U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

82–252 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–719

HOMELAND DEFENSE: SHARING INFORMATION

WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT 

AND THE COURTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 11, 2001

Serial No. J–107–52

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SHARON PROST, Minority Chief Counsel 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

BENJAMIN LAWSKY, Majority Chief Counsel 

ED HADEN, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 27

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 28

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 29

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 1

Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ........ 30

WITNESSES 

Canterbury, Chuck, National Vice President, Fraternal Order of Police, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina .................................................................................... 10

Greiner, Jon, President, Utah Chief of Police Association, Ogden, Utah ........... 14

Kerik, Bernard B., Police Commissioner, New York, New York ......................... 4

O’Malley, Hon. Martin, Mayor, Baltimore, Maryland .......................................... 6

(1)

HOMELAND DEFENSE: SHARING INFORMATION WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE

OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in 

Room SD–224, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Senator Schumer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order and let me 

apologize to the witnesses. We had votes going on. These are the 

vicissitudes of life on the Hill. I thank all of you for coming. Senator Sessions is expected shortly but he has given us the okay, the 

green light to proceed. 

We are here this morning to discuss one of the most serious problems undermining public safety today and that is the lack of communication between federal and local law enforcement. One of the 

worst kept secrets in law enforcement is the chronic lack of communication between federal and local authorities. The problem was 

never clearer and never more threatening than when anthrax was 

discovered at the NBC studios in New York City. The FBI knew 

about it for days but they failed to alert the New York Police Department. And it is quite possible that because of that lack of communication steps that could have been taken to protect the public 

were not. It is possible that countless New Yorkers were unnecessarily put at risk simply because the law and culture makes information-sharing taboo. That is a risk none of us should ever be 

forced to take. 

Most experts point to two primary reasons for this gaping failure 

in communication. First, there are legal and procedural obstacles 

to sharing certain information. Second, some say that the culture 

within federal law enforcement discourages cooperation with local 

officials. Neither of these reasons is acceptable. More importantly, 

both are eminently fixable. Whatever the problems may be, they 

are getting in the way of protecting the public. If the past few 

months has taught us anything it is that any delay in patching 

holes in our security network is unacceptable. 

2

So last month Senator Clinton, Chairman Leahy and Senator 

Hatch and I introduced legislation to help solve these problems. 

Our bill reduces many of the practical barriers to information-sharing. Just like other aspects of American culture have changed since 

September 11, this law enforcement culture needs to change, as 

well. Our bill gives that culture a push in the right direction. 

We recently passed an anti-terrorism bill that carefully balanced 

the need for information-sharing among federal agencies with the 

need to protect privacy rights and other civil rights of individuals 

under investigation. Our proposal builds on both the powers and 

protections in the anti-terrorism bill. The act permits but does not 

require the federal government to share information. In short, 

where information can be shared among federal agencies, under 

our bill it could be shared with local law enforcement. So if the FBI 

could alert the CDC to an anthrax outbreak it could, at the same 

time, tell the NYPD, as well. 

At the same time, our bill subjects local law enforcement officials 

who receive this information to the same privacy protections that 

cover law enforcement. So if circumstances dictate that the CDC 

cannot talk to anyone else about an outbreak, neither could the 

NYPD. We are not changing the rules themselves; we are simply 

making long-overdue changes to the process. 

Our bill also directs the administration to promulgate regulations to guarantee the security of this information. In protecting 

the public, we are protecting privacy, as well. 

This proposal forges a new and open trail for communication regarding threats that federal authorities learn about, whether 

through grand juries, wiretaps, or foreign intelligence-gathering operations. It would be absurd, especially in this new world, for a witness to tell a federal grand jury about an anthrax threat or for a 

wiretap to pick up information about a planned car bombing but 

to restrict the federal government’s power to immediately give a 

heads-up to the appropriate local authorities, yet that is what exactly happens now. 

This is especially problematic in an era when state and local 

budgets are already stretched to the breaking point. They simply 

cannot afford to provide round-the-clock heightened security on the 

bridges and roadways, at the power plants and all the other vulnerable sectors. Local law enforcement needs to know when there 

is a specific threat so they can target resources appropriately and 

effectively. Too many times local officials learn of security threats 

by watching the news accounts instead of getting the warning directly from the federal government and that is unacceptable. 

We live in a world where we need to use every weapon in our 

arsenal to protect the public. Rules and a culture that limit information-sharing simply do not make sense. With the holiday travel 

season, New Year’s Eve celebrations, the Superbowl and the Winter Olympics all on the horizon, now more than ever our safety and 

security depend on maximizing the utility of our resources. 

This is no time for squabbling. It is no time to protect turf. It 

is time for everyone in law enforcement to come together. That 

means getting federal, state and local law enforcement all onto the 

same page. 

3

When we remove legal barriers we are also giving an impetus to 

changing the culture. In the past when federal officials did not 

want to share information they said well, I cannot because of this 

or that law and you are not going to get a court suit to debate 

whether that information can be shared. Now, once this legislation 

passes, there will be no excuse about the failure to share information. We are not requiring the sharing. There may be some instances where the federal government says that they cannot for a 

variety of reasons but, at the same time, we are eliminating any 

kind of legal excuse to the necessity to share information. 

Now we all know that there is no question that knowledge is 

power. The more broadly we share information and intelligence 

among our federal, state and local law enforcement officials, the 

better chance we have of preventing future attacks on American 

soil and that is what this hearing is about and what our legislation 

tries to accomplish. 

President Bush recognizes the importance of local law enforcement in our national security efforts. The administration has directed all 94 U.S. attorneys to create anti-terrorism task forces that 

include representatives from local law enforcement. That is a good 

start but it is not enough. 

The administration recognizes the need for more informationsharing and they support the objectives of our bill. It is bipartisan, 

both the Chairman and ranking Republican member of the Committee are sponsors, and we hope to move this legislation quickly. 

That is why we are having this hearing now. Administration officials have also assured me that they are with us in this battle. We 

hope to have this bipartisan legislation passed early next year to 

remedy the problems our witnesses here today will be discussing 

and I want to thank them all for coming. 

Now we are going to turn to the witnesses. I will introduce each 

first, let them speak, and then introduce the next. 

Our first witness is Bernard B. Kerik. I am very proud to introduce him. Since September 11 Bernie has become well known beyond our home city of New York. He has shown valor and heroism 

in helping lead the city in his role as commissioner of the NYPD, 

a post he has held since August of 2000. But he had a very distinguished career even before September 11 and those of us who knew 

him were proud of him even before then. Prior to his appointment 

Commissioner Kerik served as commissioner and first deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections, where he did a great 

job straightening that department out. He served on the front lines, 

as well as in administrative posts. After being selected for the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Task Force he helped 

direct one of the most substantial narcotics investigations in the 

history of the office, which resulted in the conviction of more than 

60 members of the Cali Cartel. Commissioner Kerik currently 

serves on the Terrorism Committee of the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police. 

Commissioner, we are delighted you are here. Everyone, not only 

all New Yorkers but all Americans are proud of you. Your entire 

statement will be read into the record. 

4

STATEMENT OF BERNARD B. KERIK, POLICE COMMISSIONER, 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. KERIK. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Sessions and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of Mayor 

Rudolph Guiliani and the people of the city of New York I would 

first like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your sustained effort on 

behalf of the people of New York City in helping us recover from 

the unthinkable tragedy of September 11. 

I would also like to thank you, as well as Senators Clinton, 

Leahy and Hatch, for your support in introducing Senate Bill Number 1615, the Federal Local Information Sharing Partnership Act 

of 2001, which addresses roadblocks to information-sharing between federal authorities and state and local law enforcement. 

We are gratified that in holding this hearing you are informing 

the public of a critical gap in the nation’s ability to defend itself 

against terrorism, which makes enactment of S. 1615 a crucial element of homeland defense. Congressman Weiner of New York, 

along with several cosponsors, introduced a companion bill in the 

House of Representatives, H.R. 3285, and we look forward to its 

swift passage, as well. 

Oftentimes federal law enforcement officials may have vital information regarding public safety but are concerned that sharing 

that information with states and localities would be at odds with 

the federal law. Public safety demands that it must be absolutely 

clear that there are no statutory barriers to sharing this type of information with state and local law enforcement authorities. This 

essential legislation is a powerful step in that direction. 

Information in the bill that would be clearly shareable includes 

foreign intelligence information, electronic wiretap information, 

and certain grand jury information. Under the recently passed USA 

PATRIOT Act, all of this information may only be shared between 

federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Senate Bill 

Number 1615 will clearly permit this information to be shared with 

state and local authorities that are the front-line defense in the 

war against terrorism. 

The fact that over 600,000 members of state and local police 

forces are not clearly enlisted as partners in the effort to locate and 

apprehend terrorists must be addressed. Senate Bill Number 1615 

amends the USA PATRIOT Act to make it absolutely clear that the 

sharing of information with state and local law enforcement is appropriate. The suggested amendments do not mandate the sharing 

of information but leave with the federal authorities the discretion 

as to what information to disseminate. The discretion will still remain with the federal agency in possession of the information. The 

bill also includes a direction to the attorney general to promulgate 

appropriate confidentiality guidelines for the use of the information, with which state and local officials must comply. 

Our nation is facing the greatest challenge of this generation in 

its war on terrorism and every element of our national defense 

must be utilized in the fight. Local police forces are on the front 

line and are uniquely situated to gather information which, when 

coupled with federal intelligence, can not only solve cases but much 

more importantly, prevent attacks from occurring. Continuing to 

maintain walls between federal and state authorities with respect 

5

to the sharing of real-time information represents the worst kind 

of dysfunctional thinking in government and must be addressed as 

quickly as possible. 

Unless state and local jurisdictions are clearly included in appropriate information-sharing, federal authorities will remain hamstrung in their dealings with their local partners. In addition, local 

jurisdictions will remain uninformed and unprepared in the face of 

mounting terrorist threats and the nation will be unable to take 

full advantage of the information and assistance that 600,000 police officers across the country can provide. 

Again I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Sessions, for your leadership and support in focussing the nation’s attention on the critical need to coordinate federal, state and local resources to protect the people of the United States. I will be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Kerik follows.]

STATEMENT OF BERNARD B. KERIK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions, and members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the people of New York City, I would 

first like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your sustained effort on behalf of the people of New York City, in helping us to recover from the unthinkable tragedy of September 11th. 

I would also like to thank you, as well as Senators Clinton, Leahy and Hatch, for 

your support in introducing Senate Bill No. 1615, the ‘‘Federal-Local Information 

Sharing Partnership Act of 2001,’’ which addresses roadblocks to information sharing between federal authorities and state and local law enforcement. 

