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

82–357 PDF 2003

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT: LONG-TERM

IMPLICATIONS OF HOMELAND SECURITY NEEDS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Serial No. 107–123

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN L. MICA, Florida,

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

DAVE WELDON, Florida

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

CHRISTOPHER DONESA, Staff Director and Counsel

NICHOLAS P. COLEMAN, Professional Staff Member and Counsel

CONN CARROLL, Clerk

JULIAN A. HAYWOOD, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on December 5, 2001 ........................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Bonner, Robert, Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service ................................. 17

Gallagher, Frank, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation ......................................................... 56

Hutchinson, Asa, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Agency ....................... 48

Loy, Admiral James M., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ........................... 8

Ziglar, James W., Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service ................................................................................................................... 27

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bonner, Robert, Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 22

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, article dated December 5, 2001 82

Gallagher, Frank, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared statement of .................. 59

Hutchinson, Asa, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Agency, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 51

Loy, Admiral James M., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 12

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 4

Ziglar, James W., Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, prepared statement of ............................................................................ 31

(1)

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT: LONG-TERM

IMPLICATIONS OF HOMELAND SECURITY

NEEDS

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND

HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings, Gilman, and

Schakowsky.

Staff present: Christopher Donesa, chief counsel and staff director; Nicholas P. Coleman, professional staff member and counsel;

Conn Carroll, clerk; and Jim Rendon, congressional fellow.

Mr. SOUDER. I would officially like to call this hearing to order.

Good morning. Thank you all for coming. We are fortunate to have

what is truly an all-star panel of witnesses with us today. I would

first like to express my appreciation to each of you for taking the

time from your schedules during an extraordinary difficult period

to be with us this morning.

We are joined by the heads of four of our major Federal law

agencies, Admiral James Loy, the Commandant of the Coast

Guard; Commissioner Robert Bonner of the U.S. Customs Services;

Commissioner James Ziglar of the Immigration and Naturalization

Services; and Administrator Asa Hutchinson of the Drug Enforcement Agency. We will also hear from Mr. Frank Gallagher of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The September 11th terrorist attacks prompted the initiation of

the largest criminal investigation in American history, as well as

extraordinary efforts by the Federal Government to prevent future

incidents and secure American borders, citizens and infrastructure.

I want to recognize the truly exhaustive work that each of your

agencies has done under the most difficult circumstances to protect

our Nation. We thank you and your personnel and support you

fully in these endeavors and in the many challenges which the current situation continues to pose on a daily basis.

The focus of our hearing today is the equally extraordinary demands which have now been placed on Federal law enforcement to

simultaneously deal with your day-to-day missions such as drug

2

interdiction, criminal investigations and enforcement of many laws

which each of you have been charged to oversee.

Several agencies have greatly increased work hours for their employees and redeployed a significant proportion of their assets to

homeland security. But the issue for us is not homeland security.

As the subcommittee responsible for oversight of our justice system, the question for us quickly becomes what is left and what now

needs to be done. It has been widely acknowledged that additional

funding and planning are necessary to reinforce the execution of

traditional law enforcement missions in addition to homeland security.

But this is not a simple question of simply providing more resources. We must consider how best and most realistically to cope

with the changing and rapidly increasing demands on Federal law

enforcement agencies.

As an example, our ongoing series of oversight hearings on border security have suggested that it is not enough simply to provide

funding for more border patrol agents. We must resolve tough

questions as to where we will recruit such agents, how quickly we

will train them and what the resulting impact will be on the places

from which these new agents will be taken.

As another example, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul when we

reinforce our airline security by taking agents from the FBI, DEA

and Customs. Short-term necessary evils ultimately will not stand

in the stead of adequate medium and long-term planning.

We also need to ensure that the end result of the long-term planning which all of our government is being forced to do at lightning

speed does not over-compensate for any one problem. Members of

Congress and others have proposed or discussed merging functions

from several current law enforcement agencies into a single new

agency with responsibility for protection of the homeland.

If such a process were to take place, it must recognize the equal

important of other missions carried out by these agencies. The

Coast Guard, for example, must continue to be strongly supported

in its efforts to save lives through search and rescue operations, to

protect and to interdict drugs.

Our hearing will examine three primary issues: First, what has

been the immediate impact of the redeployment on law enforcement assets on critical areas such as drug addiction and other

criminal enforcement.

Second, what is the current status of long-term planning within

Federal agencies to ensure the continuation of vigorous law enforcement while simultaneously addressing the additional demands

of homeland security?

Third, what impact would proposals to consolidate certain functions into a new agency have on the ability of existing agencies to

carry out their conventional missions?

Fortunately, as we discussed at a Drugs and Terrorism Conference at DEA yesterday, some of these efforts have a synergistic

effect. Cracking down on terrorism will also facilitate the accomplishment of other missions.

For example, in Newfoundland, when passengers grounded on

September 11th had all bags searched, large quantities of the drug,

Ecstasy, were found. Other overlapping examples will include

3

tracking illegal immigrants, intelligence operations, money laundering and other new laws which will help catch other criminals

as well as potential terrorists.

Again, my thanks to all the witnesses. We look forward very

much to the opportunity to discuss each of these issues with such

a distinguished panel.

Now, I would like to yield to Ms. Schakowsky.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

4

5

6

7

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to this incredible panel of people who have come to answer some of the questions and concerns that the chairman has outlined.

The hearing today is to discuss two matters, the impact the new

focus on homeland security is having on our law enforcement agencies and the possible consolidation of existing law enforcement

agencies to create a single homeland security agency.

Given the new demands, our law enforcement agencies and officers have risen to the increased work load since the terrorist attacks of September 11th. I commend our law enforcement and security personnel for the time and effort they have made and continue

to make for our protection.

Since the attacks on September 11th, the Nation has been struggling to understand and to adapt to a new reality. We are creating

new tools and organizational structure to appropriately fit our security needs. In this process, we must be careful. We must ensure

that these agencies are adequately funded to accomplish their original missions in addition to the new and critical mission of national

security. We must have collaboration among the law enforcement

agencies and we must evaluate proposals for new agency structures.

Yet, in all of this it is essential, too, that we not lose sight of the

principles and freedoms that we hold most dear as Americans. The

safety of our Nation and our residences is a critical priority and we

must do whatever is necessary to ensure homeland security.

At the same time, it is important that agencies with multiple

missions like the Immigration and Naturalization Services pay

careful attention to appropriately balancing enforcement with the

other services they provide. This will be a particular challenge for

the INS and I am interested to hear more about the plan to restructure the agency.

I also encourage my colleagues on this committee to continue to

monitor both aspects of this agency’s mission. I am also, as their

chairman is, concerned about the diversion from conventional Federal law enforcement functions as a result of the sudden and unanticipated reallocation of resources.

I am concerned with many of the recent law enforcement efforts

surrounding this investigation and the general efforts to strengthen

the fight against terrorism. I want to emphasize while I firmly believe we need to stop terrorists here and abroad and as we make

structural and policy adjustments to do this, that we have to uphold the constitution and the civil rights and civil liberties inscribed in it.

I have a few questions and look forward to engaging in a worthwhile discussion with the witnesses on this subject today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. Before proceeding, I would

like to take care of some procedural matters. First, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days to submit

written statements and questions for the hearing record; that any

answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Second, I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents

and other materials referred to by the Members and the witnesses

8

may be included in the hearing record, that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection it is

so ordered.

I would again like to welcome and thank all the witnesses. As

an oversight committee, it is our standard practice to testify under

oath, so if each of you would rise and raise your right hands, I will

administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses has

answered in the affirmative.

I will now recognize the witnesses for their opening statements.

Admiral Loy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES M. LOY, COMMANDANT, U.S.

COAST GUARD

Admiral LOY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members. Good morning. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and Ms.

Schakowsky, for the comments about the work being done by not

only the people you see at this table, but by literally hundreds of

thousands of members of our organizations as they have made

every effort to do the Nation’s business over the last 3 months.

I appreciate the chance to discuss the Coast Guard’s role in Federal law enforcement and the service-wide implications of the new

homeland security challenge. The Coast Guard is, among many of

other things, some of which the chairman mentioned, the Nation’s

law enforcement presence afloat. We are the enforcement arm at

sea for Commerce, for Justice, for State, for DOD, for Treasury and

for the Drug Czar.

We array our ships and planes and people against multiple

asymmetric national security threats, including drugs, illegal migrants and fish stock predators as well as terrorism which has captured all of our attention in the last several weeks.

Drug interdiction, for example, is now and must remain a national security priority. Drugs have a pervasive and corrosive impact on our society, contribute to violent crime, disease and nearly

17,000 deaths in 1998.

Just yesterday an Atlanta Journal article suggested that there

were Middle East operatives attempting to set up shop in South

America to take advantage of the drug profits associated with the

cocaine trade that would in fact become yet another example of a

significant funding engine for international terrorism.

That is the nature of the challenge that we have in front of us.

In addition, illicit profits are clearly financing terrorist organizations. This linkage we find the need to interrupt. The Coast Guard

is the designated lead agency for the maritime end of drug interdiction and shares the lead agency responsibility for air interdiction

with the Customs Service.

Prior to September 11th and since September 11th we continue

to take this responsibility very seriously and remain committed to

this mission with its now wider implications.

The Coast Guard supports, first and foremost, the balanced approach that is represented in the National Drug Control Strategy.

We work very closely with all of our interagency partners. We meet

often together in various formats to make certain that the comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:39 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82357.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

plimentary efforts that we have are additive with respect to the accomplishment of the goals stressed in the National Drug Control

Strategy.

Our operations rely on our interagency partners as well as foreign, military and law enforcement counterparts that we use all

the time. Mostly they also rely on a very solid intelligence service

underpinning, a foundation that each of us, I think, would cite as

being absolutely an imperative to the ability of our respective organizations to get our jobs done.

Much of that orderly plan, as you know, was interrupted on September 11th.

Our role in migrant interdiction is as important as ever. In fiscal

2001, the Coast Guard interdicted about 4,000 people trying to illegally enter the United States. Again, just in the last 2 days, a very

significant case off the coast of Florida points out once more the

importance of our ability to continue that mission.

On my desk this morning was a cable from Ambassador Kern in

Haiti registering concerns on his part for even rumors that would

continue to have the potential to set off mass-migration challenges

that are always right at the borderline of being a reality from Haiti

and, as we know, from Cuba.

That 2001 was a relatively typical year. The 4,000 people that I

just mentioned being interdicted. We attempt to make certain that

the notion of illegality and unsafe passage at sea is the premise

that we attempt to breed back into cells of migration generators.

1994, however was not a typical year. We all remember the crush

of that particular mass migration in the summer and fall when

over 65,000 lives were saved at sea by the Coast Guard, but all associated with mass migrations from both Haiti and from Cuba.

These days the countries involved primarily are Cuba, Haiti, the

Dominican Republic, China, and Ecuador. But on any given day

there are 40 different nationalities represented somewhere in passage in the Caribbean theater trying to find their way to the

United States. That difference between the haves and the havenots around our world will make that a challenge for us well into

the foreseeable future. If anything, I see that gap actually widening.

The third thing I would speak about just quickly is our fisheries

enforcement mission. The Coast Guard is the only at sea enforcement authority for fisheries regulations for our Nation. Our efforts

in this area continue to be critical to the effective management of

a $25 billion U.S. industry, the commercial fishing industry, to ensure that our fish stocks are not depleted.

Furthermore, while inspecting a vessel’s catch and gear to ensure

compliance with fisheries management regulations, we also have

the opportunity as the chairman was suggesting earlier, to gain

value in our other missions, verify crew members status and identify, enforce safety regulations, and for this particularly extremely

dangerous occupation, rated literally the most dangerous occupation in the United States.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the Coast

Guard immediately responded to every coast in our Nation, increasing Coast Guard presence to protect our ports and maritime

transportation infrastructure. Clearly the port safety and security

10

mission now stands at least equally with search and rescue as our

No. 1 priority.

Over the last month, our primary focus has remained on maritime homeland security.

However, the Coast Guard’s role in port security responsibilities

has not been without cost, as you have been suggesting, because

we have been required to re-evaluate the distribution of cutters

and aircraft resources among all of our law enforcement missions

to meet these surge operations resulting from September 11th.

