COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

JOHN BLAZEY, MARJORIE DUSKE, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

TRACEY LATURNER, and DIANA SIMPSON

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 5 

Page 

Department of Justice ............................................................ 1 

Federal Bureau of Investigation .......................................... 71 

Drug Enforcement Administration ..................................... 115 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ........................ 159 

Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented 

Policing Services, Office of Violence Against Women. 203 

Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Marshals Service; Office of the 

Federal Detention Trustee ................................................ 277 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

42–792 WASHINGTON : 2008 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2009 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WITNESS 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL 

CONGRESSMAN OBEY OPENING REMARKS

Mr. OBEY [presiding]. Well, good morning, everybody. Good 

morning, Mr. Attorney General. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Good morning. 

Mr. OBEY. Good to see you again. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Good to see you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I would like to welcome everyone to this morning’s 

hearing on the Department of Justice. Our witness today will be 

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. 

Sir, when you became Attorney General, you inherited a Department rife with problems. The most troubling of those has been the 

infiltration of partisan politics in the Department’s legal counsel, 

management decisions and operations. 

You are well aware, I think, of congressional concern about the 

partisan arm twisting that led to the authorization of the Administration’s warrantless wire tapping program, as well as the parsing 

of words that has been used to justify the CIA’s use of torture in 

its interrogation program. 

Last year, there were also severe concerns about White House involvement in the firing and hiring of U.S. Attorneys. With the 

Presidential election coming this year, many Americans are concerned about the Civil Rights Division’s capacity and willingness to 

investigate and enforce the ‘‘ Voting Rights Act’’ in cases of voter 

suppression. 

Unfortunately, politicization is only the tip of the iceberg in 

terms of management challenges at the Department of Justice. We 

have seen a steady stream of incidents across the Department in 

which senior leadership has abdicated its oversight and management responsibilities. 

I want to make clear I am not talking about you. I am talking 

about things that happened largely before you came on board. 

Over a period of several years, as you know, FBI agents have 

gained unauthorized access into the phone, banking, and credit 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

records of American citizens, all without detection or redress by 

senior managers at either the FBI or the Department of Justice. 

The Bureau of Prisons faces a critical operating shortfall this 

year, and allegations have been raised that the Department has 

handed out juvenile justice grants to cronies rather than to deserving applicants identified through fair, merit-based competitive processes. 

We get a lot of lectures, frankly, from the White House about 

congressional earmarking practices. It seems to us that under a variety of disguises, the same practices are being practiced in spades 

in many of the agencies down on the executive end of Pennsylvania 

Avenue. 

The Administration again proposes to slash funding for state and 

local law enforcement and crime prevention grants despite clear indications that crime rises during economic downturns. The White 

House proposes even deeper cuts to state and local law enforcement 

than last year, to the tune of $1.6 billion below the current year 

funding level. I do not know of a single sheriff in the United States 

who agrees with that recommendation. 

With respect to federal law enforcement initiatives, the funding 

you have requested for ‘‘ Adam Walsh Act’’ sex offender apprehension and immigration enforcement appears to represent only a 

passing thought. In addition, nearly every element of your Department is severely undercut by a lack of resources to deploy an interoperable wireless communications network around the country, a 

critical shortfall identified in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy and 

still not deployed today. 

Continued growth in the FBI and the federal prison system is 

starving other critical functions at your Department in my judgment, activities such as criminal enforcement, litigation, administrative support and infrastructure deployment. 

This trend, in my view, must be addressed sooner rather than 

later if there is to be any significant hope of a Department of Justice comprised of more than the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons in 

the very near future. 

So we look forward to hearing your views on these and on any 

other issues that either you or members of the Committee choose 

to bring up. Again, we appreciate your appearance here today. 

Before we begin with your statement, I would like to ask the 

Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for any comments he might have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, I join Chairman Obey in welcoming you 

this morning for your first appearance before our Committee to discuss your 2009 budget. 

First, I want to recognize and extend my sincere appreciation to 

the men and women of the Justice Department who ably carry out 

their responsibilities to protect our country from terrorism and 

crime each and every day. We owe them a debt of gratitude. 

I would also like to recognize your public service career, not only 

as an attorney within the Justice Department, but your service on 

the Federal bench. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

As the Chairman has said, for 2009, you are seeking discretionary appropriations totaling $22.85 billion for the Department, 

a reduction of 514 million or 2.2 percent from the fiscal year 2000 

level. 