We are gratified that in holding this hearing, you are informing the public of a 

critical gap in the nation’s ability to defend itself against terrorism, which makes 

enactment of S. 1615 a crucial element of homeland defense. Congressman Weiner 

of New York, along with several cosponsors, introduced a companion bill in the 

House of .Representatives, H.R. 3285, and we look forward to its swift passage as 

well. 

Often times, federal law enforcement officials may have vital information regarding public safety, but are concerned that sharing that information with states and 

localities would be at odds with federal law. Public safety demands that it must be 

absolutely clear that there are no statutory barriers to sharing this type of information with state and local law enforcement authorities. This essential legislation is 

a powerful step in that direction. 

Information in the bill that would be clearly shareable includes foreign intelligence information, electronic wiretap information, and certain grand jury information. Under the recently passed USA PATRIOT Act, all of this information may be 

shared between federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Senate Bill No. 

1615 will clearly permit this information to be shared with state and local authorities that are the front line defense in the war against terrorism. 

The fact that over 600,000 members of state and local police forces are not clearly 

enlisted as partners in the effort to locate and apprehend suspected terrorists must 

be addressed. Senate Bill No. 1615 amends the USA PATRIOT Act to make it absolutely clear that the sharing of information with state and local law enforcement 

is appropriate. The suggested amendments do not mandate the sharing of information, but leave with the federal authorities the discretion as to what information to 

disseminate. The discretion will still remain with the federal agency in possession 

of the information. The bill also includes a direction to the Attorney General to promulgate appropriate confidentiality guidelines for the use of the information, with 

which state and local officials must comply. 

Our nation is facing the greatest challenge of this generation in its war on terrorism, and every element of national defense must be utilized in the fight. Local 

police forces are on the front line, and are uniquely situated to gather information 

which, when coupled with federal intelligence, can not only solve cases but, much 

more important, prevent attacks from occurring. Continuing to maintain walls between federal and state authorities 

6

with respect to the sharing of ‘‘real time’’ information represents the worst kind 

of dysfunctional thinking in government, and must be addressed as quickly as possible. 

Unless state and local jurisdictions are clearly included in appropriate information 

1

sharing, federal authorities will remain hamstrung in their dealings with their 

local partners. In addition, local jurisdictions will remain uninformed and unprepared in the face of mounting terrorist threats, and the nation will be unable to take 

full advantage of the information and assistance that 600,000 police officers across 

the country can provide. 

Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Sessions, for your 

leadership and support in focusing the nation’s attention on the critical need to coordinate federal, state, and local resources to protect the people of the United 

States. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 

Our next witness, equally distinguished, is Martin O’Malley. He 

was elected to office in November of 1999 as the youngest mayor 

in Baltimore’s history. Prior to his election Mayor O’Malley served 

on the Baltimore City Council from 1991 to 1999 and as an assistant state’s attorney for the city of Baltimore from 1988 to 1990 so 

he has prosecutorial experience, as well. 

Mayor O’Malley is a graduate of Catholic University, the University of Maryland Law School, and he has been a vocal proponent, 

one of the leading proponents, along with the commissioner, of 

greater information-sharing between federal and local law enforcement. 

Mr. Mayor, we are very pleased to have you here today and 

grateful you took out time from your busy schedule. Your entire 

statement will be read into the record and you may proceed as you 

wish. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN O’MALLEY, MAYOR, BALTIMORE, 

MARYLAND 

Mayor O’MALLEY. Thank you very much, Senator. Mr. Chairman, 

I also want to thank the members of this Committee and your cosponsors. I am honored to join you today and lend my voice to the 

support of Senate Bill 1615, the Federal Local Information Sharing 

Partnership Act of 2001. I want to thank Senators Leahy, Hatch 

and yourself and Senator Clinton for hearing the voices of America’s police chiefs and on behalf of the Conference of Mayors I want 

to thank you for listening to what the mayors of this country have 

had to say, as well. 

S. 1615 addresses a very dangerous gap created by the USA PATRIOT Act by affirmatively allowing federal authorities to share 

grand jury, wiretap, foreign intelligence operations and confidential 

banking and educational records with local police. 

It has become almost a cliche to say that this war is being fought 

on two fronts but it is being fought on two fronts. Uniquely for the 

first time since 1812 one of those fronts is right here on American 

soil. Were this war being fought on two foreign fronts I have no 

doubt that we would be rapidly rushing resources to both of those 

foreign fronts, that we would rapidly be rushing equipment, training and, most importantly, intelligence to both of those fronts. 

Unfortunately, we have yet to catch up with this new reality that 

we are facing. We have nothing resembling rapid intelligence being 

rushed to our front. 

7

On the intelligence front we must use every resource at our disposal—federal, state and local—to keep America’s citizens safe. 

Through this bill you are right to affirmatively allow the FBI to 

share information with the hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation. 

No one wants to appear critical of the FBI or any other state or 

local or federal agency, particularly in the midst of this challenge. 

Local governments though and local law enforcement can help, 

want to help, must help out of patriotism and for the safety of our 

citizens but we must improve our coordination and our information-sharing. 

Let me say that since we first raised this issue back in October 

FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Ashcroft have taken 

some concrete steps to better enlist local law enforcement officers 

in this war against terrorism. The FBI’s terrorist watch list has 

now been added, so I am told, to the NCIC database and just last 

week the INS announced it would place the names of 314,000 foreign nationals who disappeared after being ordered deported into 

NCIC, as well. 

Notwithstanding that progress, we still are not where we need 

to be. Although more people agree that there is no other reasonable 

course but to enlist, deputize, recruit local law enforcement into 

this effort, here are a couple of concrete examples why it has to 

happen. It is just a simple matter of math. There are 7,000 FBI 

agents assigned to this task before us. There are 650,000 local law 

enforcement agents. It is physically impossible for all tips or even 

most tips to be pursued by a mere 7,000 federal law enforcement 

officers. 

Until recently this gap, this dangerous gap, this problem was exacerbated by a tip line where calls that would more appropriately 

have warranted a 911 response by a patrol officer instead went directly to a centralized number somewhere and we would hope that 

there was follow-up on those but I seriously doubt it. In Baltimore 

a local utility company called that national tip line to report a suspicious truck parked outside of one of its facilities. Now the police 

department, which could have been there within minutes and responds in minutes day in, day out, 24/7 to such calls, never received this information. We found out about it when a utility executive told our police commissioner the story at a social event. We assume the FBI checked into the truck but we are not sure. And 

given the magnitude of the calls, I seriously doubt it. 

Providing security clearance to police chiefs and intelligence 

units in big-city police departments would also allow local law enforcement to do its share in protecting our nation. Sharing information would better enable police departments to protect cities not 

only against coordinated attacks but against sort of the lone actors 

who, on their own volition, may decide to join the jihad. 

In Baltimore, for example, we arrested a young man of Iranian 

heritage walking out of the end of the Howard Street train tunnel 

which runs under our city, where he had had a train derailment 

this past summer. He was wearing a mask, carrying a backpack, 

and had cameras. 

Even as it becomes more obvious that we have to cooperate, we 

are falling short. We are falling short on coordination among the 

8

various levels of government and between federal agencies. For example, had one of the terrorists responsible for flying the plane full 

of innocent people into a building on September 11 been pulled 

over, had he been pulled over by a Maryland state trooper two days 

before that attack, the CIA would have had him on a watch list, 

the FBI would not, and no information would have been relayed to 

that state trooper so he could have held that person and possibly 

thwarted that attack. 

A state trooper who would have made that traffic stop would not 

have known that he was wanted by the FBI or that he was a threat 

to American citizens. He would have known if he had not paid his 

insurance in Maryland. He would have known if he had let a 

speeding ticket go unpaid or did not show up for court. He would 

have known if he had failed to pay his parking ticket in the city 

of Baltimore. 

The 230 names now on the watch list have been added to NCIC 

but there are no pictures and in all likelihood many of these men 

are probably not using their real names. Pictures are critical to 

catching them. And assuming they did not go to the Osama bin 

Laden school of perfect driving, some of them will slip up. Some of 

them will be contacted by local law enforcement, just as indeed 

Timony McVeigh was first stopped for a traffic violation. 

Most recently we have some additional coordination issues. We 

read in the news report that the FBI would like local law enforcement’s help in questioning about 5,000 students who have violated 

their visas yet our police commissioners has heard nothing about 

these individuals. His 3,200 police officers are not yet helping. We 

have been told by our U.S. attorney’s office that we have at least 

12 such people in our city. We were told that a week or 10 days 

ago. We know their names but the police have not been able to 

interview them, we are told, because we are waiting for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office to set up a process. 

A process for what? We have 70 people solely dedicated to serving 

fugitive warrants in our city day in and day out. If we had been 

told 10 days ago to look for these 12 individuals I have no doubt 

that we would have found a great number of them by now. 

In times of crisis government does not have the luxury of acting 

like a big bureaucracy. A few months might not be soon enough to 

safeguard American lives. Local government has a lot of skilled, 

trained people who could be helping federal law enforcement officers protect our citizens if only they had the information to help 

them accomplish this job, this job which all American law enforcement agencies must rise to. 

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 provides for sharing of intelligence between federal agencies. Now it is time to ensure the same 

level of cooperation between local and federal law enforcement. 

There is no time for us to say we will get to it as soon as we set 

up a process. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor O’Malley follows:]

STATEMENT OF BALTIMORE MAYOR MARTIN O’MALLEY, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

I am honored to join you today to support S. 1615, the ‘‘Federal-Local Information 

Sharing Partnership Act of 2001.’’

But more importantly, I want to thank you—Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, 

Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton—for hearing the voices of America’s police 

9

chiefs, including Baltimore’s Commissioner Edward Norris and NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik. Additionally, I would like to thank you on behalf of the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, for which I Co-Chair the Federal-Local Law Enforcement 

Task Force. 

While the recently passed USA Patriot Act mandates that federal agencies share 

information, it failed to allow the same communication exchange with state and 

local police. 

S. 1615 will address the gap in the USA Patriot Act by permitting, but not requiring, federal authorities to share grand jury, wiretap, foreign intelligence operations 

and confidential banking and educational records with state and local police. 

This bill provides Congress with the mechanism to ensure that such information 

is shared with our country’s first responders, the 645,000 local law enforcement offi- cers. The United States is fighting a war on two fronts—Afghanistan and right here 

in America’s big cities. If those fronts were Japan and Germany, as they were in 

World War II, we would have the best technology, the best equipment, and the best 

intelligence being sent right to both fronts. 

But, only one front in this war is overseas where we have, as we should, equipped 

our men and women with the best technology, equipment and intelligence. 

The other theater is right here at home in America’s big cities. And to date, it’s where we’ve seen the greatest loss of life. Yet, we have insufficient equipment, too 

little training, and a lack of intelligence sharing with federal authorities. 

