an overall perspective on

international and national crime problems. International agreements, treaties, conventions, and policy initiatives form the framework for developing prosecutions and

investigations that rely on evidence and witnesses that are overseas.

International Law Enforcement Cooperation

The United States’ expanding network of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties

(MLATs) and MLAT cases have led directly to the recovery of hundreds of millions

of dollars in drug proceeds, fraud proceeds, and other dollars, most of it either going

to the Asset Forfeiture Fund or directly to victims. For example, last year we helped

recover approximately $180 million in drug proceeds located in Switzerland, and

several years ago we arranged for the repatriation of approximately $54 million in

drug money from Luxembourg.

Once in place, these mutual legal assistance treaties, 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

form the basis for retrieving or returning criminal defendants to the country where

they can be most effectively prosecuted. When Federal, State, or local prosecutors

need fugitives or evidence from abroad, the Office of International Affairs (OIA) has

the sole responsibility for processing those requests. Similarly, when foreign prosecutors request assistance from this country, OIA coordinates the execution of such

requests throughout the United States. This is a critical, central role in the smooth

and effective handling of criminal cases requiring international cooperation.

Many of these cases involve matters of national and international importance, and

have received widespread attention in the media, including:

• The U.S. extradition request to France on behalf of New York State and Federal authorities for James Kopp (accused of the 1998 murder of a reproductive

health care provider). (This matter is pending resolution.)

• The U.S. requests to the United Kingdom and Germany on behalf of the

Southern District of New York for the extradition of defendants charged in

the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Africa.

• Successful mutual legal assistance requests to Canada, France, and Germany

that produced evidence critical to the conviction of Ahmed Ressam for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in the United States.

Bilateral Treaties

The Division’s Office of International Affairs performs the critical role of negotiating the international treaties and agreements that make it possible for us to handle these cases effectively. In Fiscal Year 2000, 16 new bilateral treaties (eight extradition treaties and eight mutual legal assistance treaties) entered into force. In

addition, 13 new bilateral treaties (four extradition treaties and nine mutual legal

assistance treaties) received Senate ratification on October 18, 2000.

OIA’s treaty program ensures that Federal, State, and local prosecutors will have

the tools they need to obtain the return of major fugitives and the acquisition of

important evidence. OIA will continue to make diligent efforts to ensure the smooth

and effective implementation of all new treaties. Simultaneously, OIA will be negotiating several additional new treaties with ‘‘priority’’ countries, as determined by the

Department (with extensive U.S. law enforcement input) and the U.S. State Department.

80

Of particular significance in recent years has been the pursuit of new extradition

treaties that authorize the surrender of the requested country’s nationals, often

sheltered from extradition in civil law countries. Significant strides in this area

have been made through the Division and OIA’s efforts in Latin America (Bolivia,

Paraguay, and Argentina) and Eastern Europe.

International Conventions

The Criminal Division is also integrally involved in a variety of important multilateral treaties, conventions, and policy initiatives dealing with transnational crime

and international law enforcement cooperation. By way of example, recently the Division has devoted significant resources and expertise to the negotiation of the U.N.

Transnational Organized Crime convention (signed in Palermo, Italy in December

2000), the Council of Europe cybercrime and corruption conventions, and a host of

other anti-crime initiatives under the auspices of the Group of Seven (and now the

‘‘G-8’’). The number and variety of such multilateral initiatives continue to grow.

Another function that the Division performs is the advancement of international

criminal initiatives in multinational fora, such as the G-8, which requires a national

perspective and resource-intensive negotiations best provided by a headquarters

component.

FOREIGN INSTITUTION BUILDING

The Division provides many forms of assistance designed to develop and strengthen foreign law enforcement institutions so that they may be more effective partners

in the fight against the transnational crime threatening American interests at home

and around the world. Such assistance also promotes the establishment of the rule

of law and the protection of fundamental human rights. Many of the Division’s sections, such as the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, the Narcotic and

Dangerous Drug Section, the Office of Special Investigations, and the Computer

Crime and Intellectual Property Section, provide subject-specific training to foreign

prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.

In addition, two sections in the Division, the Overseas Prosecutorial Development

Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Programs (ICITAP), provide assistance to foreign law enforcement institutions.

OPDAT was established to help harness the Department’s resources to develop

foreign justice sector institutions and to enhance the administration of justice

abroad. OPDAT also assists foreign prosecutors and judicial personnel by providing

technical assistance and skills development support. OPDAT supports the Department’s interests by promoting the rule of law and regard for human rights, by preparing foreign counterparts to cooperate more fully with the United States in combating transnational crime, and by improving foreign judicial assistance to the

United States.

Working closely with entities of the U.S. Agency for International Development

and the State Department, OPDAT uses a best practices methodology to develop effective criminal codes and procedures, improve institutional structures and relationships, and enhance the professional capabilities of prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and select law enforcement officers to help create more responsive and responsible criminal justice systems abroad. Currently, OPDAT provides justice sector development assistance in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America

and the Caribbean, the Newly Independent States, including the Russian Federation, and the Middle East.

Another Division program that provides development assistance and training is

the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP).

ICITAP’s mission is to help achieve U.S. criminal justice and foreign policy goals

by assisting foreign governments in developing the capacity to provide professional

law enforcement services based on democratic principles, respect for human rights

and the rule of law. ICITAP was created by the Department of Justice in 1986 to

respond to the need to train criminal investigators in Latin America.

In the past five years, ICITAP has become a global, law enforcement development

program, with projects in Africa, Asia, Central Europe, and the Middle East. Its activities have expanded to encompass two principal types of assistance projects: (1)

the development of indigenous police forces during international peace operations;

and (2) the enhancement of capabilities of existing police forces in emerging democracies. This assistance takes the form of police academy development, recruit training, in-service training for veteran officers, forensics training, education for senior

managers, and help with strategic planning. To date, ICITAP has worked in over

70 countries, at a level ranging from $25-35 million per year, for the past four years.

81

Strong efforts are being made by the Criminal Division, OPDAT, ICITAP, and the

Department of State to identify substantive areas and countries where OPDAT and

ICITAP can work together more closely to provide even more effective and sustainable assistance to foreign law enforcement institutions.

Let me next turn to areas of traditional law enforcement concern. As Attorney

General Ashcroft has indicated, these areas, which include the problems of organized crime, gun violence and drug trafficking, will continue to be an important

focus of the Department’s work.

ORGANIZED CRIME

To achieve success in prosecuting domestic organized crime and labor racketeering

groups, the Division’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) has been

involved in setting national priorities for the organized crime program by coordinating with investigative agencies. The investigation and prosecution of these cases

by the Strike Force Units within U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in 21 Federal districts are

supervised by OCRS.

In response to the alarming growth of transnational organized crime groups and

the rapid increase in investigations and prosecutions involving overseas actors, the

principal enforcement efforts are directed against groups such as Italian Organized

Crime groups (including La Cosa Nostra and the Sicilian Mafia), Asian Organized

Crime Groups (such as Chinese Triads and ethnic Asian gangs), and Russian Organized Crime. OCRS monitors the vast flow of information from classified and open

sources on international organized crime figures, conducts liaison with the intelligence community, and performs specialized tasks, such as litigation under the

Classified Information Procedures Act, that arise in the field’s prosecution of international cases.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

The Division’s narcotics enforcement mission is to reduce the supply of illegal

drugs in the United States by investigating and prosecuting priority national and

international drug trafficking groups. The Division is also tasked with providing

sound legal, strategic and policy guidance in support of that end. To achieve this

mission, the Division works closely with Federal law enforcement agencies, their

international counterparts, and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to provide guidance, direction, and resources at the national level for drug investigations and prosecutions.

Special Operations Division

An effective mechanism used to achieve the highest level of coordination and support for major narcotics cases is the Special Operations Division (SOD). Agents, analysts, and prosecutors from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Customs Service (USCS), and the

Criminal Division, work together in SOD to support regional and national-level

criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting the major criminal drug trafficking organizations threatening the United States.

The Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) directs and

coordinates SOD investigations with Assistant U.S. Attorneys across the country to

ensure that each district involved in a nationwide investigation is informed as to

the actions taking place in the other districts and the interrelationship of each district in the overall criminal conspiracy. The Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money

Laundering Section also works within SOD to coordinate complex international and

domestic money laundering investigations and prosecutions.

The SOD strategy ensures that each district agrees to a coordinated plan of attack, so that large, nationwide trafficking groups are taken down in a single, welltimed enforcement action. The Division also deploys attorneys to assist in national

priority SOD investigations, as needed. These cooperative efforts have resulted in

a number of successful drug trafficking investigations:

• Operation ‘‘Mountain Express,’’ targeting brokers of methamphetamine precursor chemicals, which resulted in 150 arrests in ten judicial districts nationwide, seizures of 10 metric tons of pseudoephedrine capable of producing

18,000 pounds of methamphetamine, 83 pounds of finished methamphetamine, two pseudoephedrine extraction laboratories, one methamphetamine

laboratory, 136 pounds of processing chemicals, and $8 million in cash.

• Operation ‘‘Rio Blanco,’’ a multi-district SOD operation, resulted in the arrest

of 55 individuals and the seizure of more than 3,000 kilograms of cocaine and

over $15 million in U.S. currency. The principal targets included high-ranking

associates of the Arellano Felix organization in Mexico responsible for smuggling substantial quantities of cocaine into the United States.

82

• Operation ‘‘Tar Pit’’, targeting Mexican heroin traffickers (over 200 arrests in

eight judicial districts and in Mexico).

Bilateral Case Initiative

In addition, the Division coordinates the domestic prosecution of international

drug trafficking organizations—often referred to as the Bilateral Case Initiative

(BCI). The BCI aims to investigate and prosecute large transnational narcotics traffickers in U.S. courts, using evidence gathered by the law enforcement activities of

foreign governments. It involves DEA’s Office of Foreign Operations, SOD, and the

interagency Linear Approach Committee. The Division’s NDDS is currently involved

in 19 separate ongoing investigations against high level trafficking and money laundering organizations operating in the Caribbean, South and Central America. Operation ‘‘Millennium’’ is probably the best known success of the BCI; it resulted in the

indictment in the Southern District of Florida of 30 high-level Colombian traffickers,

including Fabio Ocho-Vasquez and Alejandro Bernal-Madrigal. Based upon recent

changes in Colombian law, this operation has also led to efforts by NDDS, in coordination with the Division’s Office of International Affairs, to pursue extradition of

many of the Colombian individuals indicted in this country.

U.S./Colombia Initiative

The Criminal Division, on behalf of the Department of Justice, has assumed lead

responsibility for the planning and implementation of a comprehensive program of

justice sector reform assistance to the Government of Colombia. Funding earmarked

in last year’s emergency supplemental appropriation for the U.S./Colombia Initiative

Justice Sector Reform Program to be implemented by the Departments of Justice

and the Treasury totals $88 million and includes: the establishment and expansion

of specialized vetted Colombian law enforcement task forces; criminal code reform;

prosecutor training; programs to enhance Colombia’s anti-money laundering and forfeiture efforts; an anti-kidnaping initiative; a judicial police training program; witness and judicial security programs; customs police training; maritime enforcement

and port security; the multilateral case initiative; and prison security. Specific

projects and program designs within the Justice Sector Reform Program have been

carefully coordinated within the U.S. Government and with Colombian counterpart

agencies to ensure that appropriate assistance will be provided to meet Colombia’s most pressing needs.

The Criminal Division, in close consultation with the Department of the Treasury,

has coordinated an extensive interagency planning effort in each of the program

areas and implementation of specific projects in each of the program areas has already commenced. Components participating in the planning and implementation of

the U.S./Colombia Initiative Justice Sector Reform Program include: the Criminal

Division; DEA; FBI; U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP);

Department of the Treasury (Enforcement); U.S. Customs Service (USCS); U.S. Secret Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF); Internal Revenue

Service (IRS); and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Personnel

from the participating components and prosecutors from various U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will participate in the implementation of these important programs.

To manage and coordinate the implementation of the Justice Sector Reform Program in Colombia, the Division has assigned to the Embassy staff in Bogota a senior

Assistant U.S. Attorney on detail to the Division. The Program Manager, together

with an Executive Officer and staff, will be responsible for on-site coordination of

the implementation and oversight of the U.S. Colombia Initiative Justice Sector Reform Program.

Capital Crimes Unit

Many Federal capital crime cases involve underlying drug charges. The Division’s

Capital Crimes Unit supports and informs the Attorney General’s decisions regarding whether to seek the death penalty in each capital eligible case. The Unit’s efforts lead to the consistent and fair application of the death penalty in Federal

cases. Attorneys in the Unit also assist other Department attorneys, including Assistant United States Attorneys around the country, with aspects of capital trials

that are unique to death penalty cases. They also assist in appeals and post-conviction review.

MONEY LAUNDERING AND ASSET FORFEITURE

The Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) works

closely with its law enforcement and regulatory partners to effect a coordinated approach to combating money laundering. The Division, in close coordination with the

Department of the Treasury, has developed and begun implementing the National

83

Money Laundering Strategy, pursuant to the Money Laundering and Financial

Crimes Strategy Act of 1998. The first strategy was issued in September 1999 by

the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, and was updated in March

2000. The 2000 Strategy set four overarching goals regarding domestic anti-money

laundering enforcement efforts, regulatory and cooperative public-private preventive

measures, partnerships with State and local governments, and international cooperation. These goals are supported by specific objectives and implemented through

65 specific action items. The Department is currently working with the Treasury

Department to finalize the third National Money Laundering Strategy.

The Division also provides centralized policy and program oversight for the Asset

Forfeiture Program. This Program is responsible for maximizing the law enforcement potential of laws designed to dismantle and destroy criminal enterprises and

seize and forfeit the profits, proceeds and instrumentalities of crime. Such responsibilities include: deciding petitions for remission and mitigation of forfeitures in

civil and criminal judicial cases; reviewing departmental equitable sharing cases

that involve $1 million or more; and reviewing departmental proposals to forfeit attorneys’ fees and forfeit businesses.