While the request includes large and critically needed enhancements in national security and counter-terrorism money for those 

programs especially at the FBI and increased investments for 

criminal justice programs on our Southwest border, the budget also 

contains very deep and damaging cuts to assistance programs to 

state and local law enforcement, indeed our partners and your 

partners in some very important efforts. 

In addition, the Committee will act soon on the Administration’s 

pending supplemental request, so I will have some questions about 

the Department’s pending supplemental request of $146.7 million 

for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Global War on Terror. 

As you are aware, that request was formulated, I think, about 18 

months ago and I am sure there are some updates you can provide 

us so we are operating on the latest and most current information. 

Again, like the Chairman, I welcome you here for your testimony 

this morning. Thank you. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Attorney General, why don’t you proceed. We will 

put your full statement in the record. Take whatever time you feel 

you need to tell us what you want to tell us, and then we will get 

to the questioning. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Well, I would like to make just a brief statement 

before the questioning. 

Good morning, Chairman Obey, and——

Mr. OBEY. Take whatever time you need. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Well, I do not want to run a lot of clock here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MUKASEY

Good morning, Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, 

and members of the Subcommittee. I am here today appearing before you to present the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget for the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

In my recent return to the Department in November, I have confirmed what I had hoped and expected to find, which is men and 

women who are talented, hard working, and dedicated to fulfilling 

the Department’s mission. 

As you are aware, the Department is charged with defending the 

interests of the United States according to the law, ensuring public 

safety against threats both foreign and domestic, seeking just punishment for law-breakers, assisting our state and local partners, 

and ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all 

Americans. 

During my tenure, I have looked for opportunities to work with 

Congress to ensure that the Department is provided with statutory 

and other tools that are necessary to fulfill our mandate. The Department relies on the funding from this Committee to pursue our 

mandate and to enhance our efforts in the areas that need it. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members 

of the Committee for your continued support of the Department, 

and I very much look forward to continuing to work with you and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

members of this Subcommittee to advance a budget that will help 

us to achieve our mission. 

My written statement, which you have put in the record, addresses the Department’s budget request and goals in some detail. 

But I would like to take just a few minutes to highlight a few priorities. 

The Department’s budget request for fiscal year 2009 is $22.7 billion. Those funds will allow us to accomplish our mission and to 

focus on several of the priorities that I have discussed in other settings. These are national security, violent crime, immigration and 

border security, and public corruption. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request reflects a six percent total increase over the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget for the 

law enforcement and prosecution programs within the Department. 

I want to mention briefly four particularly important elements of 

the President’s budget proposal. 

First, the proposal increases the resources that are dedicated to national security and counter-terrorism efforts by $492.7 million 

which includes resources necessary to expand and improve the 

counter-terrorism programs of the newly created National Security 

Division within the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Since the devastating attacks September 11, 2001, the Department has mobilized its resources to help protect the nation. In that 

time, this Committee has strongly and repeatedly shown its support of the Department’s efforts in the War on Terror. And, again, 

we appreciate those efforts. Second, the budget dedicates an additional $100 million to the 

Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative. Those funds will provide 

the essential resources, personnel, and infrastructure that is needed to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and gun smuggling across the Southwest Border. 

Third, the budget request plans to support essential federal detention and incarceration programs that provide the infrastructure 

necessary to the Department’s law enforcement personnel and prosecutors to carry out their responsibilities. 

As programs such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative investigate and prosecute dangerous criminals, the Department has to be ready to confine those 

individuals in a safe, secure, and humane environment. 

Finally, the budget funds current base operations and reflects 

the Department’s strategy to work in partnership with state, local, 

and tribal authorities, and target funding to address the most significant needs of those communities. 

It is our collective obligation to ensure that our resources, whether expanded on federal efforts or in support of our state and local 

partners, are used wisely and in a way that is calculated to achieve 

the most significant impact. 

Chairman Obey, Representative Frelinghuysen, and members of 

the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for this chance to present 

the fiscal year 2009 budget. With your continued support, the men 

and women of the Department of Justice who are protecting and 

serving this country can continue to do their jobs and ensure that 

justice is served. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

During a time of limited resources and tough decisions, I am 

grateful that the Committee continues to support the Department’s 

mission and its people. 

I thank you for inviting me here today, and I would be pleased 

to provide answers to the questions that you have. Thank you. 