With war hitting home, we must use every resource at our disposal—federal, state 

and local—to keep Americans safe. We owe it to the American people. Through S. 

1615, you are right to call on the Federal Bureau of Investigations to better share 

information with the hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officers across 

this nation. 

Nobody wants to criticize the FBI—particularly during a war. But when Commissioner Norris, a former Deputy Commissioner with the NYPD, explained what was 

happening in the wake of September 11th it seemed irresponsible to remain silent. 

Local governments want to help—out of patriotism, but also because we want to 

make sure our people are safe. 

First, let me say that since we first raised this issue in early October, FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Ashcroft have taken concrete steps to enlist local 

law enforcement officers in the war against terrorism. 

The FBI’s terrorist watch list has been added to the National Crime Information 

Center database. And just last week, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

announced it would place the names of 314,000 foreign nationals, who disappeared 

after being ordered deported, into the NCIC. 

However, notwithstanding this progress, after three months, we are not where we 

should be. Although most people agree that there is no other reasonable course but 

to deputize local law enforcement, how that occurs is still sketchy. 

Here’s one reason it must happen—it’s a simple matter of math. With more than 

a half million open tips and 7,000 FBI agents working on this case, it is physically 

impossible that all tips—or even most tips are being pursued in any meaningful 

way. Until recently, this problem was exacerbated by the creation of an FBI tip line, 

bypassing local law enforcement. 

The tip line has since been discontinued. But while it was in existence, thousands 

of calls bypassed local 911 lines, going directly to the FBI without any tracking or 

reference to local officials. 

In Baltimore, a local utility called the tip line to report a suspicious truck parked 

outside of one of its facilities. The Police Department, which could have been there 

within minutes, never received this information. We found out about it when a utility executive told Commissioner Norris the story at a social event. We assume the 

FBI checked into the truck, but we’re not sure. 

Providing security clearance to Police Chiefs and intelligence units in big city police departments would allow local law enforcement to do its share in protecting our 

nation—four of the terrorists who crashed into the Pentagon lived in Laurel, between Baltimore and Washington. 

Sharing information also would better enable police departments to protect cities 

against independent kooks, who decide to join the Jihad. In Baltimore, we arrested 

a young man of Iranian heritage, walking out of the Howard Street tunnel—where 

we had a train derailment this past summer—wearing a mask, and carrying a backpack and cameras. 

Even as it becomes evermore obvious that we must cooperate, we are falling short 

on coordination amongst the various levels of government and between federal agencies. For instance, one of the terrorists that flew a plane full of innocent people into 

a building filled with innocent people was pulled over by a Maryland State Trooper 

10

before September 11th. The CIA had him on a watch list. The FBI didn’t. And no 

information was shared with state or local law enforcement. 

The State trooper who pulled this driver over would have known he was wanted 

if he had an outstanding speeding ticket in the State of Maryland. He would have 

known if his insurance was expired. But he had no way of knowing that he had just 

pulled over an international terrorist. 

Now, the 230 names on the FBI watch list have been added to the NCIC, but 

there are no pictures. In all likelihood, these men are not using their real names. 

Pictures are critical to catching them. And unless they went to the Osama bin 

Laden school of perfect driving, some of them will slip up. Local law enforcement 

has a very good chance of catching them on traffic charges -just like Timothy 

McVeigh. 

More recently, we have an additional coordination issue. We have read in news 

reports that the FBI would like local law enforcement’s help in questioning about 

5,000 students who are violating their visas. Yet, our Police Commissioner has 

heard nothing. His 3,200 police officers are not yet helping. 

Through our local network, we have determined that we have at least 12 such 

people in our city. We know who and where they are. But the police cannot interview them, we are told, because we are waiting for the Department of Justice and 

the US Attorney to set up a process—for them to tell us about the guys we already 

know about. 

In times of crisis, government doesn’t have the luxury of acting like government. 

A few months might not be soon enough to safeguard American lives. We need to 

move more quickly. 

I’m not saying local government has all the answers. But we do have a lot of 

skilled, trained people who could be helping federal law enforcement officers do 

their job—if only they had the information that would enable them to help. 

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 provided for sharing of intelligence between federal 

agencies. Now it’s time to ensure the same level of cooperation between local and 

federal law enforcement. There is no time for us to say we’ll get to it.

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

Our next witness is Chuck Canterbury. Chuck currently serves 

as the national vice president for the Fraternal Order of Police. He 

is a 23-year police veteran officer on active duty with the Horry 

County, South Carolina Police Department where he holds the 

rank of major and is in charge of the operations bureau of the department. 

As most know, the FOP is the nation’s preeminent association 

representing interests of local law enforcement with 300,000 sworn 

law enforcement officers as members. Their views on this issue are 

invaluable and we are very pleased, Major Canterbury, that you 

were able to join us today. Your entire statement will be read into 

the record. Proceed as you wish. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MYRTLE BEACH, 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Chuck Canterbury and I am the national vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police. I am here today on behalf 

of our national president, Steve Young, to offer testimony in support of enhanced information-sharing between federal law enforcement and those of us at the state and local level. 

As you have already stated, in addition to being the national vice 

president, I am also a major with the Horry County Police Department in South Carolina. As a police executive I recognize the benefits of receiving broad and timely access to information regarding 

threats to our communities but more importantly, I recognize the 

11

absolute necessity of providing the same information to the rank 

and file officers under our command. 

Since the tragic events of 11 September, our nation has moved 

rapidly to hunt down and neutralize terrorists both at home and 

abroad and to strengthen our sense of security, which was assaulted on that fateful day. And, like our military personnel overseas, America’s federal, state and local law enforcement officers 

have done a tremendous job over the last three months under difficult circumstances in protecting our nation from future threats of 

violence. 

A necessary component of these efforts has been timely access to 

specific intelligence and other information regarding threats to our 

national security. As our first line of defense in cities big and 

small, law enforcement officers across the country have used the 

information at their disposal to move quickly to clamp down on 

those whose only goal is to inflict as much damage to as many people as possible. Both before and since September 11, many existing 

systems have been utilized to share intelligence and coordinate efforts against terrorist networks. Among these are the Regional Information Sharing System and the NCIC, to which the FBI has recently added the terrorist watch list. However, several barriers still 

remain which restrict the flow of other much-needed information 

from federal agencies to law enforcement at the state and local 

level and the types of information that is permissible to share. 

As you know, broad and timely access the information and intelligence is the linchpin in the fight against terrorism. With 96 percent of the law enforcement officers in the United States employed 

by state and local governments, it is critical that these agencies be 

kept in the loop by their federal counterparts. 

In the past it has often been a one-way street with state and 

local law enforcement providing information to their federal colleagues and getting very little information in return. We all have 

the same job to do but without the same information about threats, 

our response is inadequate. 

The importance of removing barriers to the free flow and exchange of information is an issue which has been highlighted by 

both Congress and the administration. Following September 11, 

many of us in state and local law enforcement expressed our frustration with the lack of information flowing down from the federal 

agencies and from the FBI in particular. National President Young 

and our executive director Jim Pasco have had comprehensive discussions with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, Attorney 

General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller and with other 

administrative officials on this issue. All have recognized the importance of providing law enforcement at the state and local level 

with access to as much information as possible and General 

Ashcroft and Director Mueller in particular are to be commended 

for their efforts in attempting to improve the sharing of the information with nonfederal agencies. However, they can only provide 

as much information as the current law will allow. 

It is for this reason that efforts were made by the Fraternal 

Order of Police, in close cooperation with officials of the New York 

City Police Department, to include language on this issue as part 

of H.R. 3162, the USA PATRIOT Act. While this effort was ultiVerDate Feb 1 2002 12:02 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 082252 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\82252.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

mately unsuccessful, we are grateful, Mr. Chairman, that you have 

introduced legislation which will continue the dialogue as to not 

only how information is shared in the future but the type of information that can be provided to state and local law enforcement. 

Our state and local officers are the first line of defense against 

threats to our nation. They are the first responders. And because 

they represent the overwhelming majority of law enforcement in 

this country, they can be a valuable asset in the fight to improve 

homeland security but only if a free and uninterrupted flow of information is allowed to exist among law enforcement agencies at 

every level of government. In our future struggles against terrorism all law enforcement agencies will require access to the most 

up-to-date and comprehensive information available and this is 

why it will be demanded by those that we are sworn to protect and 

serve. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you on behalf of the 

membership of the Fraternal Order of Police for holding this hearing and affording us the opportunity to testify here today. We look 

forward to working with you, the members of this Subcommittee, 

and other interested parties on how to best address this issue and 

I would be pleased to stand for any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury follows:]

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Chuck Canterbury and I am the National Vice President 

of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police. With over 299,000 members, the 

F.O.P. is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States. I am 

here today on behalf of National President Steve Young and the membership of our 

organization to offer testimony in support of enhanced information sharing between 

Federal law enforcement and those of us at the State and local level. In addition 

to serving as the National Vice President of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am also 

a Major with the Horny County, South Carolina Police Department and a twentythree year law enforcement veteran. As a police executive, I recognize the benefits 

of receiving broad and timely access to information regarding threats to our communities. But more importantly, I recognize the absolute necessity of providing rank 

and file officers under my command. 

Since the tragic and heinous events of 11 September, our nation has moved rapidly to hunt down and neutralize terrorists both at home and abroad, and to 

strengthen our sense of security which was mercilessly assaulted on that fateful 

day. Our nation is now at war against an oftentimes unseen enemy. It is a war that 

will not be fought solely in a foreign land by our armed forces, but right here in 

our own backyards. We also know that it is not one to be handled solely by the Federal government, but by a unified effort with our States and localities. And like our 

military personnel overseas, America’s the same information to the Federal, State 

and local law enforcement officers have done a tremendous job over the last three 

months, under difficult circumstances, in protecting our nation from future threats 

of violence. 

A necessary component of these efforts has been, and must continue to be, timely 

access to specific intelligence and other information regarding threats to our national security. As our first line of defense in cities big and small, law enforcement 

officers across the country have used the information at their disposal to move 

quickly to clamp down on those whose only goal is to inflict as much damage to as 

many people as ., possible. Both before and since 11 September, many existing systems have been utilized to share intelligence and coordinate efforts against terrorist 

networks that operate in multiple locations and across jurisdictional lines. One of 

these, the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) under the Department of 

Justice, is comprised of six regional intelligence centers that together serve over 

5,600 Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, and facilitates information 

sharing and communication to support investigative and prosecution efforts. Another is the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), to which the Federal BuVerDate Feb 1 2002 12:02 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 082252 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\82252.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
13

reau of Investigation has recently added their terrorist ‘‘watch list,’’ allowing the information to be accessed by State and local law enforcement twenty-four hours a 

day, seven days a week. However, several barriers still remain which restrict the 

flow of other much-needed information from Federal agencies to law enforcement at 

the State and local level, and the types of information it is permissible to share. 