Our multi-mission culture actually was one of the greatest advantages we had on September 11th. Because our people are multimission in character, our assets, ships, boats, planes, helicopters

are also all multi-mission in capability. So, I was able to basically

say, ‘‘Take a left and go to Port Security’’ because that was the

most prevalent need of the Nation on September 11th and has been

since.

The challenge, obviously, is as we try to define the new normalcy

of what constitutes our required dedication to port security into the

future and what is that net gain associated with our capability to

do all those other things the chairman was challenging us to be responsive to in his opening statement.

We will do all of that and more. A simple bar chart here offers

at least a visible note as to relative mission resource dedication on

September 10th when we were sort of normally deployed around

the world doing lots of different things and the attention that all

of a sudden the bar all the way to the left, port security and safety

acquired in terms of our operational investment of energy and resources in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events of September 11th.

Mr. Chairman, at the other end of the day the future efforts represent a challenge to us meeting all of our law enforcement goals.

We will take that on. We have made a great effort already to find

a sustainable and effective balance among our missions, but at current resource levels as you point out, combined with our significantly heightened homeland security presence that I do not see an

end to in the foreseeable future, we will need a boost in order to

continue to do those things we mentioned before as being normal

Coast Guard activities and pay attention to this heightened profile

on homeland security.

Over the last 3 months, I have been basically building for Governor Ridge a maritime security game plan. We have briefed that

through Secretary Mineta and on to Governor Ridge with, I think,

good acceptance at the other end of the day.

The bottom line is, in order for us to rebalance from what we

surged to on September 11th and 12th, when we went from about

a 1 or 2 percent dedication of assets to port security, it is now

somewhere over 50.

Our instincts as an organization are to send things to a sour case

and then back away until we find that sustaining level. That’s that

new normalcy I spoke about just a moment ago. We look forward

to working with the committee to find the proper balances, both as

11

it relates to mission dedication and the resources to do those things

for America.

I look forward to your questions, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Admiral.

[The prepared statement of Admiral Loy follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Bonner.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BONNER, COMMISSIONER, U.S.

CUSTOMS SERVICE

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee.

It has actually been a while since I have seen Congressman Gilman. It is good to see you again, Ben.

Let me start off by saying that addressing the terrorist threat

has been the highest priority of the U.S. Customs Service. It is the

highest priority and it has been since September 11th.

I think I can assure this committee that although the resources

of the U.S. Customs Service are severely strained, and they clearly

are, that we are certainly going to continue our role in drug interdiction and drug trafficking investigations. That remains a priority

of the U.S. Customs Service.

In fact, in some ways I believe that our heightened state of security that we have gone to at the U.S. Customs Service along the

border, with the INS, is in some ways strengthening, rather than

weakening our counter-drug mission. Moreover, I think there is a

nexus between drug trafficking to some degree and the funding of

terrorist organizations.

Since September 11th, the U.S. Customs Service has been focusing on ensuring homeland defense. It is a role that we are in many

ways, the U.S. Customs Service, is well prepared to play. Our presence at the 301 ports of entry into the United States across the

country puts the U.S. Customs Service in a prominent position to

protect America and to prevent terrorists and the implements and

weapons of terrorism from entering the United States.

Eight thousand U.S. Customs inspectors and canine enforcement

officers are stationed across America and are responsible collectively for processing millions of passengers and vehicles and cargo

shipments entering the United States each day.

Their expertise in screening and inspecting both goods and people crossing our borders is a crucial asset in our counter terrorism

response. In addition, approximately 2,700 Special Agents of the

U.S. Customs Service are trained and experienced in conducting investigations, including financial investigations and investigations

into the unlawful export of weapons and technology and equipment

that is potentially useful to international terrorist organizations

against our country.

These investigators are supported, these Special Agents are supported by Intelligence Analysts who also, as you know, Mr. Chairman, work very closely with the U.S. intelligence community in developing and tracking information.

This subcommittee is very aware and familiar with the Customs

Air and Marine Interdiction Division which has assumed an important role in response to September 11th. I believe you know the

skill of the Customs pilots and marine enforcement officers in patrolling America’s seas and skies. Right now, by the way, part of

those assets are supporting the NORAD mission protecting the

United States.

In many respects, Mr. Chairman, our response to terrorism is an

outgrowth of our traditional enforcement mission from interdicting

18

illegal narcotics to tracing money used to fund illegal activity to investigating the illegal export of weapons and technology to the inspecting of goods and cargo for contraband.

All of those things contribute to and I think compliment and

strengthen our efforts at the U.S. Customs Service to combat the

terrorist threat.

I have established at Customs Headquarters a new Office for

Anti-Terrorism within the agency. I have appointed an experienced

security expert and senior military leader to head that office who

reports directly to me. That is to better focus our efforts and our

training and our detection capabilities against terrorist weapons,

including weapons of mass destruction.

I should also mention the cooperation within the administration

and the important role that Governor Ridge and the Office of

Homeland Security play.

This cooperation, I believe, is essential both to ensure that we

are effectively responding to the terrorist threat and in addition, effective coordination by all the Federal partners that are involved

in the counter terrorism effort, and you have many of them right

here at this table in front of you, can help relieve the strain within

each of our respective agencies that we individually face.

Immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Customs implemented a Level One security alert. That is the highest

level of alert of the U.S. Customs Service. We did this in conjunction with the INS. But that is the highest level of alert short of actually shutting down our borders. That alert calls for sustained and

intensive examinations, including heightened inspection of both

people and goods crossing our borders. We still remain at Level

One alert today.

Along with the INS, Customs has bolstered security at all our

borders, especially along our northern border with Canada. We now

staff every border crossing, even those in remote locations, with a

minimum of two armed inspectors 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Maintaining that minimum, while ensuring a smooth and timely

flow of trade across our border has required a significant expenditure of resources by the U.S. Custom Service. Our front line personnel, our inspectors and canine enforcement officers, are working

12-to 16-hour days, 6 and 7 days a week. A vast amount of overtime, far more than normal, is being expended by the inspectors of

the Customs Service.

We have temporarily detailed over 100 inspectors to the northern

border and we are adding another 50 within the next few days.

Turning to our investigative activities since September 11th, we

have of course assigned agents to assist the FBI and others on the

Joint Terrorism Task Forces. That has occurred after September

11th and has been reduced somewhat over the last 2 months.

We have also contributed, as I believe you know, Mr. Chairman,

110 agents to the Federal Sky Marshal Program. I note that while

the strain on our personnel has and continues to be great under

a Level One alert, that we look forward to offsetting some of that

pressure through the funding of new inspectors and special agent

positions in our fiscal year 2002 budget. I will tell you that we will

bring those new hires on as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

19

We have been requested and we continue to provide assistance,

as I mentioned, to NORAD with respect to our P 3AEW aircraft.

We have implemented, by the way, several initiatives that this

committee should be aware of. Let me just briefly mention them.

The first is Operation Green Quest. That is a major effort to

starve international terrorist groups of their financial wherewithal.

Green Quest, by the way, draws upon the formidable expertise and

the long-standing money laundering expertise within the U.S. Customs Service. Green Quest is an operation led by Customs and it

includes the participation of other Treasury law enforcement agencies, as well as the Department of Justice and the FBI.

We are also using Customs expertise in what are called Strategic

Investigations through Operation ‘‘Shield America.’’ This operation

is aimed at the unlawful export of unlicensed weapons, equipment

and technology that could be used by international terrorist organizations.

We have also created a Customs-Trade Partnership against terrorism, working with Trade we have undertaken an initiative with

the trade community to tighten security of commercial cargo, to

better secure that, the supply chain, and to deny access to the supply chain by terrorist organizations.

So, we have also moved to enhance the quantity and quality of

advanced information that Customs and other Federal agencies

get. In that regard, Mr. Mica of this committee and others in the

Congress were helpful in making mandatory advanced passenger

information that is going to be very, very useful to both Customs

and to the INS.

In addition, we are working at an inter-agency level with my

counterparts who are seated here at the table with me, to find

ways to better secure the borders into the United States against

the terrorist threat. That is developing a broad, integrated, coordinated response.

In fact, last Friday afternoon, I met with both Commissioner

Ziglar and Admiral Loy to further develop a coordinated border

strategy. We have also been actively engaged in discussions with

both the governments of Canada and Mexico to increase information sharing and develop common security measures for processing

of people and goods from those countries into the United States.

So, we have been focusing a lot on, certainly, the terrorist threat,

understandably in light of the attacks on America on September

11th and the continuing threat that Al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations pose to our country.

I will say I think a lot of what we have done actually has made

it more difficult for drug trafficking as we have intensified our

overall presence, particularly at the border. I think the evidence is

there. Actually after we implemented the Level One alert, Mr.

Chairman, looking at the data for about the first 3 weeks or so,

and I am talking about the southwest border, essentially, we believe the traffickers were withholding shipments because of the

tightened security and examinations and inspections that were taking place on the southwest border.

The traffickers on the Mexican side were holding back their shipments, in my judgment, for several weeks, until it became necessary to move their shipments. So, in October we actually have

20

seen a substantial increase in drug seizures along our borders. In

fact, if you compare October of this year with October 2000, there

has been an approximately 30 percent increase in drug seizures

that has taken place.

Just one other thing I will mention along the area and then I’m

going to wrap this up. But in the area of our drug investigation capability, that is there has not been a substantial reduction in the

time that our Special Agents are spending investigating drug trafficking cases.

These are controlled deliveries and other drug investigations that

we work cooperatively with the DEA. Before September 11th, Customs had approximately 1,500 of its Customs Special Agents crossdesignated by the DEA to conduct narcotics investigations under

Title 21 authority. I have no intention of reducing that number.

We will continue to work effective with the DEA to investigate

drug traffickers and we will continue our strong drug interdiction

efforts.

Beyond that, I might just mention specifically that in conjunction

with using our air and marine assets, Customs has effected, for example, just very recently working with Admiral Loy’s people, the

U.S. Coast Guard, two seizures from go-fast boats that were operating in the Caribbean off the coast of Puerto Rico.

If we have just a moment, I have about a 2-minute take I would

like to play for this committee that shows one of those seizures.

The two seizures, by the way, total were 2,500 kilograms of cocaine

coming off the coast of Puerto Rico, and the arrest of seven individuals.

Over the past 5 weeks, we have seized approximately 3.900 kilograms of cocaine. So, what we are seeing, I think, is that we are

blocking the Mexican border more effectively than we ever have,

and it is because of the terrorist security threat at that border,

what we are seeing is the major drug trafficking organizations, the

Colombians, are going to alternative routes. We need to anticipate

and prepare and respond to that because I think what we are seeing is I could pressure both in the Caribbean and in the Eastern

Pacific.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. If we could take a

couple of moments, I would like to play this short video of the recent interception of a major amount of cocaine off the coast of Puerto Rico, with the chairman’s permission.

Mr. SOUDER. Certainly.

Mr. BONNER. This is on November 21st and it is one of the two

seizures, so, it is very recently, within the last 2 weeks. This

Blackhawk helicopter operated by Customs is now tracking a gofast boat that is loaded with cocaine.

You will see now that the bad guys, the traffickers, are literally

dumping out the bales now that the Blackhawk has latched on to

them. They dumped out bales. That was over 1,000 kilos of cocaine

that came out of that boat.

You can see on the left this is the Marine Enforcement Officers

of the Customs Service that are closing in on the go-fast boat. The

bad guys are on the boat on the right. It is trying to get them to

stop. It is pulling up alongside them. They don’t seem to want to

stop. We actually go across the bow.

21

Now, you can see here the traffickers, the smugglers and the

boat on the bottom of the screen. We were drawing down on them.

I think they have decided now to stop. We actually arrested the six

individuals in that boat. Of course, we seized the boat. It is being

forfeited. And we seized a little over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine.

This is another, just closing in on another of the go-fast boats,

with two of the Customs marine boats that have the awnings on

them. It is a little more effective when you have two boats, actually, Mr. Chairman. It is faster, too. So, the traffickers on that boat

are being apprehended.

I think this just graphically demonstrates one thing for this committee and that is, that the interdiction efforts and the drug enforcement efforts of the Customs Service and the Coast Guard and

other agencies have not abated. If anything, to some degree the

heightened level of security at the Customs Service has actually resulted in an increase, actually a substantial increase in the interdiction of drugs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ziglar.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR, COMMISSIONER,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I wish that Commissioner Bonner had not shown that because if my Border Patrol agents who are down on the dusty, hot

southwest border see these guys out on boats they are going to

want to come join you.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to

talk about the impact on the INS of the homeland security initiatives that we have had since September 11th. Needless to say, September 11th has had a profound effect on everything and everybody

both in this country and certainly in the government. It is no question about it.