Further, AFMLS provides training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement

investigators and prosecutors in an effort to maximize the appropriate use of the

asset forfeiture laws. Together with the Treasury Department and other Federal law

enforcement agencies, the Division’s AFMLS recently led an extensive outreach and

education program to inform and instruct prosecutors and investigators of the most

expansive changes in U.S. forfeiture law since 1984 and important Federal rule

changes. This training and outreach effort has enabled U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and

law enforcement investigators to implement these new provisions and procedures effectively.

In furtherance of its international mission, the Division plays a significant role

in several multilateral organizations that are dedicated to strengthening anti-money

laundering enforcement around the globe. The most important of these organizations is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The FATF is comprised of 29 countries and 2 international organizations and is the principal international anti-money

laundering organization in the world created by the Group of Seven Heads of State

and Finance Ministers in 1989.

A recent FATF initiative, in which representatives from the Division and Departments of State and the Treasury participated, sought to publicly identify and cite

‘‘non-cooperative countries and territories’’ for failing adequately to combat money

laundering. This effort culminated in a June 22, 2000, announcement citing 15 jurisdictions as ‘‘non-cooperative’’ in the fight against money laundering.

ANTI-CORRUPTION ENFORCEMENT AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

The Division’s Public Integrity Section oversees the Federal effort to combat

abuses of the public trust by government officials. The Section investigates and

prosecutes corruption offenses involving public officials at all levels of government.

The Section has primary jurisdiction over allegations of criminal misconduct involving the Federal judiciary, oversees the investigation and prosecution of election

crimes, and spearheads the Federal effort to address conflict of interest crimes.

The Public Integrity Section concentrates its litigation efforts on matters involving

the abuse of the public trust by government officials, particularly officials in intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement officers. Examples of recent prosecutions include the following:

• A former U.S. Customs Inspector has been convicted of conspiring to obstruct

the Congress by creating fraudulent documents falsely indicating that a highlevel Customs official was involved in drug trafficking. This was part of an

effort by the defendant to cause the initiation of Senate hearings focusing on

the Customs Service.

• A foreign service officer previously assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Guyana

has pleaded guilty to issuing visas in exchange for bribes. When the defendant was arrested, over $1,000,000 and ten gold bars (valued at $300,000) were

seized from him.

In addition, efforts to address the problem of corruption on an international basis

has become a significant priority of the U.S. Government. The Public Integrity Section plays a lead role in the expanded anti-corruption efforts against foreign governments and international organizations. The focus of the Division’s international activities has been with the ongoing anti-corruption efforts by the Council of Europe

(the Group of States Against Corruption evaluation mechanism) and the United Nations. The Public Integrity Section, along with the Office of International Affairs,

84

also works with other countries in the hemisphere to ensure effective implementation of the Organization of American States Anti-Corruption Convention.

VIOLENT CRIME

The Division uses its expertise to develop and implement effective enforcement

initiatives designed to enhance the effectiveness of the Federal law enforcement response to these crimes. Under the National Anti-Violent Crime Initiative (AVCI),

the Division’s Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS) has ongoing responsibilities in coordinating pertinent enforcement strategies with U.S. Attorneys’ offices.

Recognizing that no single solution should be imposed by headquarters, each U.S.

Attorney’s Office was asked to assess the violent crime problem in its district and

tailor its program to address its specific violent crime concerns, with support and

guidance provided by the Division. The effectiveness of this strategy has contributed

significantly to the decrease in violent crime nationwide, and the AVCI has been

a model for other national enforcement programs. The Division has also prepared

comprehensive resource materials for use by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices nationwide to

assist them in implementing their gun prosecution programs.

FRAUD AND WHITE-COLLAR CRIMES

Identity Theft

Identity theft is the misappropriation of an individual’s personal identification information, and it has emerged as an extremely significant law enforcement concern.

The Division, through the Fraud Section, has been responsible for the development

of policy and coordination with the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, the U.S.

Secret Service, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Social Security Administration. The FTC recently established a referral system, pursuant to 1998 legislation,

that will substantially facilitate and expedite criminal prosecutions of identity theft.

Health Care Fraud

The Criminal Division, through its Fraud Section, is also responsible for the coordination and investigation of several nationwide healthcare fraud investigations

and prosecutions. For example, in January 2001, Columbia/HCA, the largest hospital chain in the U.S., entered into the largest government fraud settlement in history. Pursuant to a global criminal plea and civil settlement agreement negotiated

by the Fraud Section, Columbia/HCA paid more than $95 million in criminal fines

and $745 million in civil damages and penalties for defrauding government health

care programs. At one point, there were criminal and civil matters open in over 30

districts. The Division’s Fraud Section coordinated these investigations, including

the coordination of nationwide search warrants, and had direct responsibility for

handling some of the investigations. This effort required the resolution of a number

of complex issues involving the United States Attorneys’ Offices, the Department’s Civil Division, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the National Association of Medicaid

Fraud Units.

INTERNAL SECURITY AND ESPIONAGE CRIMES

Bringing to justice individuals who spy on our country is a high priority for the

Division. The Criminal Division’s Internal Security Section is responsible for conducting, handling, and supervising the investigations and prosecution of all espionage cases, which constitute some of the most sensitive cases handled by the Department. The Internal Security Section is the Department’s chief resource when it

comes to addressing issues that arise in investigations and prosecutions under the

various national security statutes and those that cut across intelligence and law enforcement lines. At the present time, the Division is actively engaged in a number

of ongoing investigations and prosecutions, and is monitoring and assisting in countless others.

The Internal Security Section also oversees cases involving efforts on the part of

foreign governments and other organizations to acquire U.S. military and strategic

technology illicitly, and cases in which classified information has been disclosed publicly without authorization. One current initiative is to develop law enforcement

strategies for investigations and prosecutions relating to offenses committed by

countries known to sponsor terrorism and illegally to procure weapons and strategic

technology from the United States.

As an increasing number of Federal criminal cases involve international issues,

more and more cases involve intelligence agency participation and/or equities. The

Internal Security Section serves as the Department’s interface with the intelligence

community on criminal cases involving intelligence community concerns. DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.001 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
85

ment policy requires that all communications by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices with the

intelligence community on criminal cases be coordinated with the Division. Each

year the Division participates in well over 50 cases involving the potential discovery

and/or disclosure of classified information.

ALIEN SMUGGLING

Recently, the Criminal Division established an Alien Smuggling Task Force to ensure that the Department takes a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the

growing problem of alien smuggling. The Task Force is involved in policy, operational, and training matters. The Task Force works closely with various government agencies, both within and outside the Department, including the Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS), the FBI, the Departments of State and Transportation (U.S. Coast Guard), the National Security Council, and the Intelligence Community.

The Task Force also assists other components of the United States Government

in addressing unusual or complex issues pertaining to smuggling from particular

countries, including China and Cuba. Currently, the Task Force is part of a group

that focuses on China-based smuggling organizations, particularly those involved in

the use of shipping containers. The Task Force also participates in the semi-annual

U.S.-Cuba Migration Talks. On an international level, the Task Force works closely

with U.S. law enforcement agents stationed abroad and with foreign counterparts

on a variety of issues, including training, promoting the new U.N. protocol on migrant smuggling, enacting and enforcing alien smuggling laws, and investigating

large and dangerous international alien smuggling organizations.

Domestically, and in support of its international efforts, the Task Force works

with prosecutors throughout the United States, giving legal advice, coordinating

multi-district investigations, and providing litigation support in particular cases,

primarily those having sensitive intelligence or international aspects. For example,

the Task Force assisted in a Federal prosecution in Houston involving an organization that smuggled women from Thailand to work as prostitutes. The Task Force

also is creating an electronic brief bank to assist Federal prosecutors.

TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN AND CHILD EXPLOITATION

The Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) has developed an

expertise in the areas of trafficking of women for prostitution and use of the Internet by child pornography and pedophile rings and uses this expertise to represent

the Justice Department internationally. CEOS attorneys have a broad perspective

on sex exploitation issues that enables them to work with Interpol, the European

Union, and others on sharing best practices to combat trafficking in persons and

child pornography. CEOS also implements the Victims of Trafficking and Violence

Protection Act of 2000 by providing training to foreign law enforcement, as called

for by the Act.

CEOS is also uniquely positioned to advise the State Department on international

issues involving sex exploitation. For example, CEOS has been instrumental in advising the Department of State on what would be consistent with U.S. law during

the negotiations on the Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child, the Convention

on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, and the Protocol to Combat the Trafficking of

Persons. CEOS has researched Federal law and the law of all 50 States to ensure

that the United States can sign and ratify these multilateral instruments.

In addition, investigating and prosecuting crimes against children is one of the

highest priorities of the Department and the Division. Both the FBI and the U.S.

Customs Service have set as a priority the development of national and international-scale child pornography cases. Because such cases involve multiple districts, CEOS manages and coordinates such multi-jurisdictional cases.

WAR CRIMES AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Division’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) investigates and takes appropriate action against persons who, in conjunction with the Axis regimes, participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin or

political opinion between 1933 and 1945. Although the Office’s workload was expected to decrease with the aging of its targeted criminal population, a number of

factors have combined to expand workload over what was previously anticipated.

These factors include:

1. The fall of Communism in Europe has generated scores of new investigations

and numerous new prosecutions by permitting direct investigative access for

the first time to archives that collectively house the largest group of captured

86

Nazi war documents extant. OSI is continuing to exploit access to archives

in cities and villages throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet

Union that have opened since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

2. OSI has developed the expertise to investigate persons who participated in

Japanese persecution during World War II.

3. OSI has assumed responsibility in major Administration and congressional

initiatives, such as the massive inter-agency investigation into assets looted

from victims of Nazi persecution, in which OSI took principal investigative

responsibility (and lead departmental responsibility).

4. The Executive Branch has complied with the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure

Act and the Japanese War Crimes Disclosure Act, as to which OSI has provided major logistical, historical and financial support, as well as departmental representation.

The Division anticipates that each of these factors will continue to expand the Office’s workload.

Finally, I would like to address three Offices within the Criminal Division that

support the prosecutorial and law enforcement functions of the Division and U.S.

Attorneys’ Offices.

ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

The Division’s Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) provides investigative and

prosecutorial support, legal advice, and statutorily-required review and approval in

almost 40 distinct subject areas. Among the investigative and prosecutorial support

services that OEO provides to the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, Federal investigative

agencies, and the various Criminal Division components are:

1. Reviewing all Federal requests to intercept wire, oral, and most types of electronic communications (discussed more fully below);

2. Authorizing or denying the entry of applicants into the Witness Security Program;

3. Reviewing and authorizing requests to apply for court orders permitting the

use of video surveillance;

4. Reviewing and deciding applications for transfer made through the International Prisoner Transfer Program and serving as liaison between all governments involved in the program; and

5. Coordinating requests to immunize witnesses, subpoena attorneys or the

media, or search the offices of attorneys who are suspects or targets of an

investigation.

Title III Electronic Surveillance

As mentioned above, the Criminal Division’s OEO reviews each application for

court-authorized interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications, and

makes a recommendation to the authorizing official as to the legality and appropriateness of the request. OEO attorneys, who are experts on electronic surveillance,

work closely with Federal law enforcement officials in the drafting and review of

these requests, as well as on the myriad of legal issues that arise during the course

of investigations utilizing electronic surveillance and on legislative and policy matters involving electronic surveillance.

Because of enforcement efforts, such as the counterdrug Special Operations Division (discussed above), the number of new wiretaps in drug investigations has

grown significantly. In Fiscal Year 2000, OEO processed the largest number of wiretap applications in its history, 1,607(an increase from 1,591 in Fiscal Year 1999),

and OEO projects another increase in Fiscal Year 2001—to approximately 1750

wiretaps. Nearly 80 percent of the wiretap applications processed by OEO were for

narcotics investigations.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE ISSUES

The Division’s responsibilities to develop, enforce, and exercise general oversight

for Federal criminal laws are also carried out through the support provided by the

Appellate Section, which prepares draft briefs and certiorari petitions for the Solicitor General for filing in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Appellate Section makes recommendations to the Solicitor General as to whether further review is warranted

of adverse decisions in the District Courts and Courts of Appeals. In addition, the

Section prepares briefs and argues cases in the Courts of Appeals and in District

Courts in cases of national importance. Section attorneys also assist U.S. Attorneys

87

in preparing briefs for the Courts of Appeals and provide advice on the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Commerce Clause issues, recent Supreme Court decisions, and a variety of other criminal legal matters.

POLICY AND LEGISLATION

The Office of Policy and Legislation (OPL): analyzes policy and management

issues relating to the criminal justice system; identifies problems and emerging

trends; develops options, recommendations and legislative proposals; and provides

research, technical, and management support to senior managers in the Division

and the Department. The Office is involved in projects that require regular interaction and coordination with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Office of Justice Programs,

and Federal investigators, as well as other law enforcement officials. It works closely with the U.S. Sentencing Commission and provides legal support to the Advisory

Committee on Criminal Rules and Evidence of the Judicial Conference regarding the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Minority Member Scott, I would like to thank you

and the other Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to describe the responsibilities and activities of the Criminal Division. At this time I would be pleased

to address any inquiries you might have regarding the Criminal Division. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Members of your Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.

Ms. Leary?

STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, ACTING ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Ms. LEARY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Subcommittee.

I am very pleased to have this chance to come and discuss the

programs and activities of the Office of Justice Programs.

As you know, OJP works with States and with local communities

to improve their ability to reduce crime and illegal drug use, to improve the operations of the criminal and the juvenile justice systems, and to assist crime victims. We develop innovative crime reduction approaches. We provide technical expertise, funding, training, and other tools to assist communities in fighting crime.

We also conduct research to determine what works in reducing

crime and improving our justice system. We disseminate the results of that knowledge to practitioners and policymakers throughout the country so that they can make well-informed decisions

about how to allocate their Federal, State, and local resources.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have served as the Acting Assistant Attorney General at OJP for just over a year now, and during

that time and during my previous many years with the Department of Justice, I have been really impressed by the many innovative initiatives developed through OJP and with the sound and

fruitful partnerships that OJP has developed with State and local

criminal justice practitioners.