As you know, broad and timely access to information and intelligence is the 

lynchpin in the fight against terrorism. It is critical that State and local agencies 

be kept in the loop by their Federal counterparts. Ninety-six percent of law enforcement officers in the United States are employed by State and local governments—

only four percent are Federal agents. Yet, in critical situations, Federal agencies citing Federal statutes restrict access to this important information. All too often, 

interagency cooperation is hampered by the lack of a free flow of information from 

Federal agencies to State and local departments. In the past, it has often been a 

one-way street, with State and local law enforcement providing information to their 

Federal colleagues, and getting very little if any information in return. We all have 

the same job to do, but without the same information about threats, our response 

will be inadequate. 

The importance of removing barriers to the free flow and exchange of information 

is an issue which has been highlighted by both the Congress and the Administration. Following 11 September, many in the State and local law enforcement community expressed frustration with the lack of information flowing down from Federal 

agencies, and from the FBI in particular. National President Young and our Executive Director Jim Pasco have had comprehensive discussions with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert 

Mueller, and with other Administration officials at the White House on this issue. 

All have recognized the importance of providing law enforcement at the State and 

local level with access to as much information as possible, and General Ashcroft and 

Director Mueller in particular are to be commended for their efforts to improve the 

sharing of intelligence and other information with nonfederal agencies. They have 

provided timely notification to State and local law enforcement about potential terrorist attacks and targets. And they have recognized that there is room to further 

open lines of communication, and the need to continue to build better relationships 

with those throughout the law enforcement community. However, they can only provide as much information as current law will allow. 

It is for this reason that efforts were made by the Fraternal Order of Police, in 

close cooperation with officials of the New York City Police Department, to include 

language on this issue as part of H.R. 3162, the ‘‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 

(USA PATRIOT) Act.’’ While this effort was ultimately unsuccessful, we are gratified that you, Mr. Chairman, have introduced legislation which will continue the 

dialogue as to not only how information is shared in the future, but the type of information that can be provided to State and local law enforcement officers and officials. Our State and local law enforcement officers are the first line of defense 

against threats to our nation. They are the first responders, and because they represent the overwhelming majority of law enforcement in this country, they can be 

a valuable asset in the fight to improve homeland security. But only if a free and 

uninterrupted flow of information is allowed to exist among law enforcement agencies at every level of government. Without providing these men and women with as 

much and as specific information as possible about what or who to be on the look 

out for, we are not allowing them to operate at their peak efficiency in the war 

against terrorism. 

Over the last several years, we have seen dramatic increases in the power and 

speed of communications technology to disseminate enormous amounts of information to an even greater array of people. This is the same type of information explosion which is required within the law enforcement community if we-whether at the 

International, Federal, State or local level-are to be as effective as possible in cracking down on terrorists and those who support them. In our future struggles against 

terrorism, all law, enforcement agencies will require open and uninterrupted lines 

of communication, providing access to the most up-to-date and comprehensive information available-and this is what will be demanded by those we are sworn to protect and serve. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you again on behalf of 

the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police for holding this important hearing, 

and for affording us the opportunity to testify here today. We look forward to working with you, the Members of this Subcommittee, and other interested parties on 

how best to address this issue and create safer futures for our children and fellow 

citizens. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.

14

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Major Canterbury, for again excellent testimony. 

Our final witness is Chief Jon Greiner. Chief Greiner is chief of 

police in Ogden, Utah. He has come at the special request of Senator Hatch. It is a position he has held since 1995. He is also the 

president of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association. He served for 

over 30 years in law enforcement, more than 20 years as an officer 

in the Army Reserve. In addition to holding two bachelors of 

science, Chief Greiner has a master in social science and public administration. He serves on multiple boards and Committees, including most importantly for our purposes today, the Utah Public 

Safety Olympic Command. 

Chief, like the other witnesses, your entire statement will be 

read into the record and you may proceed as you wish. Thanks for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF JON GREINER, PRESIDENT, UTAH CHIEF OF 

POLICE ASSOCIATION, OGDEN, UTAH 

Mr. GREINER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Senate Judiciary Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the local law enforcement interests 

and information-sharing between federal and local law enforcement. 

Hundreds of our own were murdered on September 11, 2001, 

along with thousands of citizens we were sworn to protect. The law 

enforcement community has been the subject of an ever-increasing 

dialogue surrounding such issues as to whether everything was 

done to prevent these attacks and what if any number of possible 

reforms might be made to increase the capacity of all law enforcement to prevent such attacks from occurring in our homeland. 

We, all of us, welcome this healthy process of discussion and potential helpful legislation. As the designated symbol of legal force 

in our society, we stand for those who value a society of order and 

peace. It has always been a fact of life with us, in law enforcement, 

that people will kill others to accomplish their particular goals. Unfortunately, it took a tragedy of immense proportions to bring these 

points of needed discussion to the surface of public consciousness 

and dialogue. 

A significant discovery that came as a result of this tragedy was 

that many agencies, federal, state and local, had in their possession 

information which may have provided clues that the terrorist attack of September 11 of imminent and what the overall direction 

of that attack may be or take. In our world people do things based 

on motives, the real and the imaginary, to murder others. When we 

can, we try to use intelligence as a big part of our operational process so that we can calculate what may happen by knowing our enemies. 

For example, there were law enforcement agencies alerted to suspicious activities surrounding flight schools. There were also 

‘‘watch lists’’ of U.S. immigration officials naming these same terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks. Unfortunately, no one 

government agency possessed enough precursors in this terrorist 

formula to put together all the relevant ingredients and predict the 

15

attack. None of the individual ingredients, standing alone, was sufficient to alert our agencies that this event was about to take place. 

Several lessons have been learned from this experience. The first 

is that we must do a better job of information-sharing among all 

law enforcement agencies. We too often hold information close to 

our sources and do not share it with others. Sometimes this happens to the extent of actual refusal to help others when requests 

are made. The second is that we must do this without sacrificing 

or compromising legal restrictions that have been put in place. This 

is not to say there are not good reasons for secrecy when it puts 

lives at risk or may cause innocent people to have their images tarnished by hasty criminal investigations but there is enormous potential for saving the lives of innocent people if we can recognize 

our potential through information-sharing. 

I suggest learning these lessons. Criminals, terrorists and evildoers spread their propaganda falsehoods in two ways. The first is 

to convince us all that evil does not exist so that we continue to 

become lambs led to slaughter or we just march forward as naive 

victims. The second is that evil is so prevalent that we need to destroy our basic individual freedoms to survive. Evil or criminals are 

not everywhere—quite the contrary. They are the minority of the 

population law enforcement deals with every day. 

A few months ago the U.S. Congress reviewed many of the legal 

barriers to efficient flow of information within various agencies inside the federal government and, where appropriate, lowered some 

barriers. These adjustments will help bring many resources to bear 

on reducing the possibility of future terrorist attacks. However, a 

significant component of this information-sharing was left out. 

That is the sharing of information with state and local enforcement 

counterparts. The FBI, which is the lead federal agency regarding 

terrorism, has but 12,000 agents. The city of New York, for instance, has more than three times that number of sworn officers 

alone. Nationally there are more than 650,000 sworn officers. 

Think of it as the spider web that catches the insects of terrorism 

as they fly through. The web needs to be complete to work; otherwise, the main pieces of the web provided by federal law enforcement have gaping holes for insects to utilize. 

I think the American public is asking our legislators if they are 

serious about the domestic war on terrorism and if they are, why 

should we not employ all the resources at our disposal to win the 

battles? Federal law enforcement resources are, quite frankly, 

dwarfed by existing resources in state and local jurisdictions. While 

searching out and disrupting international terrorism remains a primary function of the federal law enforcement, it is essential we 

take advantage of state and local assets. 

On October 29, 2001, FBI Director Robert Mueller reminded the 

International Chiefs of Police Organization in Toronto, Canada that 

there is no one institution with enough resources or expertise to defeat terrorism. He has been quoted as saying ‘‘It must be a joint 

effort across agencies, across jurisdictions, and across borders. 

State and local law enforcement are playing a critical role collecting information, running down leads and providing the kind of 

expertise critical to the effort of this magnitude and of this importance.’’

16

Senate Bill 1615, the Federal–Local Information Sharing Partnership Act of 2001, would foster better joint efforts by the federal, 

state and local law enforcement agencies in the war on terrorism. 

This bill would address the oversight in previous legislation recently of the information-sharing provisions of that legislation. It 

helps us all—federal, state and local law enforcement—if we can 

cooperate on a two-way road with a give-and-take relationship. 

This legislation is essential to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies are able to work hand in hand with federal law 

enforcement agencies such as the FBI in the war on terrorism. 

On a personal note let me give you just some examples of over 

25 years of relationships my local law enforcement agency has had 

with federal officers. Early in my career a local drug rip-off of a 

drug dealer ended with a federal wiretap and significant forfeitures 

involving DEA, FBI, IRS, U.S. Marshals and yes, an Ogden city police officer. Today, because of that experience, I have personnel assigned to a multi-county drug strike force with federal DEA representation. I also have personnel assigned to an FBI multi-jurisdictional criminal apprehension team, an FBI joint terrorism strike 

force, and locally a multi-jurisdictional gang task force and SWAT 

team. These same relationships are the reason two counties and 12 

law enforcement entities in Northern Utah have gotten together to 

combine law enforcement records into a singular records management system in one software and in one location. This is the same 

software being used by the largest city and county in the state of 

Utah, a future collaboration being currently in the works. 

So why has Ogden done this? Our enemies, our criminals do not 

recognize any boundaries we put in place. Together as a team, we 

can do great things for our citizens. Individually we usually are 

only the sum of our strongest parts and resources. 

Another example if I might is the Utah Olympic Public Safety 

Command of 20 agencies which I have the privilege to sit on. The 

make-up of the command is federal, state and local law enforcement for the most part. For the past three years we have worked 

together with many other agencies in government and private partnerships to prepare the state of Utah to host the 2002 Winter 

Olympics. The terrorism legislation passed recently serves as a barrier to our work and may compromise the citizens of Utah and our 

guests from around the world. We need to have the relevant information and its source that comes as a result of federal grand jury 

information, wiretapping information, visa information, and one 

that may have been overlooked in this endeavor is educational 

records of students studying in this country. 

In just the last 60 days, in my community, we have stopped citizens from former Cold War world countries taking pictures of housing and Olympic venues. We have talked with four Middle Eastern 

students who have rented a condominium, put one mattress in it 

and are ordering up a fast modem Internet service. We have talked 

with a reclusive Middle Eastern gentleman in a transient apartment complex whose neighbors claim he has been seen in the middle of the night meeting with other Middle Eastern gentlemen in 

remote areas of the apartment complex. 