[Written statement of Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General of 

the United States follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 42792A.001
7 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 42792A.002
8 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 42792A.003
9 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 42792A.004
10 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 42792A.005
11 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 42792A.006
12 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 42792A.007
13 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 42792A.008
14 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 42792A.009
15 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 42792A.010
16 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, you and I come from a part of the country, 

the New York, New Jersey region where we view September 11, 

2001 perhaps a little bit differently than other parts of the country. 

And so when we talk about your budget and the centerpiece of 

your budget is counter-terrorism and intelligence, I do not think 

anyone views it in the abstract. 

I have said in a number of hearings, 700 New Jersians died on 

that day. I do not forget it. I know that your main mission is to 

make sure that it never happens again. You are working hard to 

prevent it, apprehend those responsible for it, and I know doing 

whatever you can to prosecute those that we find to be responsible 

for those acts. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES

You are proposing $493 million in new investments. The vast 

majority of that is in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. 

You mentioned in your fuller testimony the national intelligence 

estimate and the renewed threat of an Al-Qaeda capability and 

their intention to carry out its act. 

What to your mind are the most areas in which the Department 

intends to focus the resources you are seeking to prevent further 

such attacks? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Well, the money that you mentioned is focused, as 

you mentioned, principally on the FBI, which is that agency within 

the Department of Justice that is charged with intelligence gathering. 

I should add that that is a relatively new mission of the FBI that 

was begun really or gotten more robust after September 11. And 

we have also, as I mentioned, stood up a new National Security Division within the Department of Justice. The money that you mentioned, the almost $493 million, will be 

used, among other things, to hire 280 agents at the Bureau, 271 

intelligence analysts, and as well as resources for DEA, the Office 

of the Inspector General, and law enforcement wireless communications, which are the radios that are necessary to ensure interoperable communication. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Director Mueller told us, the Committee, 

that his top priority was more people. You have mentioned the 

numbers. 

Is our best investment against terrorism more of these skilled 

agents and analysts? How do you view their work? 

Mr. MUKASEY. There are enormous resources, as you know, from 

the various agencies across the intelligence community in gathering information. What is necessary is people who can gather information in ways other than are gathered by those intelligence 

agencies and also people who can evaluate the information. If the 

information piles up unevaluated, it does not do us any good. 

So we need to get both people who can gather information and 

people who can evaluate the information that is coming from other 

partners in the intelligence community, as well as information that 

is gathered domestically, and integrate it with all the other inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

mation that we are gathering that is coming in from the CIA, the 

Defense Intelligence Agency, and other agencies, and put it into a 

coherent picture. 

TRAINING FACILITIES

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is not necessarily a parenthetical, but, 

you know, we are going to go hire new agents and analysts, but 

we do not appear to have enough training facilities for them. One 

of the missing links here is the needed money for a new FBI Academy. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I believe the Director testified yesterday. I am not 

certain precisely which funds would be used for the Academy, but 

I believe that the FBI can train, has trained, and will continue to 

train, and also rely on having some of its agents pass through 

other intelligence gathering agencies so that there would be folks 

who would go through the CIA and so on. So there would be some 

training that goes on as part of that process as well. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, not only do they train their own people, they also work pretty closely with local law enforcement, and 

I think we can all verify here, in a bipartisan fashion, that we need 

more money for construction. It would be good to have your endorsement because we want the best skilled people that are out 

there. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. Be happy to. 

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply emphasize that it is our concern that 

the agencies will, if they have to make a choice between infrastructure and personnel, pursue adding personnel. We understand the 

reasons for that. 

But I think it is safe to say that many of us on the Committee 

feel that we run the risk of neglecting the infrastructure that is 

needed to support these added personnel, and we would hope that 

the Department would take that into strong consideration as it participates in budget decisions. 

Mr. MUKASEY. We certainly will. And I appreciate that point 

being made. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Kennedy. 

DRUG COURTS

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. 

You have heard the expression the 800-pound gorilla in the room 

or elephant in the room, although the identity of the 800-pound gorilla tends to vary. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, obviously in our country, often it is sitting 

in front of us and, yet, we overlook it. And in our prison system, 

we have more people incarcerated in our country than even China 

in spite of the fact that we are always bemoaning the fact their 

human rights record is abysmal and we are debating in our own 

country whether to boycott the elections. And we are constantly 

looking at other countries and complaining about their human 

rights record. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
18 

But on a per capita basis, we have more people incarcerated in 

our country than China does. It says a lot about, you know, our 

prison record. And the fact is that we have people incarcerated in 

our country at such record numbers because of our drug laws. 