I spent 16 years as a State prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, initially, and then in the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in

DC before I came over to OJP. When I was in those positions, particularly at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC, I had a chance to see

firsthand the positive impact that many of the OJP programs, particularly Weed and Seed, can have on a community.

As a front-line prosecutor, I have seen the devastation that crime

can wreak in a community, especially violent crime. But I have

88

really also seen how those crime-torn communities, with a lot of

hard work and dedication at that local level and some targeted

Federal resources, can take hold of it, turn their neighborhoods

around, and make them safe places to live.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for your support for this kind of important work that OJP

has been doing. I particularly appreciate your interest in the past

year or so in our efforts to restructure our agency so that we can

better meet the needs of our State and local constituents.

I am looking forward to giving my support and assistance to

OJP’s new leadership in this Administration to build on the work

that has already been done to improve customer service, eliminate

redundancy and enhance our operations at OJP.

Our goal is to improve OJP’s abilities to serve State and local

justice practitioners and to contribute to the Administration’s priorities, which are reducing gun use, combating illegal drug use, guaranteeing the rights of all Americans and empowering communities

in their fight against crime.

I am sure that you are aware that we just announced plans last week to award $75 million in grants to help communities hire prosecutors who will be dedicated to the prosecution of firearms-related

violent crimes.

This community gun violence prosecution program will help jurisdictions of every size more effectively prosecute gun-related

crimes. This initiative sends a signal to would-be criminals that the

community is ready and that they will face serious consequences if

they use a gun to commit a crime.

We are planning in 2002 to build on this effort. We have re- quested almost $50 million for a new program, and that program

will provide grants to help States target gun criminals, increase arrests and prosecutions, and develop public awareness campaigns

and partnerships to deter gun violence.

We also plan to support Project Sentry. That is a new effort that

would establish safe schools task forces across the country to prosecute and supervise juveniles who carry or use guns illegally, as

well as the adults who illegally furnish firearms to them. Project

Sentry would also establish partnerships in the community,

schools, and the like to help deter kids from gun-related violence.

We are planning to implement Project Child Safe. This new program will fulfill the President’s promise to ensure that child safety

locks are available for every handgun in America. We will award

grants to State and local governments and establish a national tollfree hotline so that parents can use that to get more information

about safe gun storage.

We are also working to break the cycle of drug use and crime.

We plan to build on the success of our drug courts and our prisonbased drug treatment programs to expand these efforts. Law enforcement is a very effective and an essential tool in combating violent crime, but treatment for the individual abuser is also very important.

Research shows that treatment, especially for incarcerated offenders, is very successful at both reducing drug use and reducing

recidivism. For this reason, we requested an additional $11 million

to expand our Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program

89

next year. RSAT, as it is known, funds substance abuse treatment

for offenders incarcerated in State and local correctional facilities.

We are also looking in 2002 for funding for a new initiative that

will help overburdened prosecutors on the Southwest border increase drug case prosecutions. Thousands of Federal drug arrests

occurring near the Southwest border are now being referred to

county prosecutors because the quantity of drugs is too small to

meet the threshold set by the U.S. Attorneys there. The $50 million

requested in the 2002 budget will assist counties near the Southwest border with the cost of prosecuting and detaining these referrals.

And as you know, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General is strongly committed to ensuring the right of women to be protected

against violent crime. Since the passage of the Violence Against

Women Act in 1994, OJP has devoted over $1.5 billion in funding

as well as training, technical assistance, and other resources to

help communities improve their response to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

In 2002, we have requested $102.5 million in additional funding

for Violence Against Women programs. This will expand existing

programs and create several new programs under the Victims of

Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.

There is $15 million for a Safe Havens for Children Program, $5

million for a new Elder Abuse and Neglect and Exploitation Prevention Program, and $7.5 million for education and training to

end violence against and abuse of women with disabilities.

Because crime is most effectively addressed at the local level,

OJP is continuing to work to empower communities at that level

in their fight against crime.

I think one of our great successes in that regard is the Weed and

Seed program. It is now operating in over 250 communities.

As you know, that program was developed first in the Bush Administration. And in fact, in 1992, I ran the Weed and Seed program for then U.S. Attorney Jay Stevens here in DC. In that capacity, I saw for myself what a tremendous difference those programs

can make.

When I took the lead with Weed and Seed, I worked in a neighborhood over in Northeast called the Langston-Carver neighborhood. There was a hard core of residents in that community had

lived there for years. They raised their kids there. They were not

about to give up on that community.

And they worked with law enforcement and with other community partners. They were trust-builders for us. They went out in

the community and paved the way, and we all worked together. It

was the most remarkable and satisfying result I’ve experienced as

a prosecutor.

It started out small, and then we built on that. There was a law

enforcement effort. We came in and cleaned up the neighborhood.

And then we started looking at what the other problems were.

Neighborhood kids needed a safe place to go after school. We

started a Safe Haven.

Elderly folks were unwilling and afraid to come out of their

apartments. We started a program called ‘‘Grannies in the Hood’’

90

to provide services and activities for the elderly. And they all came

out.

Economic development, neighborhood cleanup, getting the abandoned cars removed, enforcing code violations—it was a team effort

for all the local and Federal agencies and the residents of that community.

They ended up feeling not just safe but proud—proud of their

neighborhood, proud of their neighbors, and proud of themselves. This fiscal year OJP will award more than $49 million to sustain

existing Weed and Seed programs and to expand that to additional

sites. Our 2002 budget request includes a $25 million increase for

Weed and Seed.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Leary, are you nearing the end of your remarks?

Ms. LEARY. I certainly am. Three paragraphs.

In addition to these budget increases, there are some reductions

in the OJP budget for four of our programs that have outlived their

original purpose, their authorizations, or are less essential to the

core Federal law enforcement functions.

These include discretionary grants, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and State

prison grants. And freeing these up will allow OJP and the Justice

Department to focus on the other priorities that I mentioned with

respect to guns, violence, and drugs.

My prepared statement gives you much more detail, and I am

happy that you will be including that in the record. I look forward

to working with you, the Members of this Committee, and new

leadership at OJP. I will be happy to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the operations of the Office of

Justice Programs (OJP) and its Fiscal Year 2002 budget. As you know, Mr. Chairman, for more than 30 years, OJP and its predecessor agencies have worked with

state, local, and tribal officials and community leaders to help identify criminal and

juvenile justice needs, develop innovative approaches to solving crime-related problems, leverage resources, and build capacity at the state and local levels to reduce

crime and illegal drug use, improve their criminal and juvenile justice systems, and

assist crime victims.

OJP provides funding, technical expertise, training, information-sharing, and

other resources to state, local, and tribal governments. It also sponsors research to

determine what works in reducing crime and improving justice operations and uses

the results of research and evaluation in program planning and resource allocation

to ensure the wise investment of taxpayer dollars.

During its 33-year history, OJP’s structure has evolved as various new statutes

have led to the creation of new infrastructure for program administration. As we

discussed with this Subcommittee at a hearing in July 1999, at the direction of Congress, OJP has undertaken a review of its current structure and developed a reorganization plan that would consolidate and streamline agency programs and activities

to more efficiently and effectively serve state, local, and tribal governments. A good

deal of work has been conducted, to date, to implement the principles of the reorganization plan approved by Congress.

However, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the Department’s leadership is currently

in a period of transition. And, as strongly as I believe the reorganization will greatly

benefit OJP, I also strongly believe that the new Department and OJP leadership

should be afforded the opportunity to review the reorganization plan and to make

recommendations to the current Administration before implementation of the new

structure.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, OJP comprises five program bureaus and six

program offices. The OJP program bureaus are:

91

• The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provides funding, training, and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal governments to combat violent and

drug-related crime and to help improve the criminal justice system. Its programs include the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement

Assistance formula and discretionary grant programs and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) program. BJA also administers the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Program, the State Criminal Alien Assistance

Program, the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) Program, and the

Tribal Courts Program.

• The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects and analyzes statistical data

on crime, criminal offenders, crime victims, and the operations of justice systems at all levels of government. It also provides financial and technical support to state statistical agencies and administers special programs that aid

state and local governments in improving their criminal history records and

information systems.

• The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) supports research and development

programs, conducts demonstrations of innovative approaches to improve

criminal justice, develops new criminal justice technologies, and evaluates the

effectiveness of OJP-supported and other justice programs. NIJ also provides

major support for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS),

a clearinghouse of information on justice issues.

• The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides

grants and contracts to states to help them improve their juvenile justice systems and conducts innovative demonstration projects and research, evaluation, statistics, replication, technical assistance, and training programs to

help improve the nation’s understanding of and response to juvenile violence

and delinquency.

• The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) administers victim compensation and

assistance grant programs created by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984

(VOCA). OVC also provides funding, training, and technical assistance to victim service organizations, criminal justice agencies, and other professionals to

improve the nation’s response to crime victims. OVC’s programs are funded

through the Crime Victims Fund, which is derived from fines and penalties

collected from federal criminal offenders, not taxpayers. OJP’s six program offices are:

• The Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) coordinates the Department of

Justice’s policy and other initiatives relating to violence against women and

administers grant programs to help prevent, detect, and stop violence against

women, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Since the

passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as part of the 1994

Crime Act, OJP has devoted considerable resources to help communities improve their responses to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking by

treating these offenses as serious crimes. OJP has provided over $1.5 billion

under its VAWA grant programs to promote partnerships among law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, and victim advocates to ensure victim safety

and accountability for offenders; to encourage arrest policies and improve investigations; to train law enforcement, court personnel, and victim advocates;

to combat family violence in rural and tribal communities; to combat violence

against women on college campuses; and to provide legal services to battered

women.

• The Corrections Program Office (CPO) provides financial and technical assistance to state and local governments to implement corrections-related programs, including correctional facility construction and corrections-based drug

treatment programs. CPO also awards grants to construct jails on tribal lands

to incarcerate offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction, manages the Center for

Sex Offender Management, and administers OJP’s offender reentry initiatives.

• The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) supports the development, implementation, and improvement of drug courts through grants to local or state

governments, courts, and tribal governments, as well as through technical assistance and training.

• The Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) helps communities build

stronger, safer neighborhoods by implementing the Weed and Seed strategy,

a community-based, multi- disciplinary approach to combating crime. Weed

and Seed involves both law enforcement and community-building activities,

including economic development and support services. United States AttorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.001 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
92

neys are essential partners in the implementation of Operation Weed and

Seed in communities throughout the country.

• The Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education (OPCLEE)

provides college educational assistance to students who commit to public service in law enforcement, and scholarships—with no service commitment—for

dependents of law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty.

• The Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS) is responsible for enhancing the capacity and capability of state and local jurisdictions to prepare for and respond to incidents of domestic terrorism involving

chemical and biological agents, radiological and explosive devices, and other

weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It awards grants for equipment and provides training and technical assistance for state and local first responders.

In addition, OJP’s American Indian and Alaskan Native Desk (AI/AN) improves

outreach to tribal communities. AI/AN works to enhance OJP’s response to tribes

by coordinating funding, training, and technical assistance and providing information about available OJP resources.

OJP has a Fiscal Year 2001 budget of over $4.2 billion and a staff of 947 to administer more than 50 grant and other programs to assist state, local, and tribal

governments in their law enforcement and other criminal justice responsibilities.

The bulk of OJP funds is awarded to the states as block or formula grants under

the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance formula

grant program, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant and Juvenile Justice formula grants programs, and the prison construction grant program. Other

large grant programs provide funds to local governments and agencies, as well as

states. These include the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program and the Violence Against Women grant programs.

OJP bureaus and offices also administer limited discretionary grant funding. Discretionary funds are awarded directly by OJP bureaus and offices to state, local, and

tribal agencies and private organizations for a wide range of activities relating to

criminal or juvenile justice. Each year, a large portion of discretionary grant funds

is earmarked by Congress for specific programs. Priorities for use of the remaining

funds are developed each fiscal year and announced in the OJP Program Plan, as

well as through application kits and individual program announcements.

In addition, OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime administers the Crime Victims

Fund, which is funded entirely by money paid in fines and penalties by federal

criminal offenders—not taxpayer dollars. Fines collected in one year by U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Courts, and the Bureau of Prisons are deposited into the fund and

are used for grant awards in the following year. Grants from the fund are awarded

to states to support organizations that provide direct services to crime victims and

for state victim compensation programs.

OJP also sponsors training and technical assistance for state, local, and tribal justice practitioners and others to disseminate the results of proven programs and

state-of-the-art practices and to build capacity at the state, local, and tribal levels

to prevent and control crime and improve justice system operations. Often, jurisdictions are able to replicate a successful program solely as a result of committed local

leaders receiving technical assistance or training in a proven new approach. OJP is

currently working to improve its delivery of training and technical assistance by

making more information available on the OJP Web site, by making greater use of

technology in delivering training and technical assistance, and by continuing to coordinate OJP training and technical assistance initiatives within the agency and

with other providers and consumers.

Research and evaluation—and disseminating those findings—also are central to

OJP’s mission. With the bipartisan support of Congress, money is now set-aside

under most major OJP programs for evaluations to help determine what works,

ways we can build on successful approaches, and to inform future federal spending.

OJP’s diverse research programs have helped to develop such now accepted practices as community policing and use of DNA evidence in criminal court proceedings.

OJP research also has resulted in the development of critical law enforcement

equipment, such as bullet-resistant vests, provided insight into arrestee drug abuse

patterns in major U.S. cities, and produced a wealth of statistical information to enhance our understanding of crime victimization, trends in law enforcement, and

prisoner populations. OJP also sponsors research on juvenile justice issues, including measures to prevent school violence, and compiles statistics on juvenile crime

and the juvenile justice system.

The results of OJP research and evaluation are disseminated widely so that policy

makers and practitioners can use these findings to improve their criminal and juvenile justice programs and operations. Much data and other information are included

93

on OJP’s Web site. OJP reports and conference calendars also are available through

our publications clearinghouse, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Through its grant, research, training, technical assistance and other initiatives,

OJP is making an important contribution to the Administration’s priorities of reducing gun crime, combating drug use, and empowering communities in their continued

fight against crime. Later this year, for example, OJP will award $75 million in

grants to help communities hire prosecutors who will be dedicated to the prosecution of firearm-related violent crimes.