These are the fine strands of the spider web that would normally 

be written off as suspicious circumstances if the partnership my 

17

agency has with federal and state officers did not exist. We treat 

every one of these situations as a potential problem. With less than 

60 days to go until the Olympics, we cannot afford to do otherwise. 

After the Olympics the war on terrorism will still be going on and 

we will need to work at contributing whatever information and resources we might have to the total effort. 

Again I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today and 

I will answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Greiner follows.]

STATEMENT OF JON J. GREINER, POLICE CHIEF, PRESIDENT, UTAH CHIEFS OF POLICE

ASSOCIATION, MEMBER UTAH OLYMPIC PUBLIC SAFETY COMMAND, OGDEN CITY, UTAH

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the local law enforcement interests in information sharing between federal and local law enforcement. 

Hundreds of our own were murdered on September 11, 2001, along with thousands of citizens we were sworn to protect. The law enforcement community has 

been the subject of an ever increasing dialogue surrounding such issues as to whether everything was done to prevent these attacks and what if any number of possible 

reforms might be made to increase the capacity of all law enforcement to prevent 

such attacks from occurring in our homeland. 

We, all of us, welcome this healthy process of discussion and potential helpful legislation. As the designated symbol of legal force in our society, we stand for those 

who value a society of order and peace. It has always been a fact of life with us, 

in law enforcement, that people will kill others to accomplish their particular goals. 

Unfortunately it took a tragedy of immense proportions to bring these points of 

needed discussion to the surface of public consciousness and dialogue. 

A significant discovery that came as a result of this tragedy was that many agencies, federal, state, and local, had in their possession information which may have 

provided clues that the terrorist attack of September 11th was imminent and what 

the overall direction of that attack may be or take. In our world people do things 

based on motives (the real and the imaginary) to murder others. When we can, we 

try to use intelligence as a big part of our operational process so we can calculate 

what may happen by knowing our enemies. For example there were law enforcement agencies alerted to suspicious activities surrounding flight schools. There were 

also ‘‘watch lists’’ of U.S. Immigration officials naming these same terrorists involved in the September 11th attacks. Unfortunately, no one government agency possessed enough precursors in this terrorist formula to put together all the relevant 

ingredients and predict the attack. None of the individual ingredients, standing 

alone, was sufficient to alert our agencies that this event was about to take place. 

Several lessons have been learned from this experience. The first is that we must 

do a better job of information sharing among all law enforcement agencies. We too 

often hold information close to our sources and do not share it with others. Sometimes this happens to the extent of actual refusal to help others when requests are 

made. The second is that we must do this without sacrificing or compromising legal 

restrictions that have been put in place. This is not to say there aren’t good reasons 

for secrecy when it puts lives at risk or may cause innocent people to have their 

images tarnished by hasty criminal investigations, but there is enormous potential 

for saving the lives of innocent people if we can recognize our potential through information sharing. I suggest learning these lessons; Criminals, Terrorists and 

Evildoers spread their propaganda falsehoods in two ways. The first is to convince 

us that evil does not exist so that we continue to become lambs led to slaughter 

or we just march forward as naive victims. The second is that evil is so prevalent 

that we need to destroy our basic individual freedoms to survive. Evil or criminals 

are not everywhere, quite the contrary, they are the minority of the population law 

enforcement deals with every day. 

A few months ago the U.S. Congress reviewed many of the legal barriers to efficient flow of information within various agencies inside the federal government and 

where appropriate lowered some barriers. These adjustments will help bring many 

resources to bear on reducing the possibility of future terrorist attacks. However, 

a significant component of this information sharing was left out. That is the sharing 

of information with state and local law enforcement counterparts. The F.B.I., which 

is the lead federal agency regarding terrorism, has but 12,000 agents. The City of 

18

New York for instance has more than three times that number of sworn officers 

alone. Nationally there are more than 650,000 sworn police officers. Think of it as 

a spider web that catches the insects of terrorism as they fly through. The web 

needs to be complete to work, otherwise, the main pieces of the web provided by 

federal law enforcement have gapping holes for insects to utilize. 

I think the American public is asking our legislators if they are serious about the 

domestic war on terrorism and if they are why shouldn’t we employ all of the resources at our disposal to win the battles? Federal law enforcement resources are 

quite frankly dwarfed by existing resources in state and local jurisdictions. While 

searching out and disrupting international terrorism remains a primary function of 

federal law enforcement it is essential we take advantage of state and local assets. 

On October 29, 2001 FBI Director Robert Mueller reminded the International 

Chiefs of Police Organization in Toronto, Canada that there is no one institution 

with enough resources or expertise to defeat terrorism. He has been quoted as saying ‘‘It must be a joint effort across agencies, across jurisdictions, and across borders. State and local law enforcement are playing a critical role collecting information, running down leads and providing the kind of expertise critical to an effort of 

this magnitude and of this importance.’’ Senate Bill 1615, the Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act of 2001 

would foster better joint efforts by the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the war on terrorism. This bill would address the oversight in previous legislation, recently, of the information sharing provisions of that legislation. It helps us 

all, federal, state and local law enforcement if we can operate on a two-way road 

with a give and take relationship. This legislation is essential to ensure that state 

and local law enforcement agencies are able to work hand-in-hand with federal law 

enforcement agencies, such as the F.B.I., in the war on terrorism. 

On a personal note let me give you some examples of over twenty five years of 

relationships my local law enforcement agency has had with federal officers. Early 

in my career a local drug rip off of a dealer ended with a federal wire tap and significant forfeitures involving DEA, FBI, IRS, U.S. Marshals and yes an Ogden police 

officer. Today, because of that experience, I have personnel assigned to a multi 

county drug strike force with federal DEA representation. I also have personnel assigned to a FBI Multi Jurisdictional Criminal Apprehension Team, a FBI Joint Terrorism Strike Force and locally a multi jurisdiction gang task force and SWAT team. 

These same relationships are the reason two counties and twelve law enforcement 

in Northern Utah have gotten together to combine law enforcement records into a 

singular Records Management system in one software and one location. This is the 

same software being used by the largest city and county in the State of Utah, a future collaboration being currently in the works. So why has Ogden done this? Our 

enemies, our criminals do not recognize any boundaries we put in place. Together, 

as a team, we can do great things for our citizens, individually we usually are only 

the sum of our strongest parts and resources. 

Another example, if I might, is the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command of 20 

agencies which I have the privilege to sit on. The make-up of the command is federal, state, and local law enforcement for the most part. For the last three years 

we have worked together with many other agencies in government and private partnerships to prepare the State of Utah to host the 2002 Winter Olympics. The terrorism legislation passed recently serves as a barrier to our work and may compromise the citizens of Utah and our guests from around the world. We need to have 

the relevant information and it’s source that comes as a result of federal grand jury 

information, wiretapping information, visa information and one that may have been 

looked over in this endeavor is educational records of students studying in this 

country. In just the last 60 days, in my community, we have stopped citizens from 

former cold war world countries taking pictures of housing and Olympic Venues. We 

have talked with four Middle Eastern students who have rented a condominium, put 

one mattress in it, and are ordering up a fast modem InterNet service. We have 

talked with a reclusive Middle Eastern gentleman in a transient apartment complex 

whose neighbors claim he has been seen in the middle of the night meeting with 

other Middle Eastern gentleman in remote areas of the apartment complex. These 

are the fine strands of the spider web that would normally be written of as suspicious circumstances if the partnership my agency has with federal and state officers did not exist. We treat every one of these situations as a potential problem, 

with less than 60 days to go until the Olympics we cannot afford to do otherwise. 

After the Olympics the war on terrorism will still be going on and we all need to 

work at contributing whatever information and resources we might have to the total 

effort. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and I will answer any 

questions you may have. 

19

Thank You

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Chief, and I want to thank all 

of the witnesses for their testimony. 

Let me begin with some questions. I want to ask each of you 

about some specific instances. This is such a long-term and severe 

problem. I remember when the former Attorney General Janet 

Reno came first before us in the House Judiciary Committee and 

she said her number one goal was to bring greater cooperation between federal and local law enforcement. That was back in 1993 

and obviously we have a long way to go but it shows you that this 

problem has been with us for a long time. And just to flesh out the 

problem I would like to ask again about some specifics. First is to 

the commissioner. 

I first got involved in trying to add this legislation to the antiterrorism bill when I received calls from you, Commissioner, and 

the mayor. You were quite upset about what had happened with 

the anthrax information. Can you give us the details as to what 

happened and why you were so upset about that? 

Mr. KERIK. I think primarily the anthrax investigation just sort 

of brought it to light. That was that there had been a letter received by NBC studios that the FBI had been made aware of directly from NBC, someone at NBC, and that letter was held for 

some time, maybe a week or so or even more than a week—I do 

not have the exact time—before we became aware of it as a result 

of other inquiries. And it was disturbing to know that we could 

have been on the issue instantly and that sort of brought all of this 

to light, that the FBI had not let us know. We could have responded, as we responded—as some of my colleagues mentioned, 

we respond to 911 calls for suspicious activity for disturbing packages, for parcels, different threatening items in the city 24 hours 

a day. That is what the New York City Police Department does and 

we could have been there and we could have had a handle on it 

much quicker. 

One of the things that concerns me is we have to look at the 

overall signature of what terrorism is and what terrorists do. If you 

will recall back in 1993, there was an attack on the World Trade 

Center. They did not succeed or at least what they intended to do, 

they did not succeed. They wanted to take down the buildings; they 

did not do that. 

People associated with those people who were responsible later 

in 1996 and 1997 again threatened the city. There was an investigation that revealed an attempt to take down the tunnels and 

bridges, some of the tunnels and bridges. The threats were thwarted. There were people arrested, still associated with these same 

people from the World Trade Center. 

Now we come to 2001, there is another attack on the World 

Trade Center, this time a devastating attack, and we find during 

the course of the investigation that there were people involved in 

this investigation or associates of that were related to the people 

back in 1993. 

We have to look at these groups. If they do not succeed the first 

time, they are going to come back and do it again. We have to 

make sure that we collect data, collect every ounce of information 

that we can and we disseminate it to the people that need the inVerDate Feb 1 2002 12:02 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 082252 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\82252.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
20

formation the most. And as the chief mentioned from Utah, I have 

41,000 police officers that are out there on a daily basis collecting 

information. As you know, last year we created the Regional Intelligence Center for fighting crime in the city—the FBI, the DEA, the 

Customs, ATF, the New York City Police Department all put into 

one central database through HIDTA, through New York HIDTA, 

and it has a major impact on crime reduction, which is our primary 

goal in New York City. 