And, yet, in this budget that you submitted, we zero out drug 

courts. And this is in spite of the fact that 68 percent of those at 

the time of arrest test positive for one of five drugs. And this is in 

spite of the fact that within three years of being let out of prison, 

people’s recidivism rate is back into prison and in large measure 

because of drugs. 

The war on drugs is just a farce as you know being a former 

judge. This is the big elephant in the middle of the room. 

What I want to ask is what your opinion is on, as the lead law 

enforcement officer in the nation, what we should be doing as a nation to address the fact that our prisons have become a public 

health institution of last resort because of the failure of our public 

health system to address really a public health issue, which is, addiction as a public health issue. What do you think of it as criminalizing really a public health issue? 

Mr. MUKASEY. The fact is that Congress has passed statutes that 

criminalize the sale of drugs. And I want to stress that we do not 

prosecute possession and use cases. That is not what the Justice 

Department is about. We are about stopping the people who are 

making tons of money out of ruining other people’s lives. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So why zero out the drug courts? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Well, I think it is something of an overstatement 

to say that we have zeroed out the drug courts. What we tried to 

do with that program as well as other programs is to put them into 

a more coherent framework of essentially four categories, violent 

crime reduction, Byrne public safety protection, child safety and juvenile justice, and violence against women. 

And what we would ask for is that various programs submit applications for grants, which we will evaluate, which will include 

drug courts. We are bound to include drug courts, we have to include them under one or more of those categories. So we are not 

ceasing to address that problem. 

Just a parenthetical comment. I do not know whether it was part 

of your question, but I do not think our incarceration rate reflects 

a bad comparison with the human rights record of China. The people who are incarcerated in the United States are incarcerated 

after trials or guilty pleas. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And I understand that. I understand that. 

Mr. MUKASEY. They have a totalitarian society, so they do not 

really need a high incarceration rate. They do it in ways that—we 

do not want to, we do not want to reduce our prison population 

that way. I think we can agree on that. 

And I realize that was not part of your question, but I thought 

I wanted to address it. But we do not underestimate——

JUVENILE JUSTICE GRANTS

Mr. KENNEDY. But when we cut the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program, which your budget does, which helps 

us avert a high incarceration rate, it is an indictment on our society to lower the number of people we put in prison. Your budget 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
19 

cuts the dollars that we have to avoid a high incarceration rate in 

our country. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think one has to recognize that, as I said, one 

of the things we have done is to put into four categories the various 

grants that we have given out under a myriad of cross-cutting and 

intersecting programs. One of them is $185 million for Child Safety 

and Juvenile Justice. 

But that does not really stand alone. It stands along with our 

own efforts that involve task force efforts directed, for example, at 

an unprecedented number of gun prosecutions and other task force 

prosecutions that we carry on. 

So what we are trying to do is, number one, rationalize and coordinate grants and, number two, coordinate them with our own 

Justice Department enforcement efforts, that we have got a kind 

of doubling of resources. 

Mr. KENNEDY. But I do not know whether the experts in the field 

have consulted with you on that, but did the juvenile justice folks 

in the field say that the JAIBG Program and Title 5 needed to be 

reformed, because from what I have understood, they have worked 

very well over the years? 

I did not hear an outcry that they were not working and somehow they were not being made available for the kinds of prevention 

efforts that were needed to be made available for and, therefore, 

needed to be rolled into this kind of lump sum block grant that you 

say they needed to be rolled into. 

Mr. MUKASEY. As to those two specific matters, I think I am 

going to need to get back to you because I do not want to—— Mr. KENNEDY. Right. 

Mr. MUKASEY [continuing]. Either try to grope for the materials 

in here or give a general answer that is not responsive. So I will 

try to get back to you with regard to those two specific programs. 

[The information follows:] 

JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG) PROGRAM AND TITLE

V 

The Department is not aware of any sentiments or calls from the states to reform 

either the Title V Community Prevention Block Grants or Juvenile Accountability 

Block Grants (formerly JAIBG) programs. In fact, in their annual reports and recommendations to the President and Congress and to the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Administrator for the years 2004 through 

2007, the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ) made no recommendations regarding these two programs beyond requesting that Congress either increase or maintain their annual funding levels. 

The annual reports of the FACJJ are available at: http://www.facjj.org/ 

annualreports.html.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. Well, thank you, and look forward to that 

answer. That would be great. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, I want you to know how much I admire 

the work you have done. You have just done a magnificent job as 

our new Attorney General, and very proud of the work that you 

and your office are doing and look forward to supporting your 

budget request. 