The INS feels a particular burden in light of those events because of the missions that we have at the INS. They are multi-faceted, as you know. We are the only agency that has the legal authority to grant admission or determine admissibility of people

coming into the United States.

Of course, given how the terrorists came in, that is a huge burden. We have the responsibility for patrolling and controlling the

border between the ports of entry and we share joint responsibility

at the ports of entry with Commissioner Bonner and his organization.

We have responsibility for enforcing the immigration laws in the

interior of the United States. As we know, we have some considerable issues in that respect. Then when you add all that together

and you also add on top of it the responsibility for adjustments in

status for conferring benefits and for otherwise facilitating legal

immigration into this country, we feel a great burden as a result

of September 11th and we felt a great burden, of course, even before that.

No doubt that our attention since September 11th has been focused on those events and the outcomes of those events. As Commissioner Bonner pointed out, we went to Threat Level One almost

immediately after the planes hit the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon. We have been at Threat Level One since that time.

The commissioner explained what that does in terms of the level

of inspection that we do and I won’t go into that. But it clearly increases the impact on our resources to be at a Threat Level One.

At the INS, we have taken 1,000 of our 2,000 investigators and

have devoted them to this investigation. And they continue to be

devoted to it. In fact, as of yesterday, there were about 4,000 interviews and investigations that our investigators have participated

in. So, we have had a huge play, if you will, in the investigation

itself.

The Border Patrol hearing as been impacted by this. Immediately after September 11th, is the deployed 318 Border Patrol

Agents to eight different airports around the country and got them

there actually within 40 hours of the attacks on the World Trade

Center and the Pentagon, in order to help beef up security at the

airports.

28

We have deployed some additional inspectors to the northern

border. We have deployed 150 roughly Border Patrol agents to the

ports of entry. Now Border Patrol agents are not normally at the

ports of entry, as you know, but we sent them there to help facilitate the inspection process because, as Commissioner Bonner

knows, when you start doing it at the level we are doing it, it creates wait times. We have sent Border Patrol Agents to try to help

with that process.

We will be deploying, in addition to the 100 or so that we have

already deployed up to the northern border, we will be sending another 100 out there in the very near future. To top all of that off,

we have the Olympics coming up at which we will have a minimum

of 200 Border Patrol Agents that we are going to be sending out

there for security purposes.

So, the impact on the Border Patrol itself has been rather significant. We have been attempting to carry out our normal duties and

we think we have been doing that reasonably successfully given the

impacts.

As Commissioner Bonner pointed out, it is not easy to try to do

all these things and keep your normal flow of business going. But

we have been working at it, as well as trying to fulfill some Presidential mandates that were given to me as a result of my being

confirmed by the Senate.

One of them was to structure a reorganization of the INS. Second, it was to reduce the backlogs in our service side of our business. We have been working at that.

The strain on the agency is huge. We have been, like the Commissioner, we have been using overtime, reduced leave time, canceled leave time, all sorts of things to multiply our forces in the

field. In fact, as of yesterday, I believe we used about 125,000 additional overtime hours throughout our system as a result of the September 11th attack.

We also have been deploying, as I mentioned, agents and others

to different parts of the country to meet certain needs and those

deployments in and of themselves, of course, create strains on the

employees when they go away from home for 30 to 60 days. They

stay in a place away from their families. That obviously creates a

problem in terms of the impact on our personnel.

Recruiting and retention is always a problem. It has become even

more of a problem for us because of some issues I talked about the

last time I testified before your subcommittee. The Sky Marshal

Program has been a particular impact on us. In fact, just entering

the first Sky Marshal class, roughly 75 percent of the new entrants

were former Border Patrol agents that had been recruited.

So, it is a little tough on us both to recruit and to retain folks.

Then, of course, given the events of September 11th we have this

constant flow of new initiatives that are being thrown in our direction and the need to respond to every new idea for a new initiative.

We have to respond to them, so that takes up an awful lot of time.

Our approach has been fairly consistent. We recognize that we

can’t do everything like we tried to do before, but we can do things

in priority orders. Our focus has also been on strengthening our

core mission. Take those things that we need to do, strengthen

them and get our mission up to the place that it needs to be, while

29

at the same time, trying to stay out of what I call the bureaucratic

guerilla warfare that goes on any time you are in any kind of a

government job.

We are making progress. A couple of weeks ago I introduced or

announced a restructuring proposal for the INS that would take

and create two bureaus, a service bureau and an enforcement bureau within the INS to more focus our mission and to have clear

lines and chains of command and hopefully strengthen our enforcement side of the business as well as the service side of the business. We think that is going to have a long-term positive impact.

The implementation of that restructuring has got to be done very

carefully with the backdrop of our new responsibilities as a result

of September 11th. But we think that we can go forward without

that, without disrupting the efficiency of the organization.

We are continuing our major smuggling cases. Those are very important to our interior enforcement operations and I am hoping

within the next week or two to announce some major developments

in that area.

We also have been working with our counterparts in immigration

in Canada and signed an agreement with them last week on some

immigration initiatives that we think will help us do a better job,

not just at the border, but do a better job of extending our borders

out so that we can stop people before they ever get to North America and coming into this country and trying to do harm.

We also are working to enhance our interior enforcement operations. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you right before this hearing, I would like to use this hearing to make an announcement

about an initiative that we are starting, literally, today.

As most of the people have seen in the newspapers, there has

been a lot of discussion about the fact that there are a large number of people in this country that we call abscondees. They are people who have been in illegal status. They have been put into deportation proceedings. They have gone through the judicial process. At

the end of the judicial process there was a deportation order for

them to be removed from the country and then, as you described

it, they jumped bail, they absconded and disappeared into the

woodwork of the country.

The number that has been thrown around in the press is 250,000

of those people. Mr. Chairman, the number is actually about

314,000, based upon our analysis yesterday. One of the things that

I discovered in doing my due diligence is that with the exception

of some very serious, serious criminal aliens, by and large, those

people who have absconded and against whom warrants have been

issued for their arrest, administrative arrest for deportation, those

names of those people have never been entered into the NCIC

index of wants and warrants.

So, if someone is picked up somewhere and a check is done of the

records, there is no record out there that there is a warrant for this

person’s arrest. So, we have people who may be picked up and we

never know that a final order of deportation is there.

I have started an initiative to have entered into the NCIC wants

and warrants index the names of all those individuals. It is a big

project. It is going to take a while. It is going to take some resources. But I think it is important that we do this.

30

I want to make it really clear that we are not talking here about

some kind of sweep on illegal aliens. These are people who have

gone through the judicial process, gone through immigration judges

and through appeals and have final orders of deportation that have

been entered against them and they have jumped bail or absconded.

We think that this will send a message that when you come to

the United States you are expected to stay here on the terms that

you are admitted on and that coming here and staying in an illegal

status is not appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I’ve taken more time than I was supposed to. But I just want to let you know that our ability to do our

job is really limited only by our resources and the time it takes to

put resources on line.

Also, we want to make the statement that I’m very pleased and

I am very thankful to the Congress and to the administration for

recognizing the resource needs that the INS needs and they have

been very forthcoming in working with us on the budget, on the appropriations, in order for us to be able to move this big, old ship

down the channel a little bit.

Again, I just want to say how much we appreciate the cooperation of the Congress and the administration.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Ziglar.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ziglar follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Hutchinson.

STATEMENT OF ASA HUTCHINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to

be here with my colleagues today before you and Ranking Member

Cummings and Ms. Davis, it is good to appear before your committee again.

I particularly appreciate this committee’s leadership on the fight

against drugs in our country and drawing attention to the impact

that the events of September 11th may have on this effort. Since

the inception of the recent national crisis on September 11th, the

DEA has responded in a number of ways by mobilizing resources

against the threat of terrorism.

First of all, the DEA has participated in the Federal Sky Marshal Program and has contributed a total of 126 Special Agents,

representing 3 percent of the agency’s investigative personnel, to

the program. These are all volunteers who are deployed on 60-day

temporary duty assignments and are drawn from a cross-section of

the country to minimize any adverse impact on our day-to-day operations.

Second, the El Paso Intelligence Center has supported the FBI

investigation of the September 11th attacks on the Pentagon and

the World Trade Center. EPIC has been providing intelligence and

analytical support to the FBI’s Operation PENTBOMB, the Department of Defense operation and the Coast Guard’s Operation Coast

Watch.

To date in support of these operations and other member agencies, EPIC personnel have extended over 9,000 man-hours, processed over 64,000 queries and generated over 1,200 cables. As a result of this effort, EPIC has been to provide in excess of 10,000

leads or pieces of supplemental information to investigators.

In addition, the DEA has been engaged in the intelligence arena.

We have routinely queried our human drug intelligence sources, especially those overseas for any potential leads or intelligence that

may impact upon national security or terrorism investigations and

certainly have provided any information immediately to the FBI

who has the lead in it as its responsibility.

In addition, the DEA has participated in the anti-terrorism task

forces and in each Federal judicial district the DEA has designated

one agent as a point of contact to the Attorney General’s Anti-Terrorism Task Force.

So, while the prevention of additional acts of terror must continue to receive the highest level of attention from all of the agencies, there remains a focus and a commitment on the DEA’s central

mission of drugs. If we look specifically at the impact of September

11th, I think there is some good news in the terrible tragedy that

occurred in the sense that there has become a greater public

awareness of the nexus between drugs and terrorism and the

money that flows to violent groups.

I appreciate the chairman yesterday being at the DEA, participating in a symposium on narco-terrorism and the impact that it

has on our society today and the serious connection that is there.

49

Hopefully, that will increase the public awareness of this connection.

Also as a result of September 11th, I think there is an opportunity for our society to enter an era of greater responsibility. All

of a sudden drugs not only are illegal and harmful, but also there

is an understanding that there is a benefit that goes to extraordinarily violent groups that do harm to our society.

Just as in World War II, I hope that we are able to capitalize

on this and make serious strikes in reducing drug use in our country.

The second thing that we have seen since September 11th, as

Commissioner Bonner rightfully pointed out, law enforcement presence makes a difference. Immediately after the September 11th act

the traffickers appeared to stop moving the drugs through their

trafficking routes because of intense pressure along the border.

So, they held off. Then at some point they had to continue. As

they continued their trafficking, because of the intense pressure

along the border, the seizures increased dramatically. We would

also see this from the DEA’s perspective inland, whereas there was

more drugs transported in the air transportation routes, that has

moved to ground transportation routes because of the intense scrutiny of passengers as they go through the airports.

So, there has been a change of patterns. In addition, you see

whereas the intense pressure in New York City has scared away

traffickers, to a certain extent of doing their exchanges and their

first deliveries in the United States in New York City. I was in

Connecticut. We saw the impact there. Some of the trafficking

routes have bypassed New York City and moved into New Jersey

and into Connecticut and some of the outlying areas.

So, the law enforcement presence has made a difference and it

has been our responsibility to adjust to the new patterns. So, law

enforcement has to be flexible and to adjust and the DEA has

taken those steps.

The third impact of September 11th is what is the focus of this

hearing, which is the impact on resources and long-term planning

on organizational structure. Clearly a comprehensive review is appropriate and is underway to eliminate any duplication of effort so

that maximum resources can be devoted to public security.

To the extent possible, the DEA has attempted to integrate the

homeland security responsibilities and our duties in counter terrorism into our existing law enforcement functions, so that the enhanced public safety is a dividend of more diligent and well-informed counter drug efforts.

Accordingly, the DEA, in the airports and railway interdiction

units are on high alert and cognizant of the likelihood of encountering members of terrorist cells as they transit the country. Clearly

law enforcement presence in that area as well makes a difference

and has resulted in leads and hopefully will in the future.

Regardless of the manner in which drug traffickers chose to regroup in response to our new counter terrorism initiatives, our single mission drug agents must and will continue to provide adequate

anti-drug coverage.

In the long term, I believe that our responsibilities overseas will

have a greater emphasis and has increased because of the instabilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:39 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82357.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
50

ity in Afghanistan. We are laying plans to have additional resources in Uzbekistan and in Pakistan to help in the interdiction

efforts of drugs coming out of Afghanistan. It is an unusual opportunity. We have a country that produces 70 percent of the world’s

supply of heroin, to be able to go in and impact that dramatic

source of supply.