I think we have to look at the primary goal of national defense 

and what we can do to benefit national defense, and that is collect 

information from everyone, disseminate it to those who need it, and 

with the enactment of this law you will not preclude anyone from 

stopping you from getting that information. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me ask you, Commissioner, did you 

have discussions after you finally found out about the NBC letter 

and anthrax with the head of the New York office of the FBI or 

people in Washington? And did they give you any good reason why 

they did not tell you immediately when they had heard of this? 

Mr. KERIK. Well, I am not here to criticize and I will say that 

Barry Mawn from the New York office, the assistant director, has 

been extremely cooperative. There could have been a lack of communication. 

Chairman SCHUMER. It is just so much part of their culture, they 

do not even think to tell the NYPD, even when there is a major 

scare like this? Is that fair to say? 

Mr. KERIK. I think that could be what it is. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Leaving Barry or leaving the New York 

specifics out of it. 

Mr. KERIK. As you mentioned earlier, there are two things that 

will preclude us from getting information—the law and the culture. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. KERIK. Culture can be changed, as you know, as in New 

York City it has been, through management accountability. Resolve 

the issue. The other thing is the law. Change the law and we will 

get the information. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I called Mr. Mawn, as well, and asked him 

what happened after this and I did not get much. He said well, it 

was sort of a mistake or whatever else. I mean did they give you 

any reason why they—obviously you were upset and I am sure you 

communicated with them. What was their reasoning? Did they 

think it through? Did they say well, it would be a bad idea or they 

just said well, we are the FBI, we can handle this, we do not need 

anybody else? 

Mr. KERIK. I think what happened is they sent their investigators and they ran it their route and just failed to contact us. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Would it not have made sense to ask the 

NYPD do you have any record of any anthrax, any traces of anthrax in previous years? I mean there are so many obvious questions that you would think you would reach out to local law enforcement, particularly such a sophisticated, well established group 

as NYPD. 

Mr. KERIK. Absolutely. But I say in their defense, I have to say 

post that event we put together an effort to ensure that all the 

agencies were involved. In fact, when there is, in fact, an anthrax 

21

scare or a threat, the teams that go out to do the collection of evidence and analysis and environmental studies consists of New York 

City detectives, members of the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force, 

FBI agents, and New York City firefighters. 

So I have to say in the FBI’s defense they have been extremely 

forthright in putting together a comprehensive plan for us to attack 

the problem. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So since the NBC anthrax letter you would 

say at least culture-wise. They still cannot do things legally and 

that is what our law changes but culture-wise they seem to be a 

lot better and more cooperative? 

Mr. KERIK. I think culture-wise Director Mueller and Barry 

Mawn have done a tremendous job in trying to turn things around. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Great. And so now when there is any other 

kind of danger you hear about it directly from them right away? 

Mr. KERIK. Barry Mawn calls me directly. Yes, he does. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good. That is a good improvement. 

I just want to ask you about something else you mentioned, these 

same individuals you mentioned, 1993, 1997, 2001. Was there sharing of information between NYPD and FBI about these individuals 

over the course of those eight years? Was it regular? Was it routine? Was it ad hoc? Did it never occur? 

Mr. KERIK. I think the New York City Police Department is in 

a sort of different circumstance than a number of other agencies 

throughout the country. As you know, we have had a Joint Terrorist Task Force for more than 20 years now in New York City. 

In fact, New York City was one of the first cities in the country 

to create such a task force. 

So we have a more cooperative effort when it comes to terrorism 

because we have FBI agents and New York City police officers 

working together. And I would say the communication was beneficial to fighting what we had to do in New York City. In fact, in 

1996 or 1997 when we took down the group that was going to do 

the bridges and tunnels, that was as a result of an investigation 

that eventually we had to—New York City came up with it and 

turned it over to the task force. 

Chairman SCHUMER. There has not been that much problem with 

the local people telling the federal authorities; it has generally been 

the other way in the past. Is that right? 

Mr. KERIK. Usually it is, yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me ask you, Mayor O’Malley, and I am 

sure you have talked to Mr. Norris, your police chief. Do you find 

communication, to be better since September 11 or maybe even 

since the major SNAFU with the NBC anthrax letter? You are a 

large city, not as large as New York. You were not at the center 

of these terrorist actions. Do you think it is better? Do you get any 

feeling of change? Are your folks treated a little better? 

Mayor O’MALLEY. It is slightly better. I think sometimes we confuse meetings with progress. We have some great meetings with 

our FBI and they are real nice people, too. It is not about nice. It 

is not about congeniality or being good colleagues. 

There is a little bit of change. I think one of the biggest changes 

is that Director Mueller appreciates what a huge cultural barrier 

he needs to overcome as the new leaders of that organization. But 

22

we really need to stay to the specifics. I think we all want to hear 

the good news so much that we tend not to bore down to the details, and the details are important. The assassination of Mayar 

Kahani and the information that was passed on by the NYPD to 

the federal authorities that they never bothered to translate that 

implicated people that were later involved in the 1993 attacks on 

the World Trade Center, that is an important detail. I am sure we 

had lots of meetings between Mayar Kahani’s assassination and 

the 1993 attack but we did not follow up on it. 

The 12 individuals that I am told we want to get in touch with 

in the city of Baltimore and that we have wanted to get in touch 

with for the last 10 days, what are we waiting for? I mean I am 

glad that we are told that there are 12 individuals but what are 

we waiting for? 

The names of the 230 people on the watch list, the good news is 

we were told that that change was made about a month ago. The 

bad news is that my head of intelligence for the Baltimore City Police Department, a very competent guy who is held very accountable by Commissioner Norris, has attempted several times to access those names through NCIC, has been unsuccessful. He understands through colleagues of ours in Ann Arbor, Michigan that 

there is a special code you need to put in in order to access those 

names. He did not have it. He called our local FBI office. They said 

we are not aware of a special code. And in the meantime the 3,100 

member of the Baltimore City Police Department, who stop traffic 

all the time as part of their duties, still are not able to access those 

names when they run it through to see if they have paid their 

Maryland auto insurance or their tags are up to date. 

The relay of information, the sorts of tips that are much more appropriately responded to by a patrol officer, the sort of 911 call, 

mysterious Ryder truck case casing the utility facilities, those 

things are not coming to us any quicker than they were two 

months ago. 

So I think that there is an improvement in that people at the top 

of the FBI are recognizing the problem but on the ground, Senator, 

and again nobody wants to appear critical at these times but it is 

not happening. We have a bad case of the slows. The federal government almost needs a Comstat process—call it federal stat or 

something—to drive these things home to completion. It is not happening. I do not know exactly why it is happening. 

The fact that you change the law I think is an important step 

in the right direction but we should not be shy about asking these 

questions. We really need you and your colleagues to bore down to 

these details. We all want to hear the good news but the fact of 

the matter is that Americans are at risk if we do not get to the 

details of this and actually pick up the phone, call local law enforcement and say how is it better, how is it not better? And I 

would encourage you and your staff to do that and not accept the 

answers that—you know, there is a common phenomenon that affects all human beings in every single organization whether it is 

the FBI or local law enforcement or whatever the human organization is and that is people tell the boss what the boss wants to hear. 

And I would encourage you and your colleagues—

Chairman SCHUMER. It does not happen in the Senate. 

23

Mayor O’MALLEY. I am sure not. But I would encourage you and 

your colleagues and your staff to call the local law enforcement up 

and see what they are saying. I think it was a help to Director 

Mueller to get that sort of input and I would only encourage you 

to keep following up. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I agree with you, Mr. Mayor. I would say 

had the mayor and the commissioner not talked a little bit about 

what happened after the NBC anthrax letter we would not have 

had the progress we made. But you bring a good question up because this is dealing with information and the Comstat system, 

which has been used in New York and I guess is used in other police departments, is an information system. It is basically giving 

the police—I always thought it made police work a little more like 

private sector because you had statistics and you had goals and you 

had to see if you made them and you could not just talk your way 

around the problem. 

I wanted to ask the commissioner, based on what you said, what 

do you think of doing a Comstat-type of program for this issue and 

for other issues in the FBI? Because one of the things that we have 

been concerned with here is getting the FBI a little leaner and 

meaner than they have been. 

Mr. KERIK. One of the things that the mayor and I recommended 

early on was that either through the Office of Homeland Security 

or through the FBI that Director Mueller appoint someone at the 

highest levels, directly reportable to him or directly reportable to 

Tom Ridge, that would create a Comstat mechanism to collect this 

intelligence and to ensure that it went out to the appropriate parties. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is a great idea. 

Mr. KERIK. We called for that when the mayor and I testified 

earlier before Congress. We are very much in favor of it. I think 

it would be extremely beneficial and it has proven around this 

country that it works. Whether it is crime statistics or internal intelligence like the Regional Intelligence Center in New York City 

now, it works, and all they have to do is create the position, have 

someone oversee it, and then hold people accountable to make sure 

that they are doing what they are supposed to do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Could not the FBI use a whole Comstat system? 

Mr. KERIK. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Not just for this but for the whole way that 

they operate? 

Mr. KERIK. Absolutely. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You have given us another hearing’s worth 

of information here but that is something I think makes a great 

deal of sense, having followed it in NYPD. 

Mayor O’MALLEY. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. 

Mayor O’MALLEY. We stole their good idea and do it across the 

board in all the cities— Chairman SCHUMER. You would recommend that the FBI institute a Comstat-type system? 

Mayor O’MALLEY. The important thing is to drive through the 

completion of the task and that is what does not happen. 

24

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Mayor O’MALLEY. We like to wrap ourselves in the warm blanket 

feeling that if we pass it on to the FBI or the federal government 

that everything has been completed and it is done and the numbers, the sheer numbers defy that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thanks. 

Chief Greiner, you had said a number of interesting things. How 

is the cooperation? You mentioned there is a task force in Utah. We 

have the Olympics, as you mentioned, in less than 60 days. A, has 

the cooperation been pretty good all along? Has it gotten better? 

Are you confident that when the federal government learns of some 

possible problem with the Utah Olympics that the local law enforcement on the ground in Utah will learn it, too? 

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir, I am. Because of the Olympics I think 

there has been an increased awareness of information-sharing. We 

have huge geographical problems out in Utah, not the population 

issues that are here on the East Coast, but the Olympics has 

brought to the forefront a new discussion level amongst all law enforcement along the Wasatch front and as a result of that we are 

very attuned to everybody’s needs. 

The problem I see is that in the collection of the data who gets 

out and does the investigation of it in a timely manner? It is not 

uncommon to have real intelligence come to us and see it also on 

the front page of USA Today within the same half hour. So USA 

Today had the information at least before print time, which is before law enforcement got it. 