I am pleased to see that you have asked for enough money that 

you look like you will be in a position, if we are able to fully fund 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
20 

that, and certainly I will do my best to see that that happens, that 

you can support the work of our Border Patrol agents and our 

other law enforcement officers along the border. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER

I represent the State of Texas, the west side of Houston, and we 

have for a number of years, my constituents, everybody in the 

state, I know it is a concern of the country, but particularly in 

Texas, been just apoplectic over the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws, especially of our laws at the border. 

There have been an increasing number of extremely dangerous 

criminals coming across the border, MS13 gang members, the 

human and drug smugglers. Slavery still exists. I did not fully appreciate that until I had been to the border and seen the tragic circumstances of people coming here for economic reasons who are literally held in slavery. And pirates still exist. They prey on each 

other. 

It is the wild west, but today the Comanches are carrying machine guns and satellite phones and infrared binoculars. It is a 

scary place. There is a war going on down there, as you know, sir, 

and I have been devoting as much time as I can as a member of 

Congress, as a member of this Committee to help support law enforcement to find effective, thoughtful ways to secure the border, 

and have been very pleased with the work the Border Patrol is 

doing. 

This Congress has supported the Border Patrol and given them 

so much money, in fact, that the officers, the sector chiefs, the Border Patrol agents along the border have, as Chief Gilbert in the 

Tucson sector told me, that the Border Patrol has been so generously and so well-funded by the Congress that they have like Napoleon outrun their supply train in many cases. 

And that is something, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will work on 

here because the U.S. prosecutors, the U.S. Marshal Service is 

going to need help to help support this because truly like Napoleon 

in many ways, the Border Patrol has outrun the supply train. 

In the Del Rio sector and in the Laredo sector, Mr. Chairman 

and Mr. Attorney General, the Border Patrol in working with the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office has implemented an extremely successful 

policy that I have been working arm and arm with Ciro Rodriguez 

and Henry Cuellar with the full support of the local community 

which is 96 percent Hispanic. 

In the Del Rio sector, they have begun a policy called Operation 

Streamline in which they are arresting and prosecuting essentially 

100 percent of everybody they arrest with, of course, obvious exceptions for officers using their good judgment. If it is a woman with 

children, they do not throw them in jail. If they are somebody that 

is sick, they are using good judgment. 

But in the Del Rio sector as a result of that, Mr. Attorney General, the crime rate in Del Rio has fallen 76 percent. The number 

of illegal apprehensions is down to the lowest level they have seen 

since 1973 when they first began to keep statistics. 

In the Laredo sector, I was able to persuade the Sector Chief 

there, Carlos Cario, who is a good man, they have a terrible crime 

problem in Laredo with the drug war going on across the border. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
21 

Sector Chief Cario has implemented Operation Streamline and the 

results have been similar. They have seen a dramatic drop in the 

crime rate and a similar drop in illegal crossings. I am working to 

get it rolled out in Brownsville. 

What I am leading up to, sir, is I made a trip to Tucson, Arizona 

in early February and met with the Border Patrol Chief there. I 

had understood they were interested in doing Operation Streamline 

out there. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned to you and Mr. Frelinghuysen 

before, but I was dumbfounded to discover that in the Tucson sector, which has the largest number of illegal crossings in the country, there is an absolutely out of control drug smuggling problem. 

The drug smugglers are so bold, in fact, that they have actually 

set up observation posts in the U.S. soil on top of hilltops where 

they put observers with satellite phones and infrared. They are actually watching our agents and telling the smugglers where the officers are. 

So I went to Tucson to find out firsthand how I could help them 

with Operation Streamline and was dumbfounded to discover, and 

what I am about to tell you is absolutely—I still could not believe 

it myself, had to quadruple check it—if you are arrested by a Border Patrol Agent in the Tucson sector carrying less than a quarter 

ton of dope, you have a 99.6 percent chance of being home in time 

for dinner and never going to jail because the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

is not prosecuting them. 

And it is deeply disturbing. And when you look at the prosecution rates up and down the border, obviously the Tucson sector has 

got a huge problem. The Border Patrol is arresting over 50 percent 

of the people coming across the border. 