The impact on the United States would be if we can reduce that

supply in Afghanistan is that it will impact our purity of heroin in

the United States and the price of heroin in the United States,

hopefully in a positive fashion.

Because the DEA is an agency that relies extensively upon interagency cooperation, the new responsibilities in counter terrorism

are nothing new to us. We will continue to maximize our cooperation with our State and local counterparts and with our Federal

partners that are at this table. We operate to a large extent with

our Federal partners under Memorandums of Understanding. If

there are any adjustments that are needed in those to maximize

our organizational structures and efficiencies, we are happy to cooperate.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the DEA fully supports Attorney

General Ashcroft’s initiative and Governor Ridge’s efforts to restructure our Federal law enforcement assets in a manner that

best serves public security. As we move decisively to coordinate our

counter terrorism efforts, we must take appropriate actions to

make certain that the momentum of our counter-drug initiatives is

not adversely affected. I appreciate the leadership of this committee in that regard. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Gallagher.

STATEMENT OF FRANK GALLAGHER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the privilege of allowing me to testify

here today. As you know, on September 11th the way we do business changed. It changed for the FBI. It changed for all of law enforcement and it changed for all of America.

Now, we must make some of the changes we experienced permanent and develop other changes or other ways of doing business

and serving the American public if we are to be an effective and

efficient national law enforcement agency.

The FBI has jurisdictional responsibility for over 300 classifications of Federal crimes. Some of them are exclusively the jurisdiction of the FBI and some of them are violations where we share

jurisdiction with other agencies, either Federal, State or local agencies.

Some of these violations which we investigate with shared jurisdiction are ones where the other agency doesn’t have the capacity

to shoulder the investigations alone. An example of this would be

crimes occurring in Indian Country where the Bureau of Indian Affairs shares jurisdiction, but they don’t have the capacity to handle

the volume of cases or the required expertise for some of the cases.

Drug violations are also ones which we share with many other

agencies. However, the way drugs have permeated our society and

lead to so many other violations and the way they are a part and

parcel of so many criminal enterprises, our jurisdiction is necessary

to try to fully investigate and dismantle these criminal organizations.

In 1998, the FBI established a 5-year strategic plan to set investigative priorities in line with a tiered structure. Tier One comprises those crimes or intelligence problems which threaten our national or our economic security.

Tier Two involves offenses which involve criminal enterprises or

those which adversely affect our public integrity.

Tier Three includes violations which affect individuals or property. In line with this plan, we have increasingly enhanced our resources dedicated to the areas of counter-intelligence and counter

terrorism.

Now, let me discuss briefly how the recent terrorism incidents

have affected the resources assigned to the FBI. Our budget authorizes the FBI to have 8,883 Special Agents to conduct investigations in the field. Now, this does not include those assigned as

managers or supervisors in field offices, those assigned to FBI

Headquarters or those assigned to international or special assignments.

Prior to September 11th, 73 percent of them, or approximately

6,500 agents were assigned to investigate criminal investigative

program matters, that is organized crime, white collar crime,

drugs, violent crimes or civil rights violations. A little over 2 percent of these resources were assigned to applicant and/or training

57

matters and the remaining 25 percent were assigned to counter-intelligence or counter terrorism matters.

Following the terrorism incidents, about 67 percent, or more

than 4,000 of those agents in the field who previously worked

criminal investigative matters were diverted to conduct investigations related to the PENTBOMB investigation or the subsequent

anthrax letters or hoax letters.

Also, agents were diverted to working hate crimes directed at individuals of Middle Eastern descent. During the first 2 weeks after

September 11th, all agents, both those working the terrorist-related matters as well as those who continued working the traditional

criminal violations worked on an average well over 13 hours a day.

We are continuing to utilize almost 3,000 agents more than we

are budgeted for to investigate counter terrorism. Presently, our

utilization of agent resources is showing a gradual return to more

normal levels. We are now using about 55 percent of what previously had been our criminal investigative resources on those violations.

However, with the increased emphasis on the prevention of any

terrorist act, it is doubtful that we will ever return to the same

staffing levels for each program which existed prior to September

11th. Prior to September 11th the FBI was usually involved in

about 250 assessments and responses related to suspected weapons

of mass destruction events each year. During the first 3 weeks of

October alone, we have had more than 3,300 of these occurrences

which included 2,500 suspected anthrax incidents.

Additionally, 278 hate crime allegations associated with the

events of September 11th have been investigated. To date, 35 of

our 56 field offices have established joint terrorism task forces,

most of which existed prior to September 11th.

The Director has instructed that all of our field offices establish

a JTTF as soon as possible. The FBI has also established a financial review group which is a multi-agency task force investigating

all funding avenues utilized by the terrorist networks.

In order to effectively address terrorism threats and the traditional crime problems which the FBI faces on a long-term basis,

the Director has developed an internal reorganization plan. The

first part of this reorganization plan has received congressional approval and the FBI is moving forward. The initial stages of this reorganization is at the headquarters level.

But in the overall reorganization, there are many factors to consider, including the long-term shifting of resources from traditional

criminal investigative priorities to counter terrorism. However, decisions concerning resource allocations to the various criminal programs have not been finalized. There is an ongoing, comprehensive

examination of all of the criminal violations which the FBI addresses to assist in this reorganization.

Our continued involvement in multi-agency task forces addressing multiple crime problems will be of the utmost importance. All

of our field offices have established various task forces in addition

to the joint terrorism task forces which designed to address a myriad of traditional crime problems.

These task forces not only enhance the FBI’s resources by establishing law enforcement links with local, State and other Federal

58

agencies, but they enhance the sharing of intelligence which

crosses those program lines.

We intend to focus our efforts on significant criminal enterprises

and the most serious personal and economic crimes to address community safety and violations within our prosecutive guidelines.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to testify

today. I am happy to answer any questions which you or other

members of the subcommittee may have.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. SOUDER. Before we move to questions, Mr. Gilman, our distinguished vice chairman has a brief opening statement.

Mr. GILMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Souder,

thank you for arranging this very timely hearing amongst our law

enforcement agencies. The testimony was excellent.

Today we will review what the heads of these law enforcement

agencies have to say about the consuming impact that the recent

emphasis on homeland security has had on each of their departments.

I will welcome from them what more we can be doing as we get

into questions with regard to their ability to carry out their important responsibilities under the present crisis.

In addition, we will also be considering the status of any longterm planning that is currently being done to assure that appropriate agency resources and proper attention is and will be continuing to be dedicated to their missions up the road.

While we are all unified in our resolve to make certain that our

Nation’s homeland security is adequately addressed, to stem off

any future terrorist attacks it is important that we recognize the

potential for law enforcement resources to be stretched beyond

their means. In fact, we are hearing reports of resources for other

law enforcement missions such as our drug interdiction may be diverted to fill the new demand for homeland security.

Accordingly, any discussion on homeland security and the impact

upon our Nation’s law enforcement agencies must include a discussion of whether or not the need exists to consolidate certain law enforcement functions within the various Federal agencies and we

hear talk once again about some consolidation.

It is also important to note that our increased effort of homeland

security as in some instances helped in our battle against illicit

drugs, for example, on our southwest border where Mexican-American authorities report the drugs are piling up on the Mexican side

due to our Nation’s increased vigilance in the securing of our borders after the September 11th attacks.

This example points to what can be accomplished when our Nation places its resolve behind the illicit drug battle. We commend

our DEA for the work they are doing as well as our other agencies

that expressed their review of what they are accomplishing.

Certainly the demonstration we saw today of the fast boat initiative by Customs is another example of what could be done with

good cooperation between our agencies.

It is vital that we not ignore the importance of providing adequate resources in our current battle against drugs from whatever

source. It is important, too, that we refrain from the temptation to

reallocate our anti-drug resources while gaining victory after victory against the terrorists, the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.

Of course, they are major producers and sellers of drug substances to finance their terrorist activities.

Instead, we should use this opportunity to further our resolve

and to purge our Nation from the drug trafficking that comes from

the Afghanistan region and to be able to strike while the iron is

hot.

67

Mr. Chairman, these are extremely important issues. We look

forward to being able to get into a discussion with our panelists

when we return to questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I am going to yield to Mr. Cummings

for the first 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you for calling this hearing.

Mr. Ziglar, I want to just ask you a few things. You were saying

that 75 percent of the Sky Marshal, I guess it is applicants, are

from the Border Patrol. Is that what you said?

Mr. ZIGLAR. No, Congressman. The first class of Sky Marshals

that was going through training, in that first class approximately

75 percent of them are former Border Patrol agents.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, I guess that has had a tremendous impact on

your operation, it would seem logical.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, it certainly will if we continue to bleed that

way. We don’t know how many Border Patrol agents have actually

applied for these Sky Marshal positions. My recollection is that the

total number that has been selected at the moment is about 70 or

80 that actually have been selected for it. But we have no idea how

many of them are in the process and just haven’t gotten word.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Your announcement this morning about the

NCIC, I am just curious as to when you had your budget you complimented the Congress and the President on being supportive of

you with regard to your budget. I am just wondering, was that part

of the discussion? You sounded as if it was going to call for a lot

of resources to do that and a lot of effort. Is that a part of it, in

other words, your budget situation?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, it is not a line item in the budget, but it is part

of the interior enforcement operation. Of course, we have to

prioritize how we want to go about doing our interior enforcement.

So, it would be out of that part of the budget.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, have you made any predictions as to how

many of these 314,000 folks—and I agree with you, by the way, I

mean if people have gone through the judicial process and they

have been ordered to leave the country and they are avoiding that,

I think we should take all appropriate action to address that issue.

But I was just wondering, you know, what kind of dent do you

expect or have your people projected with regard to getting these

folks into the NCIC? You must see some benefit or you wouldn’t

be doing it.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Congressman, of course it is a little bit difficult to

estimate something that you have not used before, but making that

assumption that all 314,000 are still in the country, which may not

be a good assumption, some of them may have just left on their

own and we didn’t know that, we guess at that time it will be

somewhere between 7 and 10 percent a year that we will be able

to identify, on the high side.

This is a ramp-up situation. Tomorrow morning they won’t all be

in NCIC. It will take a while. A lot of this is going to have to be

hand-entered because of the nature of the reports that we have. So,

it will ramp up over time. But we think when it is fully in there

that at least at the outset we will probably see a 7 to 10 percent

identification of those people who are in there.

68

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do we know whether any of those people who

were directly involved in the September 11th tragedy would have

fit into this category, in other words that people who were ordered

to be deported? I am just curious?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Not of the 19, No, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Hutchinson, with regard to Afghanistan and

drugs, we have heard testimony before this body, and I think you

were here at one of the hearings where they were telling us that

as far as the war effort is concerned, they did not believe at that

time, this was a few weeks ago, a lot of drug money was used to

support the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

I was just wondering. You know, you were talking about the effects of measures that have been taken by the U.S. Government

since September 11th and I was wondering, with all this bombing

in Afghanistan, have you seen any impact with regard to crop production and drugs coming out of Afghanistan or are you able to determine that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, Congressman, there has been certainly an

impact. The focus of the efforts of the United States, of course, is

to get the terrorists and those responsible. But it has clearly disrupted and impacted the production, the use of the conversion laboratories. It is more difficult initially. They were releasing the

stockpiles in Afghanistan. They had stockpiled up to 60 percent of

the opium production each year. That was being released and so

it was continuing to flood the borders.

It appears that the Afghan farmers are in varying degrees replanting. I hope that as we have a post-Taliban circumstances in

Afghanistan that we will be able to go and impact what is happening there now and in the future of that country. Clearly, we have

a vested interest in the United States there, because as I mentioned, in Baltimore it very well will affect the heroin supply here,

the cost and the purity of it as to what actions we are able to take

in Afghanistan to reduce the supply.

You mentioned the Taliban, clearly they are funded by drug trafficking proceeds to varying degrees. The evidence is very clear and

there appears to be a growing body of evidence that we are still

looking at as to the other connections with drug trafficking and the

other result organizations.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman, and I

want to thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. Hutchinson, as these forces that have come together to form

a new government are coming together it seems like slowly they

are moving toward some kind of government, I mean, do you expect

our government to have any impact or have any say with regard

to that new government and the piece of the government that addresses drugs?