So the timeliness is still an issue but the cooperation level, at 

least for the Olympics, has been superb. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So it is that you are not getting it quickly 

enough but you are getting it? 

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Although you may read about it in the 

newspaper first. 

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay, you mentioned a couple of other 

things I want to mention. Flight schools, could you just elaborate 

on that a little bit? I was intrigued by what you said but I was not 

clear from your testimony. Is this the federal government had information about who was attending flight schools and did not share 

it with you, that you had it and did not get cooperation when you 

dealt with the feds? Just explain that a little bit. 

Mr. GREINER. There is both. I have read and heard from at least 

some federal sources that there was information about these flight 

schools that was not passed on, at least from the jurisdictions 

where the flight schools exited. And even in my own jurisdiction we 

have an airport, a regional airport, and one of the flight services 

was bought by a Middle Eastern gentleman who lives in Park City 

and he has bought up two or three of the flight service schools 

across the state of Utah, information that we had that was never 

shared with anybody and did not come to the forefront until the 

September 11 tragedies. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now it has been better? 

Mr. GREINER. Now it has been better. 

25

Chairman SCHUMER. Is everything okay with those flight 

schools? 

Mr. GREINER. So far. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You mentioned another issue, which is you 

talked about our legislation might be missing something about information about students on visas, nonAmerican citizens on visas. 

Do you want to talk about that a little bit? 

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir, and this comes to light just this past 

week. Part of the watch list that came out from the FBI contains 

several names. The unfortunate part of that is that those names 

are as common as John Smith or John Brown in our culture. So 

as you check the register, the database of our community, and you 

find those names, a number of times those individuals are students 

at our local university. The university police department has no 

database retrieval system and anything that happens off-campus is 

in our database retrieval system. So even going and finding out 

what there may be requires a lot of extra effort, to the point that 

even the president of the university asks why local police are coming on his campus to talk to his students when it is only in response to questions being offered from the federal people. 

I think there is a wealth of information there about students who 

are here maybe not with all the most desirable of traits or desirable of motives and we need to make sure that we understand all 

the people in our community and not leave that sector of them out 

because I think that student visas are one of those areas that are 

grossly misused and abused in our country. 

Chairman SCHUMER. My guess is if you tied in the university to 

this a little bit more not only would you find better information but 

you might do it in a nicer way. 

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. If the university people say we know this 

person, they seem to be fine, et cetera, it is a lot better than having 

local police go knock on their door and create a whole fuss on the 

campus, too. That would make sense. 

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me ask each of you and let me start 

with Mr. Canterbury, when you bring up your complaints to federal 

law enforcement, when your members do, Major Canterbury, and 

you say look, we need more cooperation, do they admit that it is 

a problem now, more so than before? Or do they say you are getting all the information that we can afford to give you? Do the indicate the law is more the problem rather than the culture? Just tell 

us a little bit about that since you represent people all across the 

country. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I think since September 11 the Fraternal 

Order of Police has had good cooperation with the FBI director and 

Attorney General Ashcroft and I think that we have had a lot of 

input and we have been able to discuss it, but I believe that the 

law is more the excuse. Obviously the change in the law was important but the culture needs to change. 

Small town America, which is where I am from, the contact with 

the FBI is we need your information; we will see you later. It is 

a cultural thing. It is not necessarily—as the mayor said, we have 

a lot of meetings and they are nice meetings but the exchange of 

26

information is very one-sided. I think that obviously in the last especially two months there has been a lot of input allowed, a lot of 

input requested, and where that goes, I think time will tell but I 

think a change in the law is extremely important but the change 

in the culture is even more important. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And I think it was the mayor who mentioned that at the top levels there is a lot of cooperation but getting 

it down to the lower levels is tough. That is why Comstat is probably a good idea because that will measure how well it is being 

done, as opposed to the top guys saying yes, do it, and then the 

lower level guys, you never know whether they are or are not. 

What do you think of that idea? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I think one of the most important things that 

I heard today was what the mayor said about Timothy McVeigh. 

The information getting to the front-line troops that are actually 

making the traffic stops, and I think the chief talked about the spider web effect, it is the 650,000 rank and file officers that are actually going to make those contacts? If the watch list information 

does not come up on the traffic stop or it does not come up on the 

field interview or the contact with the domestic dispute, then filtering back up is much harder, but the front-line troops are the 

people that need the ability to get the information because they are 

the ones making the daily contacts. And we are very concerned 

about that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Commissioner or Mayor, when you bring 

this up to people at the top level do they acknowledge it is a problem and do they seem to reflect it is more cultural or legal? 

Mayor O’MALLEY. At first, in the wake of the attacks, we got 

from the local people a lot of legal and I think they did not have 

much information themselves. I picked up the phone and actually 

called Director Mueller about three weeks after the attacks and to 

his credit, he called me back. At the time he said, ‘‘How come you 

are the only city in America that has this problem?’’ And to his 

credit, after we had a very frank discussion, he then started reaching out and calling local law enforcement and I think really wants 

to fix this. Up until that time I do not think he fully appreciated 

the very, very dangerous gap that exists. 

You know, the analogy with the spider web I think is a good one 

but if the information is not there, the insects are not going to get 

stuck to the web. They are going to be given a warning ticket and 

waved goodbye in this time of racial profiling. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Commissioner? 

Mr. KERIK. Like I said earlier, Barry Mawn and the city office 

has been extremely cooperative. But the mayor brings up a good 

point and this is something I think everyone should focus on. Does 

the Bureau have the information that they need? Are they getting 

information from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, from 

the INS, immigration? Are their databases linked? Are the watch 

lists linked to the databases from INS and the Bureau and Customs? Is there money being funded through narcotics trafficking? 

Is DEA’s database involved? I think we also have to look at that, 

too. 

If you think about a Comstat process and a process of intelligence accountability, this is a war unlike any other war we have 

27

in this country. This war is really jeopardizing our national security. It has to be fought from the inside at the lowest levels up and 

out. And I think the culture will change if the order is given from 

the top and people are held accountable but in doing that we have 

to make sure that it is really broadly encompassing because at the 

end of the day during the course of talking to the Bureau, even if 

they are giving us information, we have to know what they have 

because more importantly, we have to know what they do not have. 

What they do not have, those 650,000 cops that patrol the streets 

every day, I can almost assure you, will find or have. That is the 

bottom line. 

Chairman SCHUMER. As you say, I think the vice president has 

said this, that this is the first war where more people will die on 

the home front than on the battlefront. That means that the people 

that you command in one way or represent are front-line troops 

and cannot be treated in a secondary way that well, we do not need 

you, you are not useful to us, et cetera. And I think that is really 

important. 

Anyone have any final words that they wish to give us? The 

hearing has been very helpful in fleshing all of this out and helping 

us move our legislation, which we are going to move quickly. 

As you say, Commissioner, this is not just the problem of federal 

to local law enforcement. Federal agencies did not share any of this 

until we passed our bill and that culture has got to change, too, but 

I have a feeling the culture is more imbedded when it goes from 

federal to local and that has to change. We are taking steps to do 

it and your testimony will help us get there. 

Mr. KERIK. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I want to thank you. Mr. Mayor? 

Mayor O’MALLEY. I would like to nominate Commissioner Kerik 

to the new role of director of federal Comstat. 

Chairman SCHUMER. He has a few other jobs. I do not know if 

he would take this one. 

But thank you. I thank each of the witnesses and all of the staff 

who worked hard on the hearing. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Hon. Charles E. Grassley, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Iowa 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing to highlight the sharing of information between federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies. As many of you know, I strongly believe in the importance and necessity 

for federal, state and local agencies to develop protocols for improved sharing of intelligence and other information. 

Local police agencies play a significant role in preventing and responding to terrorism. They make a valuable contribution to our Nation’s anti-terrorism efforts by 

building on their community policing networks to exchange information with citizens and gather intelligence. Federal law enforcement can’t do it alone. Local police 

have direct and crucial information about individuals living in their communities 

and are especially qualified to assess community concerns and fears necessary for 

effective intelligence gathering. We must trust them to maintain the confidentiality 

of sensitive information and to allow them to be equal partners in any collaborative 

efforts if those strategies are to be effective. 

Last month, I conducted two working meetings in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids 

on the issue of first responder preparedness. The purpose of these meetings was to 

28

have an open dialogue with Iowa first responders about their mission in a crisis and 

how prepared they feel they are to carry out that mission. 

One of the concerns expressed privately to my staff was that the first responders 

need increased information sharing with federal investigative and intelligence agencies. These participants cited the lack of information sharing as the key impediment 

to investigative and operational efficiency, and that it could ultimately effect the 

successful and timely detection and resolution of a potential terrorist incident. 

These first responders identified the management of the FBI as the probable source 

of the bottleneck in the flow of information between federal agencies and local law 

enforcement. 

For many years, I’ve been talking about the FBI’s refusal to share information 

and the negative effect this has on law enforcement’s overall effectiveness. This pattern of information hoarding is deeply rooted within the organizational culture of 

the Bureau. To complicate matters further, the FBI is structured in such a way as 

to restrict the flow of information to those that need it the most, the first responders, those men and women who are at the front lines of our homeland defense. The 

investigation following the September 11th attacks has proven how critical this first 

line of defense is in our nation’s battle against terrorism. 

To be sure, there are legitimate reasons for segregating certain information, such 

as the protection of sources and methods and the classification of sensitive information. But these reasons are often used as a smokescreen to hoard information because it simply serves the Bureau’s interests, which unfortunately are at times focused more on public relations than on the needs of the case. Ask any law enforcement professional in state, local or federal government, and they will tell you a 

number of stories of FBI officials claiming sole credit for multi-jurisdictional investigations. Or, as is frequently the case, information is withheld in order to coverup an embarrassing blunder. 

Senator Schumer has introduced a bill to allow the voluntary sharing of information regarding future terrorist attacks. This bill to remove some of the statutory barriers to information sharing is a good start, but for real information sharing to 

occur, there must be a sea change in the management of the FBI. Fortunately, the 

Justice Department has recently revealed their reorganization plan for the FBI and 

it does address the issue of information sharing. I hope this plan is not just ‘‘window 

dressing’’. Furthermore, this Committee must continue our vigilant oversight of the 

FBI to insure that state and local police are receiving the information they need to 

effectively prevent terrorism. 

Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you for holding a hearing on an issue that 

is critical to effective law enforcement.

Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 

f Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the law enforcement community has been the subject of an intense level of scrutiny, to determine, 

first, whether everything possible was done to prevent the attacks, and second, 

what, if any, reforms can now be made to increase the capability of law enforcement 

to prevent such attacks in the future. This analysis is a healthy process, and one 

that has been welcomed by virtually all of our law enforcement agencies, although 

it is unfortunate that it took a tragedy of such magnitude to bring these matters 

to the forefront of the public consciousness. 