The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 will build on this effort. While the total request of $3.8 billion is a reduction from last year’s level, it includes a number

of new initiatives for reducing violent crime and increases to existing programs. It

requests $49.78 million for a new gun violence program that will provide grants to

encourage states to increase the prosecution of gun criminals and assist them by

providing funding to establish programs that target gun criminals through increased

arrests and prosecutions and public awareness to deter gun crime. This funding will

support Project Exile and Project Ceasefire type programs that vigorously enforce

our gun laws and send a clear signal that our culture will not tolerate the illegal

use of firearms.

Another $20 million in 2002 funds would support Project Sentry. In conjunction with $9 million requested by the Office of U.S. Attorneys to hire dedicated youth

violence prosecutors, this funding would establish safe school task forces across the

country that will also prosecute and supervise juveniles who carry or use guns illegally, as well as the adults who illegally furnish firearms to them.

To fulfill the President’s commitment to ensure child safety locks are available for every handgun in America, $75 million is requested for Project Child Safe. OJP will

provide $65 million annually to state and local governments on a dollar-for-dollar

matching basis. The remaining $10 million will be spent annually on administrative

costs and advertising, including a national toll-free hotline to make sure all parents

are aware of the program.

OJP also is working to help states and local jurisdictions combat illegal drug use

and trafficking. Thousands of federal drug arrests occurring near the Southwest border are referred to county prosecutors because the quantity of drugs seized is too

small to meet the threshold set by local U.S. Attorneys for prosecution. The Department’s 2002 budget request includes $50 million to assist counties near the Southwest border with the costs of prosecuting and detaining these referrals. OJP grants

will be awarded based on Southwest county caseloads for processing, detaining, and

prosecuting drug and alien cases referred from federal arrestees.

The Administration’s 2002 budget also would expand OJP’s Residential Substance

Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, which provides funds for individual and group

substance abuse treatment activities for offenders in residential facilities operated

by state and local correctional agencies. While law enforcement is an effective and

essential tool in combating the violent crime associated with illegal drug use in communities throughout our nation, treatment for the individual abuser is also important. Research has shown that treatment—particularly for incarcerated offenders—

is successful in reducing both continued drug use and recidivism. For this reason,

the Administration is requesting an additional $11 million to expand residential

substance abuse treatment in state prison systems.

In addition, we have requested $5 million from NIJ’s base funds to expand the

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program to 15 additional sites across the

country, so that more communities will have sound data about the links between

drugs and crime on which to base their law enforcement policies and offender treatment practices.

For 2002, the Administration has requested a $102.5 million increase in Violence

Against Women Act programs to support new and existing programs. This includes

programs authorized under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

of 2000, such as $15 million for the Safe Havens for Children Pilot Grant Program;

$5 million for a new Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Prevention Program;

and $7.5 million for education and training to end violence against and abuse of

women with disabilities.

Because crime is most effectively addressed at the local level, OJP continues to

work with communities to provide coordinated federal funding, training, technical

assistance, and information- sharing to further empower communities in their fight

against crime. This effort involves building on successful programs such as Weed

and Seed, an initiative combining law enforcement and prevention that was developed during the first Bush Administration.

As a former United States Attorney, I saw first-hand the tremendous positive

change and community and neighborhood support these programs generate. In addition, the methodology of the Weed and Seed strategy has been independently evaluVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.001 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
94

ated and determined to work in reducing crime and improving the vitality of neighborhoods. The number of Weed and Seed sites has grown from 23 in 1993 to over

250 today. This fiscal year, OJP will award more than $49 million to sustain existing Weed and Seed programs and to expand the project to additional sites. President

Bush’s FY 2002 budget includes a $25 million increase for the Weed and Seed program, of which $15.5 million replaces funding previously allocated from the Department’s Asset Forfeiture Fund.

In addition to such increases, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration

also has proposed reductions in four OJP programs: Byrne discretionary grants; the

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant

Program; and state prison grants. These funding reductions will allow OJP and the

Department of Justice to meet the other law enforcement assistance priorities highlighted in this testimony, as well as the Federal law enforcement initiatives discussed in the testimony of other Department witnesses.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, through its grant programs, training, technical assistance, research, evaluation, and information-sharing activities, OJP is working to

help states, local governments, and Indian tribes improve their response to crime.

It will continue to build on these efforts and to contribute to the Administration’s

priorities of reducing gun crime, combating illegal drug use, guaranteeing the rights

of all Americans, and empowering communities in their fight against crime. I appreciate this Subcommittee’s support of OJP’s mission and programming, and look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to support the needs of state,

local, and tribal governments in reducing crime and illegal drug use, in sustaining

justice system improvements, and in ensuring the safety of our communities and our

citizens.

This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Leary.

Mr. Justus?

STATEMENT OF RALPH J. JUSTUS, ACTING DIRECTOR,

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES

Mr. JUSTUS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased and honored to appear before you today

as acting director of the office of Community Oriented Policing

Services or COPS.

I came to the COPS office in 1999 after a career in both private

and public sector management including 15 years in the Department of Justice.

Quite candidly, I do not have a background in policing. I have

a Ph.D. in economics. But in my 2 years at COPS, I have gained

a greater appreciation for the challenges facing the men and

women law enforcement and for the commitment and dedication of

these officers.

I think it is particularly appropriate that the Committee has chosen to hold this hearing during Police Week, the week set aside by

President Kennedy to honor these brave men and women.

The COPS Office, created in 1994 as a product of a bipartisan

effort to invest in the safety of our nation’s neighborhoods, our office was charged with two major responsibilities: advancing community policing and funding additional law enforcement officers.

Today, I will share with you the significant results from communities across America.

First and foremost, I am proud to say that COPS will have funded a total of 115,000 officers by the end of this fiscal year. Already

more than 73,000 of these officers are on the beat fighting crime

and improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods. These

grants have gone to more than 12,400 of our nation’s 18,000 law

enforcement agencies.

95

I am often asked why there is a gap between the officers funded

and the officers on the street. As you may know, it takes law enforcement agencies an average of 18 months to recruit, hire, and

train a qualified officer. This is, however, a necessary delay, ensuring that local agencies can carefully select and train officers who

will serve in our neighborhoods.

While COPS has partnered with many of our larger cities, we

have also made an important impact on small towns. More than 82

percent of our grants have gone to departments serving populations

of 50,000 or less. The COPS Office has helped to create nearly 300

new law enforcement agencies where, but for COPS funding, these

communities would not have a police department. COPS recognizes

that adding even one officer to a rural department can have a significant impact on both officers and community safety.

COPS is proud of our successes in advancing the practice of community policing nationwide. Just this year, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics showed that the number of community policing officers

increased by 400 percent between 1997 and 1999.

Recognizing that advancing community policing requires a significant investment in training, COPS has created 28 regional community policing institutes, which are located throughout the country. To date, over 147,000 officers and community members have

been trained in a variety of topic areas, including police ethics and

unbiased policing, school safety, technology implementation, and

basic community policy strategy.

COPS’ unique relationship with police has allowed us to respond

to emerging law enforcement challenges. After Congress made new

funding available in 1998, COPS moved swiftly to fund the hiring

of school resource officers to support safe and secure learning environments for all our children.

By the end of this fiscal year, COPS will have funded almost

5,000 school resource officers. We are proud to say this represents

an increase in the number of school resource officers nationwide by

nearly 40 percent.

I’d like to tell you about one of these officers, Sergeant Michael

Webb. Sergeant Webb is with the Springfield Township Police Department. A COPS grant made it possible for him to walk the beat

at Mt. Healthy Junior High School in suburban Ohio.

Without warning last September, an 8th grade student fired two

rounds into the ceiling of a classroom filled with math students.

Within minutes, Sergeant Webb entered the classroom with the

distressed student. The handgun was still loaded, and the boy had

stated his intention to kill his teacher.

Because of Sergeant Webb’s constant presence in the school, he

had developed a relationship with the 14-year-old and had insight

into his troubled background. After a discussion between Sergeant

Webb and the student, the boy agreed to hand over the weapon.

Sergeant Webb and other school resources officers perform a variety of functions, including teaching crime prevention classes,

mentoring troubled students, and building mutual respect between

law enforcement and student.

To continue this vital effort, the president seeks $180 million in

his fiscal year 2002 budget request to Congress to fund up to 1,500

additional school resource officers.

96

In addition to school safety, COPS has responded to the pressing

technology needs of American law enforcement. More than $1 billion in COPS technology grants has enabled 4,000 agencies to purchase state-of-the-art technology.

With COPS funds, the Oakland County, Michigan, law enforcement consortium purchased a comprehensive information system

that enabled officers throughout the county to process reports on

mobile data computers, submit reports, access fingerprints and

mug shot data, and conduct a pre-booking—all of this from the

field. In other words, officers can spend more time on the streets

fighting crime and less time in the station out pushing paper.

Recognizing the importance and continued demand for law enforcement technology, the president has requested $355 million in

technology funds. Of this, $100 million is dedicated for a new

COPS Info Tech program, a $20 million increase over the 2001

technology program. Info Tech continues to provide police with the

technology that is critical to officer safety and effective community

policing.

Recognizing excessive use of force and racial profiling undermines community trust and is a barrier to community policing, the

Administration proposes $17 million in fiscal year 2002 to strengthen the bonds between police and communities.

Since 1996, COPS has actively supported initiatives to promote

police integrity. We have developed model problem-solving and

peacemaking programs, technical assistance initiatives, and police

integrity training to be delivered to law enforcement community

members throughout the nation.

The COPS Office has provided significant resources to local law

enforcement to fight the proliferation of methamphetamine. Already we have dedicated $153 million to this effort. In fiscal year

2002, we’ll commit an additional $48 million to help State and local

authorities clean up dangerous meth labs and to train police officers in enforcement activities.

Finally, recognizing the continuing unique needs of tribal communities, the COPS also will provide $31 million in assistance to

Indian country law enforcement. These funds will be designated for

a comprehensive program designed specifically to develop and enhance tribal policing.

In conclusion, I am very proud of the COPS Office and the significant impact our grants have had on American law enforcement

and the communities they protect and serve.

To date, over $7.5 billion has been invested to make our nation

better, communities stronger, and our streets safer. This is an accomplishment we can all be proud of.

On behalf of the COPS Office, I would like to thank you for the

opportunity to testify about this important program. We look forward to working with you in the future, and I request that I may

submit my full written testimony for the record. I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Justus follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH JUSTUS

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott and members of the Subcommittee:

97

I am very pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services - or COPS. I am particularly honored to appear before

this subcommittee and proud to represent the COPS Office as its Acting Director.

I came to the COPS Office in 1999 after a career in both private and public sector

management, including eleven years in the Justice Department. Quite candidly, I

do not have a background in law enforcement, I have a Ph.D. in economics. However, in my two years at COPS I have gained a greater appreciation for the challenges facing the men and women in law enforcement and for the commitment and

dedication of these officers.

The COPS Office, created in 1994, is a product of a bipartisan effort to invest in

the safety of our nation’s neighborhoods. It is an embodiment of the concept that

truly safe communities, schools, businesses and homes result from police and communities working together. Our Office was charged with two major responsibilities:

to advance community policing and to fund additional law enforcement officers.

Today I will share with you the significant results that are being achieved in the

communities across America.

First and foremost, I am proud to say that to date, COPS has funded the addition

of more than 110,000 officers and we expect to reach 115,000 by the end of this fiscal year. Already, more than 73,000 of those officers are on the beat, fighting crime

and improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods. These grants have gone to

more than 12,400 of our nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies. The COPS office

has helped create nearly 300 new law enforcement agencies, where but for COPS

funding, these communities would not have a police department.

I am often asked why there is a gap between the officers funded and the officers

on the street. It takes law enforcement agencies an average of 18 months to recruit,

hire, and train a qualified officer. This is, however, a necessary delay, ensuring that

local agencies can carefully select and train officers who will serve in our neighborhoods. With technology grants that redeploy officers to the street, our experience

shows us this delay can take longer.

While COPS has partnered with many of our largest cities, we have also made

an important impact in small towns. More than 82% of our grants have gone to departments serving populations of 50,000 or less. COPS recognizes that adding even

one officer to a rural department can have a significant impact on both officers and

community safety.

In addition to the substantial investment in funding the addition of law enforcement officers, the COPS Office is responsible for advancing community policing. In

1993 one study showed that just 15% of law enforcement agencies practiced community policing. Today, 86% of the nation is served by an agency that practices community policing. Just this year, the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that the number of community policing officers increased by 400% between 1997 and 1999.

The COPS Office has advanced community policing not only by funding additional

community policing officers but also by providing practical training and technical assistance and useful research on new strategies to reduce crime and increase public

safety. To deliver this important training, COPS has created 28 Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs) which are located throughout the country. To date

over 147,000 officers and community members have been trained in a variety of

topic areas including the prevention of racial profiling, school safety, technology implementation and basic community policing strategies. Collaborating with other federal and private agencies, the RCPIs provide an effective use of federal funds to deliver training.

COPS unique relationship with police has allowed us to respond to emerging law

enforcement challenges. Regrettably, over the last several years, the safety of our

nation’s schools has been in doubt. After Congress made new funding available in

1998, COPS moved swiftly to fund the hiring of school resource officers and to foster

police/school partnerships. By the end of this fiscal year, COPS will have funded almost 5,000 school resource officers. We are proud to say this represents an increase

in the number of school resource officers nationwide by nearly 40%.

I’d like to tell you about one of these officers, Sergeant Michael Webb. Sergeant

Webb is with the Springfield Township Police Department. A COPS grant made it

possible for him to walk a beat in a suburban Ohio school, Mt. Healthy Junior High.