I mean there may be some things that we can bring to the table

about our efforts to address drugs. Since they are forming a new

government, it seems logical that we might want to have some say

in that because we don’t want to go right back to a situation where

drugs are used to supply money to attack our own country. I was

just curious.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. We have a great interest in working with our international partners to have an influence on any

69

post-Taliban government in Afghanistan and hopefully they will be

amenable to international concerns, not just European and here in

America, but in addition, the neighboring nations of Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan are greatly impacted by the heroin coming out of

Afghanistan.

So, I think there will be a broad coalition of international influence as they develop policy post-Taliban.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you all very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. As you have heard, we have a series of

votes. But what I am going to do, because the first one always

drifts the longest, because we have so many questions, I’m going

to skip the first one and try to make the two 5-minutes, so we can

make sure we get some of the questions in the record.

I wanted to clarify, too, that the jurisdictional range of this subcommittee is extremely broad. Not only do we have primary jurisdiction on narcotics, authorizing on the drug czar as well as oversight of any area of the Federal Government that touches on narcotics, but as the war on drugs broadened, all the human services

agencies were put under this committee, HHS, in addition to Education and have you had.

Then at the last Congress to give flexibility, because we saw

when we worked with the borders Commerce was also moved under

this committee. So, the range of how we approach this is pretty

broad.

One of the things we have zeroed in on in the subcommittee this

year, particularly after September 11th, but we had actually agreed

to do this with both the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico parliamentarian groups was to look at the border in particular, which was

very related to commerce in the United States as well as narcotics

as well as immigration.

What we have learned is that you can’t deal with one without the

others. We were going to proceed with a number of hearings before

September 11th which clearly now are heightened. So, one, some

of my first questions I want to direct regarding the border issues,

knowing that we have had the biggest change as the focus on the

north border increased after September 11th as opposed to the

southern border. Some of that was already occurring because of

Quebec gold and B.C. Bud in the drug area.

Some additional human smuggling was starting to have a little

bit more focus on the north border. What we are looking at in this

subcommittee, we have had hearings, field hearings in the BostonMontreal corridor. In Vermont we have had one hearing in the

Champlain and the New York City—Montreal corridor.

On Monday, we will be in Blaine, WA and Seattle-Vancouver corridor. Both those areas have water, Lake Champlain and Puget

Sound, which are other places you can move. So we have worked

with the Coast Guard. We also have Border Patrol facilities back

from the border. We are going to some of the smaller sites as well

as the larger sites.

A week ago Monday we were in Ottawa and met with some of

the legislators. One of the things that each of you are talking about

and I hope you will accelerate are those efforts to coordinate with

Canada because some of the diversion of resources from the south

70

border to the north border may be able to be addressed by some

cooperative arrangements with Canada.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions to start with that. Mr.

Bonner, I applaud you for your statements that if other nations do

not give us their airline manifests that they will be thoroughly

searched, all carry-on and stowed baggage immediately rather than

waiting because most Americans assumed this was already happening.

Has Canada moved forward on this as well?

Mr. BONNER. Well, first of all, we have implemented a program.

The Congress was good enough to pass a law to make it mandatory

that advanced passenger information be provided to Customs by all

airlines. We had actually gotten this information over the past several years on a voluntary basis for about 85 percent of the arriving

passenger.

But now, it is mandatory. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have

moved forward promptly to implement that law. We are getting virtually all the airlines with the exception of a few now, who now are

complying with the law which will go into effect, actually in a couple of months.

We have had discussions with the Canadians about advance passenger information. I understand from my discussions with my

counterpart at Canadian Customs and some of the political minister level people in Canada that they have enacted legislation so

that the appropriate agencies of the Canadian Government will be

getting advance passenger information on flights into Canada from

outside of Canada.

We are working right now, as we speak, Mr. Chairman, with our

Canadian counterparts at both Customs and at the political level

and with INS and the CIC in Canada to get a situation in which

we have access of ability to exchange advance passenger information so that we can use that information both with respect to

known terrorists or individuals who are associated with terrorist

organizations, but also use that information more effectively to

identify those individuals that need to be questioned further, to do

some serious targeting of potential terrorists that are entering our

respective countries.

So, that is what we are working on with the Canadians which

is both exchanging, getting a mechanism to exchange the information and then working with them on both sides to develop a more

sophisticated way through targeting and using that information effectively to identify suspected terrorists.

Ultimately, the end objective, if we can do it, would be to actually

prevent boarding of aircraft by individuals who we do not want,

who the INS and Customs and the U.S. Government does not want

to enter the United States or to enter Canada.

So, these issues, we are making some progress on them. They are

difficult issues. They certainly have some implications for the Canadians that we are working with. We are working through them.

My sense is that we have a very, very high level of cooperation

and support from our Canadian counterparts, including at the very

highest political levels of the Canadian Government to do this,

which is not just with advance passenger information, but also advanced manifest information and setting up systems so we are in

71

a better position, both of our countries are in a better position to

prevent terrorists or terrorists weapons from entering our respective part of North America.

Mr. SOUDER. I agree with your assessment that they seem very

willing. I also think it is important for Americans to understand

that terrorists go into our country through Canada as well. A number of these people are moving back and forth and so sharing.

But I think it is also important in our hemisphere that—I understand the need that they have to go through the processes—but you

have taken direct action with a number of other countries in the

Middle East in particular immediately and yet in Montreal and in

Toronto, as you well know through your agency at the Port Angeles

location, the Customs, a valiant lawyer intercepted a person headed for LAX Airport, that we are most vulnerable on our immediate

borders. Canada needs to respond rapidly because there is our biggest trade question.

The second is: How is Mexico working in the manifest with our

country.

Mr. BONNER. These are very important things we are working

on. We need to distinguish two things here. First of all it is making

sure that we are getting advanced information on passengers coming in from Canada into the United States. That is one issue that

we are concerned about.

First of all, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the INS and the Customs Service actually prescreen passengers in Canada. It is one of

only three countries in which the U.S. Government, U.S. Customs

and INS, actually pre-screen passengers who are getting on board

flights from the seven major international airports in Canada to

come into the United States. So, we have an opportunity to actually

prescreen and identify people there.

I am very confident that the Canadian Government will be providing us with advanced passenger information on flights into the

United States.

There is a second issue though, and this goes to something that

Commissioner Ziglar was talking about. That is, how do we push

out our border and also provide better protection and security

against the terrorist threat? There what we want to do is, now that

we are getting on a mandatory basis from all of the airlines that

are flying into the United States from outside, from Europe, from

the Middle East and from Asia, we are getting that information.

The Canadians are getting that information and we are working

with them to provide for a better, broader security for both of our

countries to exchange that information. That is a work in progress,

not done yet.

We have also been meeting, I have met with the Mexican Finance Minister and the head of Mexican Customs similarly to develop the mechanisms where we are developing a mechanism to

share information from them. Because we certainly want to know

who is flying into Mexico because of the ease of smuggling individuals across the border, much less weapons of terror across the

southwest border.

We want to have that information and be able to share our information with the Mexican Government and get from them information as to who is arriving in the major international airports in

72

Mexico because we want to be able to run them against law enforcement data bases in the United States.

We also want to be able to do some reasonably sophisticated targeting analysis to know who is in that zone as well. The preliminary discussions are certainly encouraging, but we have a ways to

go with the Government of Mexico to develop the actual exchange

mechanism that will be needed.

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will recess for 10 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee is reconvened. Mr. Ziglar has to

leave at 11:30. If others have particular engagements, if you can

let me know, too. I know at least a few of the Members are coming

back and will submit some questions in writing. I have quite a few,

partly for the record today and some for our border report that we

plan to be doing and for other ongoing hearings.

I want to suggest some other things that we have learned in our

process of our hearings and our meetings with the Canadian parliamentarians and in talking to other members. I encourage you each

to look at this. We are going to be pursuing this as we move

through, at least the start of next year.

One thing is, and it was suggested actually in a couple of your

testimonies of where, at least in our hemisphere where we might

be able to do joint operations, to try to figure out how to balance

the different missions. In other words, we clearly heard the FBI

has had an extraordinary diversion of resources over to anti-terrorism demanded by the American people, at least in the short term.

All of you have outlined some of those ways. So, we have to look

for some of the new efficiencies. Among those that have been alluded to here and I would encourage to expand, I talked to Chairman Wolfe about this as well, in some of the less prominent border

crossings where we have had in previous times maybe one person,

it could be an INS person, it could be a Customs person, and then

only for part of the day.

Now, clearly, we are doubling up. We are trying to keep these

posts open 24 hours. It is putting a strain on resources for very low

traffic compared to, say, Buffalo and Detroit. To the degree we

could explore, as we bring the laws similar to each other on immigration and on a number of the other things, which is why we are

pushing Canada so hard, and if we can do this with Mexico and

be certain of some of the security at their borders, we could pursue

it there, too, where there would only be one point for both countries

and the staffing could even be alternated because we would have

to figure out a way to do this cheaper vis-a-vis the return.

Another point, to the degree you can pre-clear on the Canadian

side they may have more land. For example, the Ambassador

Bridge which carries more trade than all of the U.S.-Japan trade

in the rest of the Nation, we have a potential that as we look at

new truck monitoring places, can some of that be put on the Canadian side if we don’t have the room on the American side.

Because we are jamming up the bridges for miles going back and

the border crossings for miles if we can’t figure out how to do the

clearances, not only for terrorism, but for increasing pressures on

narcotics, immigration and other types of things.

73

To the degree we can get some commonality in laws at the border, we need to look at creative ways to do that. All of the agencies

are working excellently. We visited a couple of places already and

talked about some with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The

joint sharing on the northern border and the New York-Vermont

area there is actually an outpost where they are shared. I hope we

have more of those.

If I could ask another specific question of Mr. Bonner here, the

NEXUS system at Sarnia and also Port Huron and also some up

at Blaine was moving ahead. It is a fast pass system. We have also

experimented with that in San Jacinto under a different name,

which is the other big border crossing.

It was being tested at Port Huron and since Customs went on

Level One alert, it means that both the southern border counterpart sentry and NEXUS was suspended. It has been nearly 3

months. Clearly, the terrorist alerts, we never get one off but then

we get another one. We have another one on right now.

It is not clear when this is going to change. At what point do you

think the fast pass system will allow the frequent border crosses

to work again and what is the status of this if we don’t get off

these terrorist alerts? Clearly that would take care of a high percentage of the backups.

In Detroit, one story is reporting 1,400 nurses and my understanding was that there were 1,100 nurses who go back and forth

and the Detroit hospitals are having a problem. We have been talking with Congresswoman Kilpatrick from Detroit and Susan

Whalen on the Windsor side, the parliamentarian. This is a huge

problem, the nursing, the trade, the trucks, some of the trucks go

back and forth 17 times a day.

In Indiana some of our plants are having to shut down or slow

down because the parts go over to be assembled here. They come

back. They get assembled another way and they go back again.

Clearly, the NEXUS and Sentry things are the best way to clear

out the regular traffic so we can zero in on the high-risk traffic.

Mr. BONNER. First of all, if I could just start off by talking about

wait times at the border just for a moment, because I think there

is some misconception with respect to what the wait times are.

Right after September 11th when we went to Level One alert,

very shortly thereafter on September 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th we

saw 10 to 12 hour wait times at Detroit, at the Ambassador Bridge,

at Port Huron, at the bridges over to Buffalo.

It clearly was having an impact, particularly on the auto manufacturers and U.S. industry that relies on a just-in-time inventory

system in terms of being able to get parts in a timely way.

We did take some immediate measures that first week working

with the automobile manufacturers, working with INS, developing

some initiatives that were opening more commercial lanes and

keeping them staffed longer. We did get National Guard assistance

from Governor Engler, which I requested and he provided promptly, and taking other initiatives.

We did reduce the wait times. By September 17th, by the next

Monday or Tuesday, those wait times were down to around preSeptember 11th levels and they have maintained a very high level

of security and at the same time have been able to get the trucks

74

across the border and by and large the passenger traffic across the

northern border.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Bonner, that is because there has been a 30

percent drop in commerce.

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, the commerce actually is back to

the levels it was, but the passenger traffic, the commuter traffic

and the tourist traffic, the POV, the privately owned vehicles, that

is at about 60 to 70 percent of where it was before September 11th.