And the U.S. Attorney in that sector was, I have to tell you, completely unhelpful, aggressively unhelpful in providing me information. I went there with hat in hand, how can I help you. They 

would not even talk to me. They were literally aggressively 

unhelpful is the most polite way I can put it. 

I have met with your folks at the Department of Justice and 

grateful to know that this budget request you have given us will 

help, but I wanted to particularly ask you, sir, if you could just direct some personal attention, because I know what a good man you 

are. You are focused on law enforcement. 

A .39 percent prosecution rate this year, .14 percent prosecution 

rate last year is not a matter of not enough resources. I mean, that 

is a policy decision of somebody in the U.S. Attorney’s Office out 

there, because I looked at the evidence room. 

The U.S. Attorney in Tucson actually notified the Border Patrol 

that they were only going to prosecute a very narrow range of violent cases, a very narrow range of cases. Anybody else was not 

going to be prosecuted. 

And the Border Patrol officers asked for clarification, we want it 

in writing, and the U.S. Attorney actually sent out a memo to the 

Border Patrol saying that if you arrest anybody with less than 500 

pounds, we are not going to prosecute. 

And I asked the officers how long did it take the smugglers to 

come in with loads at 499 or less and they said about 48 hours. The 

loads of dope that are in the evidence room in Tucson are all below 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
22 

500 pounds. They even had a 28-pound load of cocaine that the 

U.S. Attorney would not prosecute. 

And Mr. Attorney General I really admire what you are doing 

and I know that you folks are doing your best, but Tucson is a 

hemorrhage. It is like we have got a bleeding artery in Tucson that 

is going to need your personal attention. 

Quick example. The Border Patrol has invested tens of millions 

of dollars in unmanned aerial vehicles. They have got state-of-theart UAVs, the ones that they are using in Iraq, based at Fort 

Huachuca. I went and saw them. 

And the proud officers there working in the trailer, they showed 

me videos of arrests that they have made two o’clock in the morning. The Border Patrol agents are vectored out to intercept a caravan of smugglers coming in, one that was carrying a thousand 

pounds of dope. 

The UAV saw them in Mexico in the vehicles, tracked them 

crossing the border with armed men with machine guns escorting 

them. They vector in the Border Patrol agents at two o’clock in the 

morning out in that dangerous desert. These proud Border Patrol 

agents go out with helicopters, vehicles. They go in. They make the 

arrest. Everything is on film, unbroken. They give it to the U.S. Attorney in Arizona and she says, no, I am not going to prosecute. 

So what this does, of course, it is utterly demoralizing to the officers. The smugglers are laughing at us out there. And it is a terrible problem. 

And I hope that if you could, please, talk to me a little bit about 

what can you do, your office personally to make sure that we stop 

the bleeding in Tucson, and that sector is absolutely out of control, 

and get this prosecution rate of .4 percent up. 

Mr. MUKASEY. A couple things. First of all, I am familiar with, 

principally by discussion, with the successes in Del Rio and elsewhere in Texas. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Like Laredo. 

Mr. MUKASEY. And Laredo that you mentioned. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And we are working on Brownsville, I hope with 

your help. The local community would love to have your help in 

Brownsville because they are ready. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I hope to help with Brownsville. But respectfully, 

those numbers in Del Rio and Laredo and presumably in Brownsville are much, much smaller than the numbers involved in Tucson. 

And we have had great success in Del Rio and Laredo in large 

part because of the nature of the people who are coming over in 

those areas who turn out to be people who are simply looking for 

work and people to whom the fact of a criminal prosecution, whether they get a little bit of time or, I mean, even as little as two 

weeks or 30 days is a major message because they simply did not 

think of their activity as criminal. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And it is a federal crime. If they come back 

again, it is a felony and they are barred forever. So there is real 

meaning to that prosecution rate even if it is for a few days. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Right. Move up, however, to Tucson—— Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MUKASEY [continuing]. Which I actually visited on my trip. 

I made a trip to the border and to Mexico. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
23 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Their numbers are enormous. And my experience 

did not coincide with yours. I think I need to revisit this by phone 

or otherwise insofar as this supposed 500-pound threshold. 

My understanding is that when they get people, the backpackers 

who use diversion and then come across with their backpacks, put 

it all together and ship it up to cities north, those people are being 

prosecuted. That the percentages that you refer to are the other 

folks who are not involved in that kind of activity. They do, in fact, 

take quite seriously, the smuggling of marijuana and other drugs. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Unfortunately, I think your local office might 

have put on a good dog and pony show. I poked around a lot. I