Without warning last September, an 8th grade student fired two rounds into the

ceiling of a room filled with math students. Within minutes, Sergeant Webb entered

the classroom with the distressed student. The handgun was still loaded and the

boy had stated his intention to kill his teacher. Because of Sergeant Webb’s constant

presence in the school he had the opportunity to develop a relationship with the 14-

year-old and had insight into his troubled background. After a discussion between

Sergeant Webb and the student, the boy agreed to hand over the weapon.

98

Sergeant Webb and other school resource officers perform a variety of functions,

including teaching crime prevention classes, monitoring troubled students, and

building mutual respect between law enforcement and students. COPS provides

these officers and their school administrators with team based training they need

to work in partnership to protect our children. To continue this vital effort, the

President seeks $180 million in his FY02 budget request to Congress to fund up to

1,500 additional school resource officers.

In addition to school safety, COPS has responded to the pressing technology needs

of American law enforcement. More than $1 billion in COPS technology grants has

enabled 4,000 agencies to purchase state-of- the-art technology. With this technology, law enforcement agencies can better communicate with each other, share information, and make officers more effective and efficient.

With COPS funds the Oakland County, Michigan Law Enforcement Consortium

purchased a comprehensive information system that enables officers throughout the

county to process reports on mobile data computers, submit reports, access fingerprint and mugshot data, and conduct a pre-booking—all from the field. In other

words, officers can spend more time on the street fighting crime and less time in

the station house pushing paper.

Recognizing the importance and continued demand for law enforcement technology, the President has requested $355 million in technology funds. Of this, $100

million is dedicated for a new COPS Info Tech program, a $20 million increase over

the 2001 technology program. It will differ from our earlier technology programs by

eliminating the burdensome redeployment tracking component. But remains similar

by continuing to provide police with the technology that is critical to officer safety

and effective community policing.

Another major component of technology that COPS will fund in 2002 is the Crime

Identification Technology Assistance Act (CITA). CITA is slated to receive a $21 million increase to provide assistance to states establishing or upgrading criminal justice information systems and identification technologies. CITA funding may also be

used to provide support for state and local-level participation in nationally managed

databases. Other technology programs that are also expected to be funded separately from CITA include the National Criminal History Improvement Program,

DNA Backlog Elimination and the Crime Laboratory Improvement Program for a

proposed $35 million each.

Recognizing excessive use of force and racial profiling undermines community

trust, and is a barrier to community policing, the Administration proposes $17 million in FY02 to strengthen the bonds between police and community. Since 1996,

the COPS Office has initiated a nationwide dialogue on police integrity, engaging

law enforcement, community-based organizations, researchers, and practitioners in

this critical discussion. From this dialogue, COPS has developed model problem

solving and peacemaking programs, technical assistance initiatives, and police integrity training to be delivered to law enforcement and community members throughout the nation.

The COPS Office has provided significant resources to local law enforcement to

fight the proliferation of methamphetamine. Already we have dedicated $153 million

to this effort. In 2002, we will commit $48 million to help state and local authorities

with meth lab enforcement and cleanup, of which $20 million will be grants exclusively for cleanup.

Finally, recognizing the continuing, unique needs of tribal communities the COPS

Office will provide $31 million in assistance to Indian country law enforcement.

These funds will be designated for a comprehensive program designed specifically

to develop and enhance tribal law enforcement agencies through specialized training, the hiring of officers, as well as the funding of equipment, technology, and vehicles.

In conclusion, I am very proud of the COPS Office and the significant impact our

grants have had on American law enforcement and the communities they protect

and serve. To date over $7.5 billion has been invested to make our nation better,

communities stronger, and our streets safer. This is an accomplishment we all can

be proud of.

On behalf of the COPS Office, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to

testify about this important program. We look forward to working with you in the

future.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Justus.

Before we get to our questions, I want to acknowledge the presence of several Members who have joined us since our opening

99

statement. Mr. Barr, the gentleman from Georgia; the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Weiner; the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.

Conyers; and the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

Mr. Horowitz, let me begin my questioning with you. My first

question goes to a subject that you mentioned at the very last or

the very end of your oral testimony today, and that is the subject

of cybercrime and cyberterrorism.

And that is of special interest, I think, to Members of this Subcommittee. And in fact, we are having one or more hearings on the

subject of cybercrime between now and the end of June, so you may

well be back to join us in discussing that subject more extensively.

But in any case, why is that the Department of Justice wants an

increase in funds? Have you seen an increase in cybercrime and

cyberterrorism? How bad is the situation?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Mr. Chairman, we have in fact seen a substantial

increase in the problem of cybercrime and cyberterrorism largely,

again, due to the international growth of the use of technology.

The problem has become international in nature. We find ourselves spending a considerable amount of time, for example, working with our partners in Europe and around the rest of the world

in developing treaties and working arrangements so that when we

have an attack such as, for example, the Love Bug attack which

originated in the Philippines, that we can react to that, work with

our partners around the world to as quickly as possible determine

where the attack came from.

Because, as you know, when the attack first hits, you don’t know

whether it’s an attack based within our borders, an attack coming

from outside in, whether it is perhaps juveniles who are simply trying to harass or go after certain entities, or a terrorist attack of

some sort. And there is a substantial amount of resources that go

into that initial day and then several-week period where we in law

enforcement are trying to learn that information.

Mr. SMITH. What is the current budget? And what have you

asked for in the new budget?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Our current budget generally is $110 million.

We’re asking for $120 million. $3 million of that increase would go

toward both cybercrime and—both our Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, our Terrorism and Violent Crime Section,

and our International Affairs Section, because they really need to

work cooperatively to address this problem.

Mr. SMITH. One of the other responsibilities of the Criminal Division is reducing the international and national drug trafficking cartels and their influence. What is being done in that regard?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, at the Criminal Division level, we have a

number of different programs that we’re involved with, primarily

our Special Operations Division, which works as I mentioned with

all of law enforcement—the DEA, the FBI and the Customs Service—coordinating with our U.S. attorneys and our Criminal Division prosecutors to look at problems globally—nationally and internationally.

The problem has been, in the past, that prosecutors in perhaps

my old district in the Southern District of New York, or pick any

other district around the country, sees the problem as it is confined

to their borders.

100

And one of the keys I think that we in the Criminal Division play

is to make sure that picture goes broader, that it ties together, for

example, the wiretaps that we might have in one office and in another office, and they would not on their own perhaps be interacting and recognizing that they each had relevant information for

the other. And so we play a significant role there.

We obviously have the Plan Colombia, the U.S. Colombia initiative ongoing in the country of Colombia, in which the Criminal Division is playing an important role in the implementation of the

plan and the $88 million that has been—that has been appropriated for that plan.

We also have the bilateral initiatives that we are working with

Mexico, which is obviously a very important participant in our drug

interdiction efforts.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. That is good and encouraging news.

Mr. Horowitz, you probably anticipated my last question, which

is this: Have you updated the computer technology within the

Criminal Division of the Department of Justice?

Mr. HOROWITZ. We are actually undertaking that. We are about

to undertake another step in the next year of upgrading all of our

computers.

It has been, frankly, as chief of staff, one of the complaints I hear

most from our prosecutors in the division, which is older computer

equipment.

Mr. SMITH. Are you aware of any deficiency in your computer

system as you sit here today?

Mr. HOROWITZ. No, I am not. The complaints that we have received are generally from the prosecutors there trying, using equipment that is perhaps now 1, 2 or 3 years old. And this year, I’m

told, we will be in line to receive a substantial portion of the department’s budget to upgrade our computer facilities, and that will

certainly help.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.

Mr. Justus, in regard to the COPS program, it seems to me that

the funds designated by that program have not necessarily been

targeted at those areas where the highest crime rates exist. Why

is that?

Mr. JUSTUS. A couple reasons. One, the legislation we operate requires us to give half of the grant money to populations of over

150,000 and half of it to populations under 150,000.

While we do give substantial amounts of money to areas which

are high-crime areas——

Mr. SMITH. Right. But within those two designations, over

150,000 people and fewer than 150,000 people, within those designations, have the funds been targeted at the areas of the highest

crime rates?

Mr. JUSTUS. No, they haven’t.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Why is that?

Mr. JUSTUS. The expectation, the anticipation, is people that are

having problems are applying for these grants. And community policing, I think, affects all facets of our communities.

Mr. SMITH. If individuals representing the areas with the highest

crime rates haven’t applied, they may need some education as to

the problems they already have that they don’t acknowledge.

101

We don’t need to go into it in any more detail right now, but to

me a lot of the funds in the COPS program should have been targeted at the highest crime—at the areas with the highest crime

rates rather than just relying on sort of individuals to apply for the

funds when many individuals might have needed those funds more.

That’s maybe a philosophical disagreement that I had with the program, but I thank you for your brief explanation.

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for his

questions.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer to the gentlelady

from Texas. She has another appointment.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for

her questions.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I thank the Ranking

Member. I thank the Ranking Member of the full Committee, and

I thank the Chairman very much.

I have an opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that I’d just like to

have submitted into the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you Chairman Smith for convening today’s oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice.

It has been more than 20 years since the Department’s last reauthorization. It

is my view that the Department of Justice should be properly funded to so that it

can continue to provide essential protection for all Americans. Whether it be for

interdiction, research, preparedness, education, or alternatives to incarceration, the

Department and its thousands of men and woman who we owe so much to deserve

to have our full support so that they can do the job.

I look forward to our continued work in this Committee in reaching consensus on

funding priorities, because there can be little question that many of us share common goals for the American people.

I believe that this Committee has a responsibility to insure that the Department

is maximizing its resources in accordance with its appropriations requests, and that

those funds are being used for the greatest possible social good. Good.

Today, we are happy to welcome representatives from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Criminal Division, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS), and to evaluate their appropriations requests. The Office of Justice

Programs (OJP) is seeking $4.2 billion in FY 2002, compared to $5.2 for FY 2001.

The primary difference in these being the reduction in the COPS program which

reached its goal of hiring and deploying 100,000 officers nationwide.

The Criminal Division is seeking increases in funding from $110 million in FY

2001 to $230 million in FY 2002. Lastly, the COPS program has been reduced by

$228 million for FY 2002, while leaving $180 million for hiring School Resource Officers, and increasing technology assistance funding in other areas.

While we have much to be proud of in terms of the good work that is being done

in the Department of Justice, I believe that much more work and effort ought to

be spent to reform the system with an eye towards prevention, rehabilitation and

alternatives to incarceration.

In our last hearing on this issue two weeks ago we began to discuss the ongoing

problem of drugs, and what many of us on this Committee believe are systemic

problems with our enforcement directives in the War on Drugs. To address this and

other very serious problems we must focus in on what has been proven to work and

what hasn’t.

We should increase our support and build on our success, while at the same time

we must learn from the mistakes of failed policies and failed programs, cut our

losses and move on. For example, on May 10 at the White House the President

stressed the need to expand drug treatment in the criminal justice system. Programs such as these have been proven to be effective because they seek to address

the root of the problem, as opposed to merely incarcerating offenders, which most

experts would agree, does little to address causes of abuse and recidivism.

102

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics over 600,000 offenders a year are

returning from America’s prisons to their communities. This is encouraging because

it demonstrates that rehabilitation works. However, I am concerned by the President’s FY 2002 budget request, which decreases funding for reentry programs. It

makes little sense to reduce what has been proven to work.

We must also continue to address and end the discriminatory and unfair practice

of racial profiling which disproportionately effects minority men in this country. So

while I applaud the recent attention given to this issue by the Attorney General,

I believe that much more support and action is needed to increase awareness of the

problem, so that we can begin to change the culture of racial profiling that exists

in our Department of Justice. I hope that the Department will do all that it can

to help end this insidious practice.

We must also do much more in our efforts to diversify the Department of Justice

by hiring more minorities and women so that the Department reflects the rich diversity of the American people. To the Department’s credit, hiring of Hispanics exceeded relevant civilian labor force representation, according to a recent OPM study.

However, the same study shows 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 African-American. And

while the DOJ consisted of 37.7% women, that number was over 9% less than what

it should have been based on overall hiring percentages of women in the civilian

work force.

In all, our policies are due for a serious reexamination. I look forward to hearing

your suggestions, and to our continued work together on providing sufficient resources for the Department of Justice and the American people.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. All Members’ opening statements will be a part of the

record.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me thank the witnesses for your work and commitment, and

I know that your commitment is continuing. And I know that most

of the Members of this Committee are lawyers and appreciate very

much a great part of the work that the Department of Justice has

to do.

Let me probe you on some concerns that I have with respect to

some of our particular focuses.

And Mr. Justus, you were very certainly pronounced and you had

anecdotal stories about the COPS program. I am aware of the IG’s

audit. I always think that we can improve upon what we have.

But I do note that over the course of the last 10 years or so or

the period of time, let’s say, that the COPS program has been implemented and the number of small jurisdictions and large jurisdictions that have utilized it, I do believe there is a correlation in the

decrease in crime to the COPS program.

I’m concerned with taking $228 million out of the program. And

your focus certainly has a high calling—school resource offices.

On the other hand, I am concerned about an oversaturation of,

in quotes, ‘‘police-like presence’’ in our schools. And I would hope

that we would have a collaboration to deal with mental health

services, counselors and others, who could equally gain the confidence of the particular student.

And so this is something I really am going to oppose, but I want

to pose the question: What made you feel comfortable in focusing

in this direction on that? And I’m going to ask you that very briefly, because I have some questions for the other individuals.

Mr. JUSTUS. Because I think the demand is out there in the community for the school resource officers, but we do have other programs that I think work in areas like you described, partnerships

with community groups.

103

We have the school-based partnership, which we put $30 million

into 275 law enforcement agencies, to work with community groups

to reduce violence in our schools and among our young people.

We have an after-school program in which we work with community groups, faith-based groups, to try to develop activities such as

through PAL for kids after school.

We have a program that we are involved in called Safe Schools/

Healthy Students where we work in cooperation with the Department of Education and Health and Human Services to get community groups involved in all aspects of young people’s lives.

So we aren’t just focusing all our efforts on school resource officers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I appreciate that. If I might just interject

just for a moment, and I won’t pursue it. I’ll work with you directly

on my concern.