So, part of the reason, you are absolutely right, at that time we

are able to get the wait times down is that there still is a lot of

passenger traffic that is not coming across that border. If tomorrow

we went back to full passenger traffic across the Ambassador

Bridge and the Windsor tunnel and Port Huron, we would probably

be right back where we are. So, there is a definite crunch there.

I don’t want to say there isn’t.

But the first thing we have to understand is that the wait times

have been substantially reduced. I am not saying they are acceptable, but they have been substantially reduced. There is still a significant decline in passenger vehicle traffic across the major ports

on the northern border and you have significant wait times at San

Jacinto and in Texas and Arizona, particularly for passenger traffic, so there is impact for being at Level One alert. I am just saying

that there have been some steps taken.

Part of that, it seems to me, should include, where we can, maintaining both security and maintaining the flow of trade across our

respective border with Canada and frankly Mexico. That is the

twin objective here. We have to maintain the security level, but at

the same time make sure that there is a smooth flow of commerce

and passenger vehicles.

Part of that, actually, I think, is reinstituting, if we can get appropriate security protection, reinstituting programs like NEXUS

at Port Huron and Sarnia and the Sentry Program, which is a

similar program down at San Jacinto.

As you know, those fast commuter lane programs were, for security reasons, they were terminated on September 11th and that remains the case today. With INS, actually, we are having discussions as to the precise security levels we would need for purposes

of reopening NEXUS and other commuter lane programs. I do expect that we are going to be taking that back up with our partners

in Canada—we have some discussions—probably reasonably soon.

We have to make sure if we are resurrecting these programs that

they have the level of security that is truly required to protect

against the terrorist threat.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ziglar, before you go, could you address that

also on the NEXUS and Sentry and also any reaction you might

have to where we might look on these smaller walk-across types of

crossings where we might be able to do something jointly with Customs and Immigration?

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, with respect to NEXUS, I think Robb

hearings pretty much said it all. We certainly are in agreement

that we want to reopen NEXUS. We are discussing it with our Canadian counterparts. There are two or three issues that we need

to resolve with them.

75

But I feel very comfortable that even in a Threat Level One environment that we can still redeploy the NEXUS system with certain

safeguards associated with it. I think we are in agreement on that,

aren’t we, Robb?

Mr. BONNER. I think so.

Mr. ZIGLAR. With respect to some of these small ports where we

now have people there 24 hours a day, one of the things that people don’t understand is that it doesn’t mean that we are keeping

those ports open 24 hours a day. It simply means that we have people there 24 hours a day to guard the place so there is not passage.

An alternative to having this situation where you have people

there is to harden those ports, to make it literally physically impossible to pass them as opposed to having a human presence there.

I think you can harden those during those periods of time when the

port is not going to be open anyway, as an alternative.

Now, certainly working with the Canadians, and like we talked

about earlier, they are extremely cooperative on a lot of issues now,

I think we probably could work out an arrangement like that. But

there are some issues that are very sensitive with respect to having

one or the other presence on the side of the border.

For example, their gun laws are very different than ours. Having

our agents on their side of the border creates some problems for

them. These are things that we have to work out. But the idea that

we were not working with the Canadians before September 11th is

one I sure want to dispel because there are a number of things that

we have been doing with the Canadians over a number of years between the Canadian Immigration and INS, Customs and their Customs and all four of us together.

The IBETS teams for example, the joint passenger analysis units

which we are going to start expanding. For example, we have Immigration Control officers overseas where we work together with

them. This is kind of an immigration thing, but it helps Customs.

We are going to expand the number of Immigration Control officers

at airports and seaports overseas so that we can interdict people

over there. We are going to do this jointly and we are going to have

joint training of airlines.

So, the Canadians and the Americans or the United States folks,

they are Americans, too, North America, they have really been very

cooperative and we are finding a very good relationship. I think

there is a much broader strategy that Governor Ridge is putting together, the things that Robb has done with Customers and what

we have done with our Immigration folks just in the last few weeks

fit together into a bigger matrix that Governor Ridge is putting together.

So, I think you are going to see some very promising cooperative

efforts on both sides of the border.

Mr. SOUDER. With the costs of the new equipment to do the

screening, if we start trying to look for anthrax, we look for bombs,

we look for an addition to whether we try to get a fingerprint or

eye technology for illegals, the truck port equipment is going to be

so high, to be able to also get that equipment for drug-screening

and those types of things, it is not clear that we can duplicate facilities on both sides.

76

The degree that we can cross-train not only among our agents

but among them, if you are going in one direction you are looking

for this and going in the other direction you are looking for that,

and even different regions. In Vermont they were looking for smuggling of cheese because those products are a huge issue in Vermont.

Cuban cigars are obviously something that comes across the

other direction to us. Those types of things, I think we could try

to deal with those. Mr. Ziglar.

Mr. ZIGLAR. Mr. Chairman, I would just make one comment on

that. Certainly on small customer items where we have joint jurisdiction at the border, the cost of that equipment is something that

we all have to share. But when you get to that cargo and that

heavy stuff, that is out of Robb’s budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here. I apologize for having to leave.

Mr. BONNER. I would just add, Mr. Chairman, if I could that we

are working with Governor Ridge in terms of some of the very proposals that you are talking about. I think the Governor actually

plans to go up to Ottawa perhaps next week. We hope to make

some real progress on some of these issues with our Canadian partners.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Owens, did you want to ask any questions?

Mr. OWENS. I’m sorry I was delayed. I wanted to mention to Mr.

Ziglar, I just wanted to comment in terms of the large number of

immigrants I represent in my Congressional district in New York.

I particularly wanted Mr. Ziglar to hear it, so it can go on the

record. I have a large Caribbean community in my district in New

York and I have a large Pakistani community, much smaller than

the Caribbean community. But I am concerned about both groups

and about the general profiling of immigrants.

I am always against profiling and generalizations about any category of people. But being in the real world I know that some

profiling, since you have limited resources, is going to take place.

But in the process of doing that, I think the record should clearly

show that throughout the history of the United States, two world

wars, Vietnam, Korea, we have never had a situation where any

people of Caribbean descent have been caught up in any espionage

in any way been terrorists. There is just no history whatsoever

there. In fact, the largest percentage of people now being recruited

for the U.S. Armed Services in New York comes out of the immigrant Caribbean community. People are going into the armed services.

To have a blanket suspicion of immigrants and blanket policies

being applied so that a young Jamaican student who has been admitted to college already and they are giving her a scholarship, we

had a difficult time trying to get her into the country because of

the tightened restrictions and the general atmosphere, which is

anti-immigrant.

The case of the Pakistanis is most serious because they are Muslims and profiling against Muslims results in ridiculous kinds of

situations where there was FBI sweeps of certain parts of the Pakistani community. As many as 200 people were rounded up in the

77

New York area who were Pakistanis. Not a single one has been

identified by the FBI as having any connection with terrorists.

However, quite a number had problems with their visas. They

had stayed too long or had various problems. They were being held

by INS for some reason, some held as long as 3 or 4 weeks. One

man died in custody.

I just think that kind of treatment and assumption that all Muslims must be treated the same way, and then the failure to at least

exercise discretion, as the Immigration Services Director has discretion if people are found to overstay their visas, they don’t have

to hold them in detention.

There are ways. They have been caught and they are ready to

go home. There are many ways we would go with that in the past

in terms of letting them go home or post bond or whatever. The atmosphere was such that nobody wanted to be reasonable about it.

So they were put in jails, contracting with the county in New Jersey and treated very badly.

Following that they even arrested some women and as of last

week they even detained some women without giving us a good explanation for it.

So, I hope we will keep our perspective. There are some kinds

of ridiculous things that are happening as we label all immigrants

as being possible enemies.

I don’t like the fact that in the Airport Security Bill that we

passed we made it a condition that any person who becomes an employee of the Federal Government under that bill has to be a citizen. Before, in the earlier draft, it said you have to be a citizen or

permanent resident for 5 years. When the final bill was passed

they have to be a citizen.

To say that anybody who works in the airport security operation

has to be a citizen while at the same time we are accepting large

numbers of people into the armed services of the United States who

are not citizens, you only have to become a permanent resident to

become a part of the U.S. Armed Services. We are going to send

people off to fight for us and be part of our armed services who are

not citizens and yet we cannot allow people who are here and permanent residents to take the airport security jobs.

I think that is part of a manifestation of a spirit, an anti-immigrant spirit that we should try to counteract. Also, at all times remember, certainly in this hemisphere, we are partners in this

hemisphere that have always been there for us, all the Caribbean

countries, most South American countries.

Those immigrants and their countries certainly deserve some

kind of special consideration in terms of hemisphere partnership

and I hope we will bear that in mind. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret I had to be in

another meeting as well.

Director Hutchinson, we heard quite a bit about how much heroin had been warehoused by the Afghanis and we have talked in

the Defense Department about trying to eliminate the warehouse.

Did we do any good, do you know, in trying to get rid of all the

inventory they had piled up?

78

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Of course, I think some of the inventory, a significant part of the inventory was released of their own will to sell

it. In regard to our operations, I would not want to comment in this

forum about what the military may or may not be targeting. But

I want to assure you that at their request, we do have DEA personnel there in Tampa working with them on a day-to-day basis as to

sharing with them the intelligence that we gather on locations and

other information that might be helpful to their operation.

So, as the military carries out additional responsibilities in Afghanistan and as we take care of the terrorism issue, I certainly

hope that the issues you raised will be addressed.

Mr. GILMAN. Well, I appreciate that. I know they neatly stack

their inventory close to a mosque for protection purposes. I hope

you can get that taken care of as well.

Speaking about Afghanistan, since we are going to have an opportunity now to be in there, I hope that we can encourage some

substitute crops throughout the growing area as an alternative to

the production they had in the North and also in the South.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You are absolutely correct, Congressman Gilman, that has to be a part of any long-term strategy, very similar

to crop-substitution programs that you have been an advocate for

in South America. Certainly the international community needs to

support that in Afghanistan.

We are in discussions with the State Department and I know

that these plans are being laid out for what we need to do in Afghanistan later on.

Mr. GILMAN. That is encouraging to hear that. Since we will have

an opportunity to do some important things in Afghanistan, this is

a great opportunity for us to try to get rid of that heroin crop that

has been plaguing all of our nations.

Commissioner Bonner, your organization has been doing outstanding work. How are we doing controlling the border with Canada and the New York State border there where we have the Mohawk Reservations along the border and which become almost safe

harbor for anyone getting on the reservation. Have we worked out

anything with regard to that?

Mr. BONNER. I know, Mr. Gilman, that the whole issue of security at our northern border has been one that has obviously consumed a lot of my time since being sworn in as Commissioner a

little over 2 months ago. I think we need to do a number of things

to better secure our northern border. One of them, of course, we

have been talking about which is working with our Canadian partners in terms of ratcheting up the kind of information exchange

and sharing and benchmarking our own security measures.

One of the things we need to do, I think, at least one of the

things I am thinking of, is making sure that we have, with respect

to the low volume ports of entry, that we have some ability to

harden those ports of entry and secure them so they don’t have to

be staffed 24 hours a day.

Then we need to be concerned with what I would call the ‘‘between ports of entry’’ issue, which, by the way, is primarily a responsibility, as you know, Mr. Gilman, of the Border Patrol. But we

need to have some capability of doing that.

79

One thing that we might look at in trying to leverage limited resources of the Customs Service and the INS and perhaps have the

Canadians join in this, but it is to develop joint response teams. In

other words you would have some monitoring of both between ports

of entry, places like the Mohawk Reservation, essentially unofficial

road crossings from the Canadian border, particularly upstate New

York, Vermont and in through Maine and that we would have some

joint response capability by a response team that would be made

up of perhaps—I am just speaking now, this is not certainly any

official position of the administration, but could be joint teams

made up of perhaps Border Patrol, Customs agents, State and local

law enforcement, so that we would have some response capability.

I think there actually is some chance that we would get the Canadians actually to participate in this. It is kind of the IBET model

that we used in British Colombia that we set up with the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police, Customs and INS using that model, so

that we are also leveraging the resources of our Canadian counterparts and we have some sort of response capability that would be

sensoring, monitoring and response capability to the intrusion of

terrorists or individuals who are bringing in terrorist weapons or

attempting to bring terrorist weapons into the United States. So

that would include the Mohawk Reservation, although that is a

very special issue because it is a reservation.