One of the most important revelations that has resulted from this period of scrutiny, is the realization that, prior to the September 11th attacks, government agencies within the United States already had in their possession clues that a terrorist 

attack was imminent, and clues as to the form that such an attack might take. It 

has become apparent, for instance, that law enforcement agencies had been alerted 

to suspicious activities at flight schools around the country. We have also learned 

that many of the terrorists who perpetrated the September 11th attacks were on 

‘‘watch lists’’ compiled by U.S. immigration authorities prior to September 11th. 

Unfortunately, no one governmental agency possessed enough of these clues to 

piece together a sufficiently clear outline of the terrorists’ plans to enable us to predict and prevent the September 11th incidents. None of the isolated pieces of information was sufficient, standing alone, to set off warning bells that an attack was 

about to take place. 

Accordingly, one of the first lessons we have learned from the September 11th attacks is that we must do a better job of encouraging information sharing between 

and among our law enforcement institutions. 

29

There are two dimensions to the problem of sharing criminal investigatory information between governmental agencies. First, there is a culture, particularly within 

our law enforcement institutions, to hold information close, and to refuse to disseminate it to other governmental agencies. Second, there are often legal restrictions as 

to how and when information may be lawfully disseminated. 

Often, there are good reasons for both the legal restrictions on information sharing and the culture of informational compartmentalization. Investigations may be 

compromised, and lives put at risk, if investigatory information is spread too liberally. In addition, innocent people, who may subsequently be cleared of all wrongdoing, may have their reputations tarnished by premature disclosure that they are 

the subject of a criminal investigation. 

While we must remain mindful of these concerns, we must also recognize the 

enormous potential that sharing information between and among our law enforcement institutions has to increase the probability that terrorist activity may be identified and prevented. We must look for ways to encourage such sharing in circumstances where the benefits to our society outweigh the costs. 

This was one of the major concerns motivating the passage of the Anti-terrorism 

legislation earlier this year. In that legislation, Congress reviewed many of the legal 

burners to the efficient flow of information within various agencies of the federal 

government and, where appropriate, lowered those burners. These changes are key 

reforms that will unquestionably help the federal government to bring all its resources to bear on identifying and stopping terrorist activities. 

One area that was neglected by the Anti-terrorism legislation, however, was the 

sharing of information between federal law enforcement authorities and their state 

and local counterparts. If we are truly serious in our domestic war on terrorism, 

then it is essential that we employ all the resources at our disposal to win that war. 

Our federal law enforcement resources are simply dwarfed by the resources available in state and local jurisdictions. While disrupting international terrorism efforts 

will remain primarily a function of the federal government, it is essential that we 

take advantage of all the help that state and local authorities can provide. 

As FBI Director Robert Mueller recently stated, ‘‘We all realize, no one institution 

has enough resources or expertise to defeat terrorism. It must be a joint effort 

across agencies, across jurisdictions, and across borders. State and local law enforcement are playing a critical role collecting information, running down leads, and providing the kind of expertise critical to an effort of this magnitude and of this importance.’’

S. 1615, the Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act of 2001 would foster joint efforts by the federal government and state and local law enforcement. 

The,bill would address the oversight in last month’s legislation, by extending the information sharing provisions contained in that legislation to cover, not just the federal government, but state and local law enforcement agencies as well. This legislation is essential to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies are able 

to work hand-in-hand with federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI in the 

war against terrorism. 

In conclusion, I would like to point out that in my home state of Utah we are 

in the process of pioneering cooperative law enforcement efforts among federal, 

state, and local law enforcement institutions. As we gear up for the Winter Olympics in 2002, federal, state, and local law enforcement has come together, to an unprecedented degree, to provide security for that event. I would like to welcome my 

good friend, Jon Greiner to today’s hearing. Jon is the Chief of Police in Ogden 

Utah, and in that capacity he has been in the forefront of establishing these inventive relationships. I look forward to hearing his testimony, and that of all the fine 

witnesses that have been assembled for today

f’s hearing.

Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Vermont 

I commend Senator Schumer for holding this hearing on the need for and benefits 

of sharing information with local law enforcement. Local law enforcement are the 

first responders at the scene of crises and have to determine almost instantaneously 

whether the cause was an accident, a crime or, worse, an organized terrorist attack. 

To make these determinations and to know how best to respond, they should and 

must have access to the information necessary to evaluate these situations accurately and expeditiously. 

30

I have co-sponsored with Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, and Senator Hatch 

S. 1615, the ‘‘Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act of 2001,’’ which 

would provide guidelines for such sharing to take place. I originally supported this 

legislation during the final deliberations between the Senate and House on the USA 

PATRIOT Act. While the Senate leadership favored adding these provisions to the 

bill, the House leadership wanted to defer consideration on procedural grounds 

without prejudice to the merits. 

S. 1615 authorizes the sharing of certain foreign intelligence information with 

local law enforcement personnel. The bill resolves the question of whether legal barriers prevent the FBI and other federal law enforcement authorities from disclosing 

information to state and local law enforcement agencies when necessary and appropriate to ensure an effective response to terrorist threats. The Committee will review the details of the bill carefully so that it achieves this goal without risking unintended consequences. 

On the larger issues of cooperation I am pleased that FBI Director Robert Mueller 

announced last week the creation of a new position of Assistant Director for Law 

Enforcement Coordination to be filled by an experienced representative of local law 

enforcement. This new position will report directly to Director Mueller. To his credit, the Director Mueller is aware of the problem of the FBI not effectively working 

with other law enforcement officers. He told one law enforcement group in late October that offers of help from police have in some cases been wrongly turned down, 

and called that ‘‘unacceptable.’’ He has promised that the FBI will change the way 

it works with local police. 

I have spoken to Mayor O’Malley about this issue and thank him for the personal 

attention and commitment he has given to ensuring that local law enforcement has 

the information and tools needed to perform effectively in protecting our public safety. 

There is, however, a separate issue of coordination between federal, state, and 

local law enforcement under the Justice Department’s new joint terrorism task 

forces that are led by the United States Attorneys’ offices rather than FBI field offices. 

For example, former FBI Associate Deputy Director Oliver B. (Buck) Revell has 

raised important questions in a letter, dated December 5, 2001, to the Washington 

Post that Senator Hatch quoted in part at this Committee’s December 7’ hearing 

with the Attorney General. Mr. Revell expresses concern about the Attorney General’s action of placing the U.S. Attorneys in charge of the joint terrorism task forces 

as ‘‘both unproductive and undermines the effectiveness of the FBI’s relationship 

with state and local authorities.’’ Mr. Revell states that several police chiefs have 

advised him ‘‘that they are not comfortable in such a relationship led by U.S. Attorneys.’’ He is concerned that the U.S. Attorneys will not ‘‘have the investigative resources and analytical capabilities to execute this program.’’ Mr. Revell concludes, 

‘‘Now is not the time to undermine the capabilities of the nation’s primary agency 

responsible for the prevention and investigation of terrorist activity.’’

The Committee will look into these and other issues raised by the new joint terrorism task force structure. Today marks three months after the terrible terrorist 

attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and our airlines. I know I share 

the gratitude of the Nation for the valiant work of Commissioner Kerik and the New 

York City Police and the other police officers around the country, including the Capitol Police, who have been working longer hours under enormously stressful conditions to keep us safe. I welcome all the witnesses here today. 

Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton worked tirelessly during consideration of 

the USA PATRIOT Act to back up the FBI Director’s words and good intentions 

with legislation, and expressly authorize information sharing by the FBI with State 

and local law enforcement officers, when they have a need to know the information 

to perform their public safety mission in response to terrorist threats. I support this 

goal.

Statement of Hon. Strom Thurmond, a U.S. Senator from the State of South 

fCarolina 

Mr. Chairman: 

I am pleased that you are holding this hearing on such a timely issue, the sharing 

of information with local law enforcement. Each day, our local law enforcement personnel are on the front lines in the war against terrorism, and we should develop 

sensible policies for coordinating the efforts of Federal and local officials. In order 

31

to protect our Nation from future terrorist attacks, we must provide for the easy 

exchange of information so that local law enforcement will be prepared to act on 

a moment’s notice. With the appropriate information sharing, our various law enforcement agencies will be encouraged to work as one team, united in the goal of 

ensuring the safety of our citizens. 

The USA PATRIOT Act provided some much-needed reforms for the sharing of 

information on the Federal level. Before the law took effect, law enforcement officials were largely prohibited from passing critical information to the intelligence 

community. The Act expanded the sharing of this information. For example, information derived from grand juries and from criminal wiretaps may now be passed 

to intelligence officials. This cooperation among the different agencies of the Federal 

government ensures that we are not fighting terrorism with one hand tied behind 

our back. 

We should not stop there. We should explore further changes that may be necessary, including the sharing of information with local law enforcement. Local police 

make up the vast majority of law enforcement officers in this country. According to 

Chuck Canterbury of the Fraternal Order of Police, 960 of law enforcement officers 

are employed by state and local governments while only 4% are Federal employees. 

This statistic is a staggering reminder that reforms on the Federal level do not necessarily reach the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers. 

One way in which we can enhance information sharing is to make further use of 

an existing law enforcement tool, the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS). 

RISS consists of a group of six regional information centers and is funded by grants 

from the Department of Justice. One of these information centers is the Regional 

Organized Crime Information Center (ROCIC), which serves as an important information-sharing tool for law enforcement in the state of South Carolina. 

Local law enforcement officers contribute to the KISS database in order to facilitate the exchange of information between jurisdictions. In addition, RISS incorporates other elements that allow state and local law enforcement officers to confer 

with one another. For example, the system utilizes encrypted email and bulletin 

boards that provide secure forums for communication. 

Although existing agreements allow the Federal government to use RISS to share 

some information with local law enforcement, this sharing of information is very 

limited due to existing laws and policies. Not only should we examine statutory 

changes that would maximize the ability of Federal officers to share critical information with local police, but we should also seek to change the attitudes and behaviors 

of the law enforcement community. Local police throughout the country report that 

the flow of information is not a two-way street. Local authorities often pass information to Federal authorities, but information does not always flow from Federal officers to local officers, even when allowed under current law. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your interest in the further improvement of the reforms incorporated in the USA PATRIOT Act. We should carefully consider your 

proposals. While we should ensure that information is not passed in an easy or uncontrolled manner, we must remember that law enforcement is more effective if it 

presents a united front in the war against terrorism. There needs to be a fluid exchange of information, allowing local law enforcement the ability to respond quickly 

to terrorist threats. That is why I am interested in the idea of giving Federal authorities further flexibility in passing information to local officials. I look forward 

to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses.

Æ