That speaks to the question that those kinds of resources, counselors, may be much better suited for school resource officers when

I think the COPS program with fixing is one that has been evident,

or there has been evidence that what we have seen in a diminishing of crime statistics, whether rural or urban, have been very

effective.

Let me just, and I will engage you, but my time is short, so I

thank you very much for that. I would like to discuss further with

you—I continually always raise the questions of professional development of any kind of police officers, and I would like to talk to

you with whether we’ve got any funding in there for continued police professional development as it relates to civil rights and

human rights.

Mr. JUSTUS. I would be happy to, Congresswoman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you very much.

Let me generally just speak to some concerns that I have as I

look at the budgeting process, whoever may answer this.

I’m wondering if we’ve got a lot of dollars here, do we have—I

understand the attorney general is investigating the issue of racial

profiling. Where is the funding going to come to be remedial in the

results of that?

And then secondarily, let me say, as it relates to Mr. Horowitz,

I looked at the Criminal Division, has a lot to do with training of

our prosecutors. Very fine work. We’ve got very fine prosecutors.

But let me just say that all of us, all of us Mr. Horowitz, have absolute mud, egg, and whatever else we can have on our faces regarding Mr. McVeigh.

And as I note that you are dealing with training of prosecutors,

though the light has been on the FBI, none of us can shun the total

embarrassment of the insensitivity to the victims’ families and all

that goes in it, along with our concern for justice. And rightly so

we’re concerned for justice.

But the prosecutors also have the responsibility to probe and

probe and probe and probe, and why did that not secure for them

all of the documents that they needed to have, along with the chagrin that I assume the FBI is facing of not presenting them all the

documents? If you would answer that question?

Can I have an additional 30 seconds for him to answer, please,

Mr. Chairman?

104

Mr. SMITH. Yes, if the witness will please answer the question?

Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will.

I agree with you, Congresswoman, that prosecutors need to be

trained to perform at the highest ethical standards. They have a

responsibility to carry out their duties fully but fairly. And we certainly—I know in my former office—spent a fair amount of time on

training, and just for that reason.

With regard to the McVeigh case specifically, I can’t sit here and

tell you I have answers. Obviously, the inspector general is reviewing that issue, and I’d be hesitant to speculate as to what the reasons were. But I certainly understand your concerns about the importance of prosecutors taking a role in making sure that ethical

responsibilities are carried out fully.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman. I thank the Ranking

Member. I am going to pursue those lines of questioning with you

all individually or in our respective offices on that, and I appreciate

it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.

The gentleman from North Carolina—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. And thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Mr. Coble, is recognized for his questions.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another meeting

I’ve got to attend, but I want to put this question to the panelists

before I leave.

Each of your offices has a role in anti-cybercrime efforts. Tell us,

if you will, how you all coordinate with one another, A; B, with

States and localities; and, C, with private businesses in fighting

cybercrime.

Mr. HOROWITZ. One of the things that our Computer Crime and

Intellectual Property Section has worked diligently on is to develop

relationships with industry to prevent a situation from where we

are imposing our views and positions on industry but are working

cooperatively with them to understand the problems they have in

gathering evidence and producing it to us and trying to reach a solution that works for our concerns, reaches our concerns, but

doesn’t unnecessarily interfere with their business operation.

We also are trying to put together networks throughout the country of State, local, and Federal prosecutors to coordinate when we

have a cybercrime attack, for example, in a locality, so that we can

respond effectively to it. And that’s one of the networks we are trying to build, not just here but internationally as well.

Mr. COBLE. And do you all do that with one another, I presume,

in an open and continuing manner?

Ms. LEARY. Yes, we do, sir. Although speaking for the Office of

Justice Programs, our efforts are really focused on helping State

and local law enforcement agencies deal with cybercrime.

We sponsor the National White Collar Crimes Training Partnership in West Virginia, and that maintains—they do a lot of training and technical assistance and provide information about best

practices and emerging trends to State and local law enforcement

105

agencies across the country. They also run centralized services so

that an individual who has a complaint about fraud or Internet

kind of complaints can register that complaint there, and the information gets shared, and local and State law enforcement agencies

can better pursue it. So it kind of works in tandem.

Mr. COBLE. I’ve got you.

Mr. Justus?

Mr. JUSTUS. Similar to Office of Justice Programs, we are very

active with State and local law enforcement in providing them with

technology, giving them training and technical assistance so they

can deal with issues like this.

Mr. COBLE. I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Justus, I noticed I think that $38 million have been requested for Project Child Safe, for trigger locks?

Ms. LEARY. That’s an Office of Justice Programs.

Mr. BARR. Ms. Leary?

Ms. LEARY. That’s correct.

Mr. BARR. To ensure that child safety locks are put on guns?

Ms. LEARY. That’s right. This is—there’s actually a State program in Texas now, which is called Project Child Safe, and this is

a national version of it. And it is to provide funding so that every

firearm can have a child safety lock.

Mr. BARR. How many people actually use safety locks, of those

that are given to them? I know when you purchase a handgun now,

you’re given a safety lock. Does the department have any way of

knowing how many of those are used or how many are just discarded?

Ms. LEARY. I really cannot answer that, but I will check and see

if there is any background information about the number of child

safety locks that are actually used. I will check on that and get

back to you.

Mr. BARR. I mean, $38 million is a lot of money. Isn’t there—

doesn’t that also contemplate additional monies, matching monies

from the States?

Ms. LEARY. Yes, it does.

Mr. BARR. Where’s all that money going to go if—and how did

you all come up with $38 million for this? If handguns are already

required to have a safety lock with them when they’re sold, and a

lot of folks already have safety locks anyway—I think there are

something like only 65 million handguns nationally—how did you

all come up with—that basically would be $76 million if you have

$38 million that the feds are proposing plus an equal amount from

the States.

It seems like an awful lot of money for something—granted, it

sounds good. I mean, how can anybody argue with safety locks for

the children?

But how do you come up with that figure and how do you have—

I’m mystified as to how you would have any idea whether that

money is going to be used wisely, whether it’s going to have any

impact. Did you all do a study before coming up with this amount

of money?

106

Ms. LEARY. I think actually the program was quite successful in

Texas. And I think there is a sense there are a lot of handguns out

there that don’t currently have child safety locks.

Mr. BARR. A lot of people have a sense that there’s a lot of things

out there, but we’re talking about hard dollars here, taxpayer dollars.

I’d appreciate it if you could provide us with some background

as to how you all came up with this, and if there are any studies

other than the fact that, granted, it might have worked great in

Texas. But what research has been done to justify basically proposing $76 million for child locks?

Ms. LEARY. I’ll be happy to look into the background research on

that and provide it to you.

Mr. BARR. I’d appreciate that.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Mr. Scott yields his time to the gentleman from New York, Mr.

Weiner, and he is recognized for his questions.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Justus, is your name in any way responsible for your getting

the job, or is it—— [Laughter.]

Mr. JUSTUS. In part. In part.

Mr. WEINER. Did you change the name?

About the COPS program, one of the critiques that we hear, and

I’m very pleased to read such favorable testimony about it, one of

the things that we’ve heard police departments around the country

express some concern about is not the program, because the program has been one of the most democratic with a small ‘‘D’’ programs in all of government, 12,000-some-odd police departments,

82 percent of them police departments of less than—representing

police departments of less than 50,000 persons.

But one of the criticisms that has been made is that the Federal

Government is funding these officers in the neighborhood of

110,000 to 115,000. And at the end of the program, police departments who might not have the ability to are being left to absorb

the full cost of these officers.

And many of us believe that the COPS program should be reauthorized with greater flexibility, theoretically a Republican concept,

to allow for officers that are on the beat, for the Federal Government to have some role in keeping them on the beat. Is that the

position of the Administration?

Mr. JUSTUS. I can’t speak for the Administration. I am a career

employee.

But what I can tell you is, we did a survey last fall of on-thestreet officers. And during that survey, we reviewed all of the

grants that expired, some 7,000 grants, and we found in those

grants that 92 percent of the officers were retained after the grant

had expired and their requirement for retention. So we’re pleased

with the retention that is occurring right now.

Mr. WEINER. Forgive me. Perhaps Ms. Leary or Mr. Horowitz can

answer the question about whether or not it is the Administration’s

position that we should provide police departments that we have

helped with the COPS funding additional funding or extended

funding under the reauthorization to allow them to help in retaining officers.

107

Is someone here empowered to speak for the Administration on

that point?

Ms. LEARY. I think what I can speak to is that the Administration is eager to provide the cops who have been funded thus far

with better equipment, more technology, and so they’re trying to

make the funding more flexible and direct some of the dollars toward providing those technological tools and toward addressing the

issue of school violence. And that’s the——

Mr. WEINER. But in fact the COPS MORE program has been

eliminated?

Ms. LEARY. Yes. But the technology money that is available

through COPS has been increased, and COPS MORE was basically

a way for police departments to add technology, and they had to

do these calculations, which were extremely difficult to do, frankly,

about——

Mr. WEINER. Well, in fact, weren’t the—the calculations, if you

recall the history of this program, were in response to concerns by

both parties here that money would be accountable, and that you’d

be able to quantify the COPS money as being accountable for an

additional cop on the street.

So when the COPS MORE program was eliminated, the Civilian

Hire Program, which allowed COPS to get out, and I even think

you used these words, to ‘‘get out from behind the desk and get out

on the beat,’’ to hire a less-expensive civilian to allow a more expensive and more skilled, theoretically, police officer. That program’s been eliminated by the Bush Administration, hasn’t it?

Ms. LEARY. I think they have shifted the emphasis, and it is

looking more toward providing technology and school resource officers.

Mr. WEINER. So when the president stood up and talked about

how it is necessary for us to have a zero tolerance, the other day,

and stood with police officers, in fact the COPS program as it is

envisioned for the future going forward is to have a dramatically

reduced emphasis on actually hiring cops?

Ms. LEARY. For 2002, that is what the budget reflects, but I really can’t speak to where the Administration is beyond that.

Mr. WEINER. Okay. Well, we’re going to have to do a reauthorization bill; we can just discuss 2002.

But my concern is whether or not the Administration’s position

is that despite the successes of the COPS program, which are—

overwhelmingly by percentage terms, the funding for the COPS

program went to hire police officers. Is that right, Mr. Justus?

Mr. JUSTUS. That’s right.

Mr. WEINER. Right. And here going forward, that is no longer

going to be the emphasis of the COPS program. Is that fair to say,

Ms. Leary?

Ms. LEARY. I think the emphasis is on—there’s hiring for additional 1,500 officers, but the emphasis for those officers is in deploying them in the area of school safety.

Mr. WEINER. Got it.

Now, some police departments were notified in the middle of a

3-year grant process that their funding for civilians was going to

be—was going to be stopped, right? Weren’t letters—didn’t letters

108

just go out, telling police departments that they ought not apply for

the third year of the 3-year civilianization?

Mr. JUSTUS. MORE Civilian was a 1-year grant. And so there is

not a renewal. It’s a 1-year grant.

Mr. WEINER. The civilianization?

Mr. JUSTUS. Right. It’s a 1-year grant.

Mr. WEINER. Okay.

Mr. JUSTUS. The UHP, the Universal Hiring grants are 3-year

grants.

Mr. WEINER. Got it.

Let me just say—do I have time for one additional question, Mr.

Chairman? I can do a second round, if you like.

Mr. SMITH. We’re not going to have a second round. You can submit written questions, if you’d like. But in any case, the gentleman

is recognized for an additional minute.

Mr. WEINER. Well, thank you.

One of the things that I am concerned about—switching subjects

for a moment—and I’m not sure if this is Ms. Leary or Mr. Horowitz—is last year this Subcommittee pushed for and this Congress

passed $30 million for DNA backlog elimination. And in having discussions with folks at the Justice Department, we have no way to

quantify the DNA backlog as it exists out there in the country, that

there has been no effort to collect the information, that we have anecdotal information that says that there are evidence kits in New

York that 12,000-some-odd kits. We have a third-party independent

study that was done anonymously that came up with an estimate

of the numbers.

Does Justice have any intention to formally request this information from police departments so that we can determine where to go

next in terms of allocating additional funds for doing DNA analysis

on all of these evidence kits that are sitting out there unanalyzed

that Congress has expressed an interest, but we have no way of

quantifying the problem?

Ms. LEARY. I will be happy to send you something on that, Mr.

Weiner, because we do need to have that information. We are making efforts to find out the exact parameters of the backlog problem.

Mr. WEINER. Okay. And I would say to you, if there’s any discrepancy about whether you have the jurisdiction to require it from

police departments—because I know some of them may perceive

this as being an embarrassment—I am sure Members of the House

here, and I am sure this Committee, would be open to forcing police

departments to notify.

Because one of the things we have to do is, if we’re going to have

a national DNA database, we can’t just have offender samples in

the database without having the evidence samples for it to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weiner.

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized for his questions.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Justus, I apologize for not having heard your oral presentation. I did read over your written report, and you mention in the

written report the case of a police officer, Sergeant Webb in Mt.

109

Healthy Junior High School in Cincinnati, which is in my congressional district. I want to thank you for mentioning that.

And the entire community was grateful for Sergeant Webb’s

quick thinking and his heroism in heading off a potentially deadly

situation. And we certainly do owe a considerable gratitude to police officers all over this country who have really saved an awful

lot of lives.

And I appreciate the fact that the COPS program has had a

number of success stories. Of course, there have also been some reports by the Heritage Foundation, for example, and the nonpartisan Urban Institute that are perhaps less favorable.

And I wanted you to address one thing. You had asserted in your

statement that more than 73,000 police officers are on the beat as

a direct result of the COPS program. How do you explain the results of the Urban Institute study that concluded that under the

most optimistic scenario, the number of police officers will peak in

2001, this year, at 57,000. And I’m advised that that number is

backed up by the inspector general’s own research concluded in

April 1999.

Would you address that issue, please?

Mr. JUSTUS. The Urban Institute study that was released was

the first half of a study. The second half will be released some time

this summer.

But the data that was used was older data. It was older—examples of grants that aren’t representative of current grants.