Mr. GILMAN. Can we do anything by some agreement with the

Mohawks for anyone coming on to their reservation?

Mr. BONNER. I think one of the things that we have done, as you

know on the southern border we also have a reservation issue. We

actually have special enforcement officers of the Customs Service

that are Indians. They do one hell of a job on the southern border.

Mr. GILMAN. That could be very helpful.

Mr. BONNER. Taking that model and seeing if we can’t do that

on the northern border would be a possibility.

Mr. GILMAN. I hope you will explore that.

Mr. BONNER. I will, sir.

Mr. GILMAN. Let me ask our good Admiral Loy, with regard to

our Coast Guard, I have been hearing some talk that the budget

has been cut back quite a bit. Can you tell us about where you

stand on your request in the budget process? Are you being taken

care of or not being taken care of?

Admiral LOY. Sir, I can say that in the Transportation Bill just

passed, the President’s request was granted by the Congress with

respect to the normal appropriation for the year. But, of course,

that was all pre-September 11th thinking, as you know, in terms

of the numbers.

Mr. GILMAN. So you are still short of funds?

Admiral LOY. The supplemental is the key to success for us for

the rest of 2002. Unfortunately, on the House action side of the

President’s requested supplemental, we were cut about $60 million.

We hope to be able to recover that by the time the Senate is done

acting and we find our way through conference. But that is a significant challenge for us at this particular point. We would like to

think that the Congress would be able to support the President’s

requested level for us in the supplemental.

Mr. GILMAN. It is $60 million extra?

80

Admiral LOY. That was the cut on the House side as the bill

went forward attached to the DOD Appropriations bill.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Gallagher, with regard to the FBI, there is the

article today in the Washington Post describing massive redeployment of FBI agents away from drug enforcement, investigation of

street crimes, bank problems. Are we neglecting those areas?

Mr. GALLAGHER. We are responding to the events of September

11th the same way that we have to other incidents, although this

is a lot larger than the ones we have had in the past. When we

had the Oklahoma City bombing, in that area we did the same

thing where we diverted resources from all of our other programs

to address that.

As I mentioned in my statement, our resources are slowly coming

back to where we are working on the traditional criminal violations. We are back at about 55 percent of where we were pre-September 11th and working the traditional criminal violations.

One of the things that we are doing is that agents have been

working a lot longer and a lot more hours of each day and more

days during the week to try to make sure that certainly the most

significant cases that we have are continuing to move forward.

Those that are ready for prosecution will continue being prosecuted. Those cases that we are working in conjunction with other

partners, where we can we have tried to continue and in some

areas we have had to pull people away from certain task forces or

cut back some of our commitments to those task forces.

One of the things that the Director has been very clear on is that

he wants to ensure that we continue our commitment to our partners, whether they be other Federal, State or local partners in ensuring our cooperation with them.

Mr. GILMAN. So that when you reassign your agents there is a

local agency that moves in and takes over so that there is not a

vacuum?

Mr. GALLAGHER. It depends on what you are talking about, sir.

If you are talking about bank robberies, for example, if we don’t respond to a bank robbery in most areas, there is still the local police

who respond to that bank robbery. It is a question of who has what

capability. Certainly in the smaller or more rural locales, our assistance is a lot more important to them in responding to something like bank robberies than it would be in New York City where

they have thousands of police officers who can respond to bank robberies.

It will vary across the country as to what we are doing and

where we have pulled resources from. Generally speaking, we are

still trying to respond to the most violent of crimes and the biggest

organized crime and drug cases and white collar crime cases that

we have going right now.

Mr. GILMAN. That is reassuring. I want to thank our agency

heads who are here, the Admiral, the Directors and Commissioners

for the good work that you are doing. I hope you will keep our committee informed if there is any shortage of vital funds so that we

can explore that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

81

Mr. Gallagher, I just want to followup on some of Mr. Gilman’s

questions, the last few questions that he was asking. We all were

provided with a copy of a Washington Post article dated today. I’m

sure you have seen it, ‘‘FBI’s Focus on Terrorism Sidelines Other

Categories of Crime.’’ Are you familiar with that article?

[The information referred to follows:]

82

83

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have seen it since I have been here this morning, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It seems to be a relatively well-balanced article

where they try to give both sides of the situation. One of the things

that happened in Baltimore, we have a very high murder rate. We

have been bringing it down steadily.

Since September 11th the mayor had to pull resources, being so

close to Washington, pull resources to address this is whole September 11th tragedy and the threats coming in. What we have noticed is that our murder rate has gone up steadily.

It is the theory of some people that even if it is only in the minds

of the criminal folk, they believe that resources are being shifted

to deal with this, because everything they see on the news is, you

know, policemen assigned to the port and policemen assigned to

this and that, they believe that they can now commit their crimes

and might be able to avoid punishment and being caught.

I guess the thing that concerns me and I am sure it concerns

you, we don’t even want to put that idea out there, that folks can

get away with something because we are going through this process.

That leads me to the question of, you know, with regard to resources, the President has said, and I think the country agrees

with him, that this is a long-term effort. This is not like the situation that happened in Oklahoma, although extremely tragic, you

kind of put a box around it and say, ‘‘This is it.’’

Here, you know we are getting these threats. We just got one the

other day. I am just wondering, do you feel that you all have the

necessary resources for this ongoing effort? Because some people in

your shop, although you are back to the 55 percent point, I think

you said, there are some people who have to be able to respond and

we are going to continue to have these incidents or threats or whatever, but they have to be on high alert almost 24/7.

So, I am just wondering, do you feel that you have the resources

that you need to address the problems as the President has laid

them out?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, the 2002 budget was just approved for us

and we also, I think, received a few additional resources as a result

of the counter terrorism supplemental legislation. But insofar as

our overall picture as to whether or not we are going to need additional resources, I am not trying to duck your question, Congressman, but we are in the process of doing this complete and comprehensive analysis of what we are going to be doing in the future.

I think it might be premature for me to try to say right now specifically what we think we might need in the future until the Director has had an opportunity to fully evaluate these facts.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I appreciate that. One of the reasons why

we are holding this hearing, I think, is that we had some local folks

who came in. Administrator Hutchinson was there. They talked

about, and these are local folks, who were talking about how they

were being stretched and they didn’t have the resources that they

needed and all that kind of thing. At the same time, you said it

and this article also says that what you are doing is relying on

local people.

84

At some point, something has to give. Sadly, in Baltimore, for example, we have a situation where we have already broken our

budget and we don’t know where the money is going to come from.

There is an article in the Sun Paper today saying we were going

to get some $56 million for the State. Well, in Baltimore City we

are probably about $15 or $20 million over where we are supposed

to be.

So, I guess the question becomes, you know, where does it give?

If these guys are saying they are stretched and you are stretched,

and I don’t know about Mr. Hutchinson, they refer to his agency

in this article, they used an example that when there are problems

maybe in your area that the DEA kind of chips in and you all kind

of work together.

But at some point, it is like a balloon and you keep putting air

in it and you keep putting air in it and something is going to burst.

My local people are crying and begging for resources. That is why

I ask these questions. I am just concerned.

This subcommittee has the mission of addressing the drug problem, but I don’t want the folks in Baltimore, the drug dealers, to

get the impression that the FBI, the DEA, Baltimore City Police,

Maryland State Police are so busy dealing with, and rightfully so,

dealing with the terrorism thing that they can then get away with

their thing.

Then the question is: have we accomplished much with regard to

our domestic statistic? That really concerns me. If it were not for

this situation like I said where I saw, I mean I actually see this

every day, our murder rate is going steadily up. The more we

talked about terrorism, the more the murder rate went up. Now,

it looks like we are going—we got it below 300 a year or so ago.

It looks like we may hit 300 or go above.

Maybe I’m just frustrated, but I just wanted you to hear that because I think there are jurisdictions all over the country that are

saying the same thing. We want to cooperate. We want to be patriotic. We want to be supportive of our President. But, at the same

time, we also need resources. So, when you say you are leaning on

them, I am trying to figure out what do they have to prop themselves up so that when you are leaning on them in your time of

stress, how do they even survive?

You may want to address that Mr. Hutchinson.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. You are correct,

we want to send exactly the right signal to the traffickers that

there is not any let down in our investigations and commitment to

the broad arena of law enforcement. The FBI is doing an extraordinary job in terms of committing the resources where they need

to be. I know that in many instances they are able to come back

to the task force and the counter-narcotics mission, but they are

clearly stretched thin.

In reference to DEA, we are focused, we are a single-mission

agency and we are focused on our counter-narcotics mission. In

every instance that we can we want to work closely with the FBI

and our local law enforcement to make sure that there is not any

slack.

I think that Director Mueller has indicated under the Attorney

General’s guidance a willingness to look at it. My colleague here inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:39 Jan 13, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82357.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
85

dicates that they are in the process of it. So, I would agree that

it is really premature for either the DEA or the FBI to jump in the

middle of that subject while we are waiting for that review to be

completed.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I just have a few more questions, but

I think part of what we are trying to do with this hearing, and it

is a delicate balance, is to acknowledge that there is a confusion,

too, among the American people when we say we are diverting resources over to fight terrorism, where did those resources come

from.

Clearly your agents weren’t just sitting home doing nothing. We

don’t want to give that impression either, that we have a whole

bunch of excess agents that we can all of a sudden put over to terrorism.

Our difficult political problem is how to work out these priorities

with your guidance without having what we are seeing happen.

That is, people are dying in the streets of drugs and we are chasing

anthrax, which could be a problem. We have six deaths there

where the murder rate in 1 month in Philadelphia went up 50 percent after September 11th because people were diverted over to

chasing anthrax scares and among other things, and their Police

Chief and others are complaining about it.

It is happening in city after city where our fears get heightened

and then we are going to come back. This subcommittee now has

jurisdiction over HHS. When I was on a different subcommittee

here as vice chairman we did seven hearings on health care fraud.

Obviously, if most of the FBI is being diverted over or many of

the FBI agents are being diverted over the counter terrorism, what

happens to health care fraud?

Next year we are likely to be in a panic about the economy,

bluntly put, in this Congress if we don’t have some sort of economic

recovery. Then we are going to be saying what are we doing about

Social Security? What are we doing about commerce on the borders? What are we doing about this or that? We will be calling you

in here saying, ‘‘How come you diverted all your people over there

and the fisheries are falling apart?’’

We have illegal goods in transit coming across and different immigrants. I want to finish with just a few specific questions. That

is what we are trying to get it. It shouldn’t give anybody who is

doing illegal activities the idea, and we are going to find some synergism, but we are going to have to figure out whether or not it

works to have it consolidated among borders, whether to eliminate

some of the duplication we see among agencies.

We can’t have everybody just spend more time in joint agency

task force meetings because then everybody is in meetings instead

of out on the street.

Admiral Loy, I wanted to get into a couple of specifics on the

Coast Guard. Without additional supplemental, is it true that you

will have to work on a 15 percent reduction in the 2002 budget?

Admiral LOY. No, sir. There is a specific line item in the 2002

normal appropriations that called for a 15 percent capability reduction for the organization for fiscal year 2002. The $60 million I

spoke of just a minute ago in answer to Mr. Gilman’s question is

a recovery of that 15 percent capability across the whole scope of

86

the organization’s wherewithal to do not only counter terrorism,

but all the other things we are responsible for as well.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask you specific example. Is it true that

Navy has loaned the Coast Guard six coastal patrol boats and that

the Florida National Guard is protecting two Florida seaports because you don’t have the resources there? How long can that continue?

Admiral LOY. Sir, I wouldn’t make quite the immediate cause

and effect there. Let me answer the question this way: We have

been working very hard with Governor Ridge’s office to develop a

maritime security game plan as a piece of the total border security

game plan.

I believe that to be an all-hands evolution, sir. This is not where

the Coast Guard, on the stewardship of the American taxpayer is

going to be all things to all people in all of the seaports of the

United States.

So, part of our challenge, as we have developed this maritime security game plan, is to broadcast that all-hands evolution notion.

One of the first calls I got on September 11th or 12th was from Admiral Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, making certain that I

understood that he understood the national fleet policy that we

have built over the last several years is a two-way street.

When it is appropriate for me to send things and competencies

and expertise to him for his work over there, it is equally important where he has the wherewithal, like patrol craft, like naval

coastal warfare kinds of assets, that if I need them in the harbor

defense seaport security world of work here in the United States

on this new front, he is more than willing to send them in our direction.