They used, for example, the MORE ’95 grants, which used a different system of accounting. So they estimated the peak that the

on-the-street number would be some 68,000, and our own survey

which is quite extensive—we contact every grantee that’s gotten a

hiring grant, and then we do a stratified random sampling of our

MORE Technology, MORE Civilian grants, using a statistical process, technique, that was approved by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

So we used quite an extensive and quite a detailed survey to arrive at the 73,600 figure last fall.

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Also, is it true that some estimates have up

to 41 percent of the participating police departments using COPS

funds to supplant or to substitute for local funds already earmarked to pay officers’ salary? And if so, isn’t this practice contrary

to the mission of the COPS program approved by Congress?

Mr. JUSTUS. We do extensive monitoring with site visits of all the

grantees, particularly, you know, MORE grantees. And when we

find a case that looks like supplanting, it goes to our legal division,

to our general counsel office, and they are reviewed, investigated.

And we find very, very few cases of actual supplanting. Where

we do, we go back and recoup the government’s money.

Mr. CHABOT. So you’ve found some, but you would dispute the

fact that it is as high as that particular—— Mr. JUSTUS. It’s very—the numbers are surprisingly low and particularly given the numbers we end up investigating. We spend a

lot of time monitoring and reviewing prospective cases of supplanting. The IG does reviews; OJP Office of Comptroller does

some on-site visits. So there is some extensive monitoring that is

done of all the grantees.

110

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, several of the questions that I was going to ask

have been previously asked. So at this time, I would like to yield

the remaining time I have to Mr. Barr.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Barr is recognized.

Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

Who should I address the question to regarding the Violence

Against Women Act request? Ms. Leary?

There’s a substantial increase in that, close to I guess about 40

percent increase. What specifically does the Administration propose

to do with that substantial increase?

Ms. LEARY. We would be using that in part to enhance existing

programs and——

Mr. BARR. The what?

Ms. LEARY. It is to enhance existing programs and to create some

new programs, new programs in the area of disabled women who

are victimized and abused, new programs in providing safe havens

for children who are involved in domestic violence, and new programs involving elder abuse and violence.

I can give you the numbers. $31 million will go to expanding the

encouraging arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders

program; $15 million for the rural domestic violence enforcement

program—that’s an enhancement.

Mr. BARR. For the which?

Ms. LEARY. Rural domestic violence. $15 million for the Safe Havens for Children that I mentioned. $7.5 million for a new discretionary grant program, and that would include training and information on domestic violence, sexual assault and the like for women

with disabilities. And then $5 million of that will go toward the

elder abuse project that I mentioned.

Mr. BARR. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, Ranking Member of

the full Judiciary Committee, is recognized for his questions.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

I would like to focus on drug policy in the criminal justice system, which has had a serious change since the ’80’s since the war

on drugs was declared.

And I would like to ask Ms. Leary and Mr. Horowitz, are you

aware of the discussion that goes on with reference to the war on

drugs and race, that drug policies and enforcement have disproportionately affected African-Americans?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I certainly understand that concern and the

issue being raised. I’m not sure if you’re referring to a particular

article or a particular journal, but I understand——

Mr. CONYERS. No, I’m referring to the fact of the matter that people of color are disproportionately affected by the war on drugs in

which, for example, African-Americans use about the same percentage of drugs as everybody else, but they get arrested 34 percent of

the time, prosecuted 55 percent of the time, sentenced 74 percent

of the time.

Is this new information or old stuff for you?

111

Mr. HOROWITZ. Not, I have read statistics. I can’t tell you that

I’ve read any in-depth articles or journals about it. I would certainly be willing to take a look at that and sit down with the incoming head of the Criminal Division and discuss the matter with

him.

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Leary, have you had experience or contact

with this kind of discussion?

Ms. LEARY. Yes, I certainly have, and especially as a prosecutor

on the local level in Massachusetts and then in DC as an AUSA.

Of course, we prosecute both local and Federal crimes, and there’s

a lot of discussion about this particular issue.

At the Office of Justice Programs, we focus our efforts primarily

on prevention and treatment. We provide through a wide range of

our programs, both in the juvenile justice arena and adult drug

prevention programs, education outreach and the like, and—— Mr. CONYERS. But incarceration has been the strategy of choice

at the Federal level. That’s what has accounted for the nearly tripling of the prison system in the United States. These are people

arrested for possession, some for low-level sales, and that’s why— so this is a massively important subject in terms of our strategies,

namely the prosecution of low-level, peripheral users, nonviolent

people, who are swelling the prison system as we speak.

Mr. HOROWITZ. Congressman, I certainly think, from the Criminal Division’s standpoint, one of the issues, one of the things we

want to focus on in working with the Federal prosecutors at least

around the country, is on bigger picture, larger drug prosecutions

to—I don’t believe that local prosecutors, local Federal prosecutors,

should be doing, as you indicated, smaller level drug cases.

And I think one of the things that is important for us certainly

in the Criminal Division to do is try and understand a bigger picture and make sure we are doing the cases that should appropriately be brought at the Federal level but working cooperatively

with our State and local prosecutors and law enforcement to make

sure that they are pursuing matters at the State and local level.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am glad you realize that. But do you know

that we have mandatory sentencing for these low-level crimes, plus

we have disparity between crack and cocaine possessions and sales

that again affect the color of those who are being prosecuted and

locked up? True or false?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, every court at least that has looked at this,

Congressman, has determined that the statistical presentations

have not warranted overturning convictions or going beyond that.

I understand that there is statistics that demonstrate different percentages amongst different groups being prosecuted——

Mr. CONYERS. Can I get an additional minute, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman is recognized for an additional

minute.

Mr. CONYERS. It isn’t a point that the prosecutions themselves

are unfair; it’s the strategy of targeting low-level people, inner-city

communities, street-corner sales, where you will net people of color

more easily prosecuted.

So it isn’t that the prosecution is faulty. They were possessing,

they were involved in sales, so it’s not a matter that the court blew

it. They were only operating within the context of a strategy that

112

emanates from the Department of Justice and, more specifically,

your agency.

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, as I said, I don’t believe, in the efforts that

we’ve undertaken in the Criminal Division certainly in the last few

years, have been geared to going at a low level of drug dealing.

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, they sure have.

Mr. HOROWITZ. What we’ve tried to do is expand and think globally and nationally as well, as we target our prosecutions and investigations and where we investigate and prosecute.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, can you show me some numbers? I’ll get

some numbers for you that show that that’s exactly what hasn’t

been going on, and that’s the purpose of my comments.

Have you had a chance or are you familiar with the Sentencing

Project, Mark Mauer, executive director?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I can’t say that I am familiar——

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Well, I’d like to send both of you that information, and I’d like you to—let’s get into a written discussion

about it.

Mr. HOROWITZ. Be happy to.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is recognized for

his questions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask a couple questions of Mr. Horowitz. In reference

to the McDade law that was passed I guess the last Congress,

which was of concern to me as to how that would impact our Federal prosecutors, what effect has the McDade law had on the Federal prosecutors across the country?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, Congressman, first of all, I want to reiterate what I said earlier, which is obviously we should be holding

our prosecutors to a high ethical standard. They should be able to

meet their ethical obligations.

But the law itself that you mentioned has had several unfortunate consequences and has significantly impacted our ability to undertake what are otherwise lawful law enforcement activity.

In particular, the focus on the State of Oregon, which had a bar

rule that prohibited lawyers from engaging in deception, and the

bar committee there disciplined the lawyer in a civil matter for engaging in deception.

Well, obviously we as Federal prosecutors, when the FBI, the

DEA, the Customs Service come to us for advice on undercover activities that they want to engage in—and they do come to us and

they’re supposed to come to us for legal analysis, we obviously at

that point are counseling them on engaging in deceptive activities.

The decision in Oregon has effectively shut down our ability, the

FBI’s ability, the DEA’s ability and all the other law enforcement

agencies’ abilities, to carry out undercover investigations and drug

prosecutions, white collar crime cases, child pornography matters,

you could go down the line—organized crime matters.

And indeed, within the last few months, the State bar proposed

a fix that the Oregon Supreme Court just struck down unanimously. And so we’re back in the position we were in.

113

And I can tell you from my experience, I think that most defense

lawyers would want to have the FBI, the DEA agents, the Customs

Service agents consulting with prosecutors before undertaking undercover activity to get legal guidance rather than just have them

go out uncounseled, which is going to be the result if they are going

to be able to take that kind of activity in a State like Oregon.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Has there been any other areas of difficulty besides Oregon?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, the other main concern is the issue of contact with represented parties, and the problem that we faced in, for

example, organized crime cases where house counsel comes in and

claims to represent all individuals, or in a corporate crime setting

where an organization that has engaged in criminal conduct, perhaps the general counsel comes to us and says they represent everybody.

And that would impact our ability to talk with, for example, lowlevel employees who don’t want to be represented by the general

counsel. It would prevent the FBI from—us working with the FBI

and other law enforcement agents, for example, to go interview

people who might want to be interviewed by the department.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Has the department created any new set of

guidelines under McDade?

Mr. HOROWITZ. We have created an internal office to counsel

prosecutors who have questions before they undertake steps that

they fear might result in discipline, and that’s worked quite well.

We’ve sent guidance to the field generally.

But the other problem that we have is that lawyers in the department who have bar admissions for more than one State are uncertain, when they undertake activity, which State they need to

worry about. Similarly, when criminal conduct crosses a number of

different State jurisdictions, which bar rules do we have to worry

about?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Could we have a copy of those guidelines that

you have?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Let me speak with our Office of Professional Responsibility and see what they——

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And do you see any effort that Congress

should undertake in order to remedy these difficulties?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I think that the main problems have arisen

in those areas, and it is certainly an issue that I would want to

consult with the new head of the Criminal Division on and get his

input on, as well as work through the department, before laying

out my personal views on what should be done. I would certainly

be willing to bring that back and do that.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, is recognized

for his questions.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Horowitz, who has been nominated as the new chair of the

Criminal Division?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Michael Chertoff.

114

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you familiar with an article that Mr.

Chertoff did relative to McDade, the McDade law?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I’m somewhat familiar with it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. And he supports the McDade law, at least

in that article, didn’t he?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will let him speak for himself as to why——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Well, I’ve read the article, and my conclusion, and I guess I am speaking to my colleague over there, Mr.

Hutchinson, I would suggest that he reads the article and——

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I got the message loud and clear. [Laughter.]

Mr. DELAHUNT. But you know, Mr. Horowitz, while we’re on this,

we have the Oregon case, okay? Now, do we have other cases?

Mr. HOROWITZ. When you say other cases——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Other cases that you feel have been impacted

by——

Mr. HOROWITZ. There are a series of cases that I think have been

impacted by our inability to——

Mr. DELAHUNT. You think have been impacted?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I believe have been.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You believe, but you don’t know?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I can go back, Congressman, and——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Will you forward to me a list of those cases?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will forward to you what we can send up. One

of the problems that we have is, a number of these issues are contacts involving grand jury matters, and obviously——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, we’ll leave aside the grand jury matters.

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, but——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you enumerate for me those that you are

aware of that would not jeopardize the prosecution or an investigation to date, each and every one of them, Mr. Horowitz? Can you

do that for this Committee?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will go back and sit down with our Professional

Responsibility Office and go through what they have and what——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. How many do you think there might be?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t know as I sit here, Congressman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, 100, 200?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I don’t know how many undercover cases,

for example, are undertaken in Oregon——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I’ll tell you what. Could you enumerate them,

and then for those that you feel it is kind of in the ‘‘would have’’

category, which might jeopardize, could you give us a statistical—

could you provide us with some statistics in terms of——

Mr. HOROWITZ. I could, for example, go back and speak with the

law enforcement agencies on the number of undercover cases they

would normally undertake in a State such as Oregon, because they

would have difficulty——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I’m not normally—I’m not interested in normally,

Mr. Horowitz. I’m interested in what has actually happened with

the application of the McDade law.

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, but what has happened, prosecutors haven’t

gone——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, all you’ve got to do is go back to the United

States Attorneys Office in Oregon or the DEA or the FBI or whatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.001 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
115

ever investigative agency is there in Portland, Oregon, and ask

them.

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will do that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Don’t just speculate. You can ask them.

Mr. HOROWITZ. I will do that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And you’ll do that. I appreciate that.

Ms. Leary, when did you serve in Middlesex?

Ms. LEARY. From 1982 to 1985. I served under Scott

Harshbarger, and Tom Riley was the first assistant then.

Mr. DELAHUNT. All right, well, welcome.

Ms. LEARY. Thank you.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In terms of the Weed and Seed program, have

there been follow-up research like a year, 2 years, 5 years? The

program began, it was under the first Bush Administration.

Ms. LEARY. That’s correct. I will be happy to send you the studies

that we have.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know anything off the top of your head?

Does it show—I mean—— Ms. LEARY. It shows a positive impact.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Do you have any interesting statistics that

might enlighten the Committee?

Ms. LEARY. I can tell you, within individual Weed and Seed

neighborhoods, designated neighborhoods, we have seen some pretty dramatic reductions. We had about a 20 percent reduction in one

of the Weed and Seed sites in DC. But I will—— Mr. DELAHUNT. There was a program in Chelsea I remember

years ago.

Ms. LEARY. Excuse me?

Mr. DELAHUNT. In Chelsea there was the Weed and Seed program.

Ms. LEARY. That’s right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I wonder—I think it would be really beneficial,

if it doesn’t exist, what’s the use—to take a look-see at the longterm impact of Weed and Seed. I don’t know if that research has

ever been done, but I would be interested to take—to review and

see those programs that were initiated at the beginning of the program and see what it looks like at different time intervals just to

give us a sense of their efficacy in the long term and whether they

really are—whether there’s a heavy local investment such that it’s

sustained over a period of time.

Ms. LEARY. Yes, I’ll be happy to provide that because——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, it’s really a community prosecution concept and——

Ms. LEARY. It is, and it works hand in hand with community

prosecution. It’s a great fit with community policing and community prosecution.

And in fact, in your district, there are some pretty successful examples.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. I think we had one in Brockton for a

while.

Ms. LEARY. That is right, and Lowell.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Marianne Hinkle ran it, is running it.

Ms. LEARY. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I have one more question, Mr. Chairman?

116

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In talking about VAWA, has there ever been a

study done relative to the relationship between domestic violence,

violence against women, and the rather dramatic decline in the

level of all categories of violent crime over the past decade?

As you well know, domestic violence programs were initiated in

the late ’70’s, continued, they’ve grown, they’ve been replicated all

over the country.

My own observation has been that there is, if you examine the

history of inmates incarcerated in our major penal institutions,

they’re clearly either the victims, witnesses to or the byproduct of

a violent family.

And I wonder if that nexus, that relationship, has ever been reviewed.

Ms. LEARY. Yes. There are studies on that. I’ll be happy to provide them to you. And as you can well imagine, they show that, for

instance, in the case of children who are victims of domestic violence either directly or through observation—they’re part of the

family and this is going on all the time—that it creates a climate

that produces oftentimes children who grow up to perpetrate violence or who become victimized themselves, and they get caught in

this cycle.

There’s a lot of research on that, and I’ll be very happy to provide it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, is recognized for his

questions.

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have questions about two areas, one about the COPS program

and second about the criminal enforcement of an intellectual property law.

So let’s start with the COPS program, and Mr. Justus, you can

take a crack at this. And maybe Ms. Leary will have something to

say.

I want to make sure that I understand the gist of what we’re

doing here, and my reading of this is, we’re going to spend more

money on crime-fighting technology, about the same amount of

money on school resource officers, and less money on hiring new

police officers for community policing.

Mr. JUSTUS. That’s correct. That’s accurate.

Mr. KELLER. Okay. And it’s that third prong that’s probably

going to have a little controversy, the less money for community policing.

And when I say controversy, at least in my jurisdiction—I’m from

Orlando, where we’re rapidly growing—and so I asked my Orange

County sheriff, a guy named Kevin Beary, and I asked our local police officer chief of police, Jerry Demings, who’s here today from Orlando, what they thought about this. And they love the COPS program. We had to add 60 new cops a year just to keep up with

growth.

And so I want to tell you what they say and then what other

folks say, and I want your opinion.

117

They say that this is a wonderful program, it’s just where it

needs to be, we don’t want to have to rely on these local law enforcement grants because there’s too much red tape.

Other folks said, well, the original purpose was to hire 100,000

cops; we’ve hired 100,000 cops, and to the extent you feel you need

to hire even more, just use money from the local law enforcement

grants.

With that as background, let me start asking a couple of questions.

First of all, can jurisdictions like the one I represent, say, Orange

County, use local law enforcement grants to hire additional cops for

community policing purposes?

Mr. JUSTUS. Can they in 2002?

Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JUSTUS. No. There will be no new grants. The 115,000, the

grants that are currently out there, are obligated, and your jurisdiction, if they have a grant, can continue to draw down on those

grants for the full 3 years.

Mr. KELLER. Okay. I understand the COPS money grant will be

gone after this budget.

Mr. JUSTUS. Right.

Mr. KELLER. Is there other local law enforcement grants, just the

generic grants, that if they decide to use money from those grants

can be used to hire additional police officers?

Mr. JUSTUS. Not police officers, not COPS grants, but school resource officers. We have, as you’ve noted, $180 million in there for

school resource officers.

Ms. LEARY. The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant has as one

of its purpose areas training and hiring of law enforcement.

Mr. KELLER. Okay, that’s what I’m getting at.

Now when I threw that back at the Orange County sheriff he

said, yeah, but there’s in his perception a lot more red tape associated with using money from the local law enforcement grants to

hire cops than it would be to just get money straight from the

COPS program.

What’s your thoughts on that, Ms. Leary?

Ms. LEARY. Well, to be candid, there probably is more red tape.

But nevertheless, States are able to manage the process and have

been doing so for many, many years.

And I think one of the reasons that people cite red tape is that

there are seven purpose areas for which that money can be used,

and so it’s kind of difficult for an individual police department to

gain the leverage to push the use of the funds toward that particular purpose sometimes.

Mr. KELLER. This is a tough issue, and I appreciate both your

candor on that.

But let me switch to Mr. Horowitz and ask you about the enforcement of criminal intellectual laws. I just had breakfast with

a bunch of leaders of the software industry, and they told me their

biggest concern was the enforcement of criminal laws dealing with

copyright infringement, intellectual property. The gist of what they

said is that a lot of their folks who steal movies and show them

on the Internet are often kids, college students who have no fear

118

of $100 million civil lawsuit, but they would fear spending about

6 months in jail.

But they’re frustrated because the assistant U.S. attorneys have

a lot bigger fish to fry on a daily basis, and they’re not spending

the money and the resources they believe to enforce these criminal

laws.

Reading from your remarks, you indicated that one of the things

you guys are going to do on this budget is to enhance the criminal

prosecution efforts of intellectual property laws in seven key jurisdictions. Is that right?

Mr. HOROWITZ. That is.

Mr. KELLER. Is the middle district of Florida one of those seven

key jurisdictions?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t believe it is, but let me double-check on

that.

Mr. KELLER. Would it kill you to make that one of your key jurisdictions? [Laughter.]

We’re home to Disney World and Universal Studios, so let me tell

you what I told them, and you tell me if I’m giving good advice or

not. I told them that it’s my understanding that the U.S. attorneys

have discretion on what type of things to prosecute, and that if you

wanted more rigorous enforcement of these laws, go have a chat

with your U.S. attorney, that it’s pretty much a locally based decision. Is that accurate?

Mr. HOROWITZ. It is, and I think that’s pretty sound advice to

give them, to speak with their U.S. attorneys, make them aware

of the problems that the particular constituents in the community

are facing.

One of the things that I think you will be pleased to know is we

just actually on May 1 through 3 held a training session—our Computer Crime and Intellectual Property session—for prosecutors

from around the country, because one of the problems we also see

is a lack of understanding of the significance of the problem and

a concern or fear about an ability to understand, particularly the

software theft that is going on. And so one of the things we try and

do is get prosecutors from around the country to feel comfortable

investigating these types of crimes and pursuing them.

Mr. KELLER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Keller.

The patient gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes

for his questions.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll yield briefly to the

gentleman from New York. He had a follow-up question for Mr.

Justus.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you.

Mr. Justus, previously, I talked about the elimination of the second and third years, in some cases the third years of the COPS

MORE program provide for civilianization. And you answered that

it was a 1-year program.

Let me just read from a letter dated February 8 with your signature. ‘‘In MORE program grant applications and grant owners

manuals,’’—this, by the way, is a letter to the city of New York—

‘‘In MORE program grant application and grant owners manuals

119

we advised agencies that grant awards for civilians may be renewed for 2 additional years beyond the additional grant period

contingent upon the availability of future appropriations.’’

And your testimony here is that the Administration has no intention of requesting future appropriations?

Mr. JUSTUS. That’s correct.

Mr. WEINER. And so, in fact, it is the position of the Administration to take a program that had originally been pitched as a 3-year

program to make it a 1-year program, leaving cities like New York

and other cities, frankly, who have benefited from the

civilianization program are now not going to have the funds that

they originally thought.

When an owners manual or the program grant manual says

there are a couple more years coming down the pike and now to

say there’s not, that to me is taking a 3-year program and making

it a 1-year program. I thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weiner.

The gentleman from Virginia continues to be recognized.

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horowitz, in reference to the FBI and McVeigh situation, is

there any evidence that any prosecutors knew that evidence had

not been turned over? Is there any evidence the prosecutors knew?

Do you want to answer that or not? Or can you answer it yes or

no?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I personally do not know, and I have not undertaken any investigation myself. Obviously, that’s been left to the

inspector general to review.

Mr. SCOTT. It’s being reviewed right now?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Correct.

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. I wasn’t quite sure what kind of answer you

gave to the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member, about

the crack/powder cocaine disparity. Is there a problem or not?

Some of us think we want to fix the problem, but if you don’t see

it as a problem, then obviously you’re not going about to fix it. Is

there a problem with the crack/powder cocaine disparity?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, on the issue of the disparity, Congressman,

I would ask to reserve judgment. I think the assistant attorney

general for the Criminal Division ought to be in place and be involved in that decision before I speak for him.

Mr. SCOTT. None of you are administrative political appointees,

is that right?

Ms. LEARY. We are all career people.

Mr. HOROWITZ. Actually, I am in a political slot as chief of staff

in the Criminal Division.

Mr. SCOTT. If you are not a political appointee, then you are

somewhat reserved in speaking for the Administration. Can you

speak for the Administration?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I can.

Mr. SCOTT. But you don’t want to in this case?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I think this is an issue that I think is—that

the head of the Criminal Division ought to be a participant in, in

reaching a conclusion on.

120

Mr. SCOTT. We have talked about low-level criminals getting

hauled into Federal court. Is that a good idea or a bad idea, Mr.

Horowitz?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I’m sorry. Could you repeat that again?

Mr. SCOTT. Low-level defendants, low-level drug offenders being

hauled into Federal court, clogging up the courts in a way that the

chief justice has complained about.

Mr. HOROWITZ. I agree with you, Congressman, that we should

not, at the Federal level, be focusing on small-level cases that don’t

have larger implications for the community. Although I will say

that there are circumstances where prosecuting some small-level

drug cases can make a difference in the community, and I have had

personal experience with that in my old office.

Mr. SCOTT. Should they be prosecuted in the Federal court or the

State court?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, the example that I can give you is, in New

York City, we had an issue with drug dealing, marijuana dealing

in Washington Square Park with individuals. The police department came to us with a problem where they had certain individuals who had 50, 60, 70 arrests and had never spent a day in jail

and asked us to come in and to pursue the case federally. And we

agreed to pursue only the most serious recidivists for what were essentially low-level drug dealing, but it meant—the community

wanted to see that done.

Mr. SCOTT. How does the idea of not prosecuting low-level defendants, how is that consistent or inconsistent with Project Exile

becoming nationalized?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I think in terms of decisionmaking of discretion being exercised by the U.S. attorneys in each district, they

need to have in place an understanding and a policy of what cases

should come federally, what gun prosecutions should be taken federally, and what cases can appropriately and should appropriately

be going to the State prosecutors.

Mr. SCOTT. And what would you tell the chief justice as what the

standard should be?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think, Congressman, it varies from district to

district, case to case. I certainly wouldn’t speak for all the U.S. attorneys around the country and what problems they face.

I think that’s one of the strengths of the system we have set up

in the department with local U.S. attorneys analyzing and evaluating the problems in their districts. And I certainly wouldn’t want

to speak for them.

Mr. SCOTT. So do I understand you’re saying it is up to the local

prosecutor to make—set the standards?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think in terms of what cases to take, what cases

to pursue as Federal prosecutions, the U.S. attorneys generally

make those decisions in their districts.

Mr. SCOTT. How many U.S. attorneys are there?

Mr. HOROWITZ. Ninety-three I believe.

Mr. SCOTT. So you’ve got 90-some different standards. Somebody’s going to say, bring them all. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t know.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could I have 1 additional minute? I

wanted to ask——

121

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman is recognized for an additional

minute.

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Leary said some real nice things about Weed and

Seed, when we’ve had police officers tell me that they’ve been so

successful in some public housing areas that now the crime rate

within the public housing area in several jurisdictions within my

district is significantly lower than the overall crime rate, they’ve

done such a good job.

Could you tell us anything about the president’s budget as it relates to drug interdiction in public housing programs and where

that budget might be going, up or down or eliminated? Mr. Horowitz, do you know?

Ms. LEARY. I can’t really——

Mr. SCOTT. It’s my understanding that he eliminated drug prevention programs in public housing in the HUD budget.

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t know the answer to that as I sit here,

Congressman. I could certainly go back and——

Ms. LEARY. I can’t speak to that, but I’ll be happy to look into

it and send you something.

I know that we do a lot of work. In Weed and Seed in particular,

there’s a heavy emphasis on public housing neighborhoods. In fact,

the one that I worked on in DC, Langston-Carver, has one section

8 and one public housing development, and they make a tremendous effort to concentrate efforts in those neighborhoods. Drug

prevention——

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Leary, you’ve done studies of what works and

what doesn’t work. There was a study done by the, I believe it was

Harvard public health, Harvard School of Medicine, Harvard

School of Public Health, with APT Associates from Cambridge and

Chicago that did a longitudinal study. Are you familiar with that

study?

Ms. LEARY. Study of?

Mr. SCOTT. Of what trajectory of getting into violence, a longterm following children and figuring out what the elements are in

a particular community that these people——

Ms. LEARY. Chicago?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, in Chicago.

Ms. LEARY. Yes. Yes. The Chicago study.

Mr. SCOTT. Is that—are the results of that study being put to

use?

Ms. LEARY. Yes. As a matter of fact, it is. And we are using the

results of that study to provide models for other districts, other

locales who want to know what works and what doesn’t work when

we are trying to address these problems. So, yes, we are.

And that’s one of the things that OJP tries very hard to do, is

to study what we’re doing and extract the best principles from that,

and the disseminate it, because that’s what we’re all about, is helping communities nationwide——

Mr. SCOTT. Finally, are you familiar with the violence prevention

protocols that four universities are working on, including Virginia

Commonwealth University?

Ms. LEARY. Yes. And that’s an example of the kind of work that

we support, because they’re studying it and they can develop protoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:01 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050301\72301.001 HJUD2 PsN: HJUD2
122

cols that work. And then we put them to use in training other communities.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

That concludes our hearing. Mr. Horowitz, Ms. Leary, Mr.

Justus, thank you for your testimony today. And the Subcommittee

stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(123)

A P P E N D I X

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

[NOTE: Additional material submitted for the Hearing Record is

not reprinted here but is on file with the House Judiciary Committee. The material referred to is listed below.]

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs—

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP): Safe From the Start, Taking Action on Children

Exposed to Violence

National Institute of Justice, National Evaluation of Weed &

Seed, Cross-Site Analysis, Research Report

National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief

Æ