The other people that we have outreached to are other Federal

agencies. As Robb has already mentioned here this morning, we

have worked diligently with both the Customs Service and INS to

think how best we can serve each other in this collective effort, not

only about homeland security, but about getting all the other work

done as well.

We think it is a good thing for us to forge an MOU between us

to outline those areas, if there are areas of overlap, to encourage

the committee to see where those are and challenge us to be more

efficient and more effective on those gaps.

But we are also reaching to State and locals, Mr. Cummings, as

your commentary is absolutely right on point. We are also reaching

to the private sector. We have had engagements with 50 or 60

trade associations getting them to understand that in the ports and

harbors of the United States, largely privately owned, if there is to

be a greater security profile there it will be made up of Coast

Guard contributions, other Federal agency contributions, State and

local contributions and private sector contributions. It will be the

net higher security profile that will give us what we need in this

all-hands evolution that I speak of.

Mr. SOUDER. Is the Integrated Deep Water System still a priority

of the categories and if so, why?

Admiral LOY. It is absolutely, sir. Events of September 11th simply have provided yet another set of reasons why that particular

87

project, funded well, as a matter of fact, by the transportation bill

this year by the Congress, is enormously important.

What is at the hub of that project, as we call it C4ISR, the Command, Control, Communication, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance are the kinds of thing that will enable us to be infinitely

better as a hub of the operations that go on in seaports.

We bridge to the DOD side because we are a military service. We

bridge to the law enforcement community because we are a law enforcement agency. The deep water project, in addition to those assets that it will do for us, what we want in the Exclusive Economic

Zone and around the world, the hub of it is better interoperability

capability which will be enormously helpful to us in prosecuting

our work in the ports and harbors of America.

Dr. STIFF. Thank you. Mr. Bonner, how much do the counter terrorism and the other missions overlap? For example, when you inspect vehicles and travelers for bombs or other weapons, is that

compatible with tracking for narcotics?

Mr. BONNER. Yes, it is, certainly from the Customs inspection

side. There is very much overlap and it is very complementary. I

mean when you are searching for implements of terror, you are

searching for any kind of contraband and that includes drugs that

may be smuggled across the border. That is why I think you had

the initial effects that I described in my earlier testimony. That

was initially when we went to Level One Alert at the southwest

border and the northern border with Canada.

We actually saw at the southwest border, still, a large amount

of drugs coming into the United States, coming in across the Mexican border. We saw that evaporate. I mean our seizures went way

down. It was because, in my judgment, traffickers were holding

their product and were concerned that they would take unacceptable risks of having their product seized.

We have seen that, by the way, in the last month reversed. They

have had to get their product to market. Drug seizures have gone

up as a result of our Level One Alert, particularly at the southwest

border. They are up 30 percent from October of this year compared

to October of last year.

So, those are complementary. What is not exactly complementary

is on the agents side of the house because our Special Agents are

also involved through Operation Green Quest and Operation Shield

America that I described in what are essentially anti-terrorism or

counter terrorism efforts using our investigative jurisdiction to help

prevent terrorist organizations, international terrorist organizations, from being able to perpetrate terrorist acts in the United

States or, frankly, elsewhere.

Now, that has had an effect. It has not had an effect so far on

our ability to work drug investigations through our Special Agents.

Many times we do this, as you know, with our DEA colleagues.

But it has had some impact on our investigative cases with respect to intellectual property rights, knock-offs of products. It has

had some impact on that area. It has also had some impact on our

ability to pursue Customs fraud cases which sometimes involve falsification of the country of origin and so forth.

So, there is some robbing Peter to pay Paul that is going on here

to maintain our posture against the terrorist threat at the Customs

88

Service and at the same time perform the many other very important enforcement missions that the Customs Service has.

Mr. SOUDER. I think the American people would rather be alive

than dead, which is part of the hierarchy. On the other hand, if

they are alive but don’t have a job because we have had the patents stolen, it does present a problem. We are going to have to face

those.

Have you lost many agents to Sky Marshals?

Mr. BONNER. Like DEA and other agencies, we have 125 Special

Agents who are in the temporary Sky Marshal Program. But as

you know, that is about 18 months, I’m told, before we can expect

to have those agents back. I don’t think we have had the kind of

attrition of our Customs inspectors, at least so far, to the Sky Marshal Program that Commissioner Ziglar was talking about in terms

of the Border Patrol.

But I am certainly concerned that to maintain the level of security and that what we are doing right now could well result in

burnout. I am very concerned about this in terms of particularly

our Customs inspectors who are busting their fannies to protect

America against the terrorist threat.

Just so you know, part of the temporary solution to that, if we

can get the funding for it, would be to bring in National Guard to

assist Customs inspectors at the northern border and the southern

border as well, to assist in secondary examinations and assist us

in pre-screening so we can keep that traffic flowing.

But that is a temporary solution. Ultimately, you have to back

that up with both people and technology to do the inspections and

examinations that we need to do for the counter terrorism effort

and also to maintain the drug interdiction posture that I think is

a very important part of what the U.S. Customs Service does.

Mr. SOUDER. Admiral Loy.

Admiral LOY. If I might just add a comment, sir, about 20 percent of our Special Agents have been involved in the Sky Marshal

Program as well. Any of us in this room who thinks that we will

not have to deal with a head count, an equipment count and an

asset count upgrade in order for these agencies to do what is necessary, especially if the notion is that we have to go back to the

same level of dedication that we were to those missions prior to

September 11th and deal with the heightened profile of, in our

case, port security and all the other agencies’ cases, their contribution to homeland security.

It is just the wrong script to be reading. It will be a head count,

equipment count and asset count kind of solution in part, as well

as finding the efficiencies that we can find where those overlaps

occur.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have just two or three questions. First of all,

let me say this, Admiral Loy, I hope you will pass this on to the

folks who address the Port of Baltimore, they have done an outstanding job. From single report that I have gotten, we do a lot of

briefings in the Baltimore area about the port. But they say that

they have received maximum cooperation from the Coast Guard. I

just wanted to make sure that you knew that.

Admiral LOY. I will pass that on.

89

Mr. CUMMINGS. The chairman’s question just leads me to this. I

wonder what we are doing to retain the good people who are in the

agencies and looking to the future, since we have this long-term

thing. I think our country has changed since September 11th.

Mr. Bonner, you were just talking about burnout and whatever.

Are we looking, say, 5 years, 2 years, you may think it is early, but

we have to make sure we have troops to deal with this new realization, this is security realization that has happened since September

11th.

I was just wondering, is that part of your planning process? Are

you looking at how to retain, how to recruit more people, those

kinds of things? Is that a part of your planning process?

Mr. BONNER. Well, it definitely is. I think in terms of planning

we have to make the assumption right now that the terrorist

threat against our country is going to go on long past the fall of

the Taliban, the death of Bin Laden. We are talking about the foreseeable future. We are talking about years, not months, as the

President has said.

So, on the one level we have a fairly large number of people who

have been pre-cleared. The backgrounds checks have been done to

come into the Customs Service as inspectors and as Special Agents.

So, we have a pool that we are ready to bring in, send down to

training. As you know, there is some rollout time here. The training takes 12 to 16 months at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and to deploy those effectively where we need to deploy

them, which, by the way, is the northern border and it is the major

seaports in terms of containers coming into the United States.

It is very important that we have, obviously, highly trained and

experienced both inspectors and Special Agents. It is very important that we be able to retain the good people that we have in the

Customs Service. We are obviously thinking about ways of doing

that.

I can tell you this, Mr. Cummings, if you are consistently over

a long period of time putting extraordinary demands on people, no

matter how dedicated they are, and the men and women of the

Customs Service are phenomenally dedicated, still that is not the

way you keep people retained in their jobs.

We have to provide them with the relief. That is both through

staffing, so that these extraordinary amounts of overtime can be reduced and that is in terms of improving our technology so that we

are actually doing and are capable of doing the inspections and examinations that we need to do to maintain security, but at the

same time being able to do that faster, move trade and move commerce, and move people across our borders.

Obviously, there is more work being done on that. We are studying various issues that affect the Customs Service in terms of retention issues that include everything from potentially 6E status

for inspectors to what the journeyman grade should be and so

forth.

By the way, that is under study. I’m not in a position today to

tell you exactly how that will come out and obviously whatever I

think is best, I am going to have to pursue that through the Department of the Treasury and within the administration and OMB

and the like.

90

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand. I just want to make sure it is on

the drawing board. I mean it is something that we are looking in

that direction.

Anybody else?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me just comment, Mr. Cummings, that you

are absolutely correct. The DEA morale is high. But we always

want to look to the future to make sure that we are able to retain.

Within the agency we are looking at some quantity of life issues,

the strain that Commissioner Bonner has referred to exists in the

DEA as well in terms of the requirements of the job and the hours.

So, we want to do what we can within the agency to make sure

that we can give them the relief that is needed to make sure they

don’t have the burnout over the long term.

Second, it clearly is a resource issue as well that we have to be

able to have the capability of relief so that they can have a long

tenure and not simply move to the private sector at an opportune

moment. So thank you for asking the question.

Mr. Chairman, if I could be excused, I have to head to another

engagement. I apologize.

Mr. SOUDER. Go ahead and go. I just want to make a concluding

comment that I hope each of you communicate—Admiral Loy, did

you want to comment on the previous question?

Admiral LOY. I just need to make one point, sir, with respect to

a military work force as opposed to the other work forces. We are

working diligently with the Congress. The Congress has been very

generous after some administrative proposals in the course of the

last several Congresses, to deal with quantity of life issues for the

military work force. It is not just the Coast Guard, but all five.

That reality is a wonderful thing. But there remains a gap between military pay scales and civilian scales in general. To the degree there is a monetary reward notion associated with retention

and recruiting and continued service in uniform, that should not be

lost on the oversight committee as well as on those committees that

have to deal with those things in an appropriations manner as they

go through.

These young kids that are out there that Mr. Cummings was

very kind to compliment in Baltimore, their gratification, I guarantee you, is that they are doing something patriotic and of value to

their country.

But at the other end of the day, if we have not dealt with their

quality of life along the way, they will put their time in and they

will find another place to go. We are very concerned about both retention and recruiting.

Since September 11th we have watched numbers very carefully

in terms of whether or not there has been an up-tick, for example,

in a patriotic zeal, so to speak, to join the military services. It is

not there yet. We would like to think perhaps it might yet be. But

the statistical inferences are not there yet.

I am always of the mind that given an adequate message and

given an adequate recruiting force we will be OK on the recruiting

side, but the military services bring people in at the bottom and

grow their own, if you will, through the course of their military career.

91

So, it is the retention issue that is of great, great consequence

to us. If I loose a 12 or 13-year E6, I don’t bring one in from the

private sector overnight. I bring him in as a boot camp member

and 10 years later I have a 10-year E6. So, the retention piece on

the military work force is an enormously important ingredient in

our continued capability to have the wherewithal to do what we are

asking these people to do.

Mr. SOUDER. I hope you communicate on behalf of those of us in

Congress our pride in the work force. I remember talking to one,

I think it was the union head of the Customs group at Champlain

and how he struggled with the question of when you have to work

a double shift and you are there for 36 hours or the incredible

amounts of time they are working right now at INS or Coast Guard

or FBI, all kinds of people, do you find that people slip through the

border when you are at the end of your 36 hours that are different

at the beginning?

The pride said no. The exhaustion says, well, maybe, but I try

not to let it happen. Every human being knows that the exhaustion

and the frustration that comes from that, that the pride and enthusiasm are only going to carry us so far. We are committed to try

and address this.

This committee is also going to stay focused on the fact that in

1998 18,000 people died of drug causes and that everyday children

are beaten, spouses are being beaten, people are declaring bankruptcy, anywhere from 70 to 85 percent of all crime in America is

related to drugs.

We cannot back off a clear-cut, heavy pressure, constant pressure, chemical attack that is coming from narcotics because we fear

about what else. In planning for the fears of what else, we have

to have a perspective on what is actually there and not do the normal political pressure which is to respond to the urgency and then

go, whoops. We have to focus as much as possible on both and we

need to work at the resources and the management levels to do

that.

I thank you all for coming and all your different agencies. We

will look forward to continuing to work with you. With that, the

hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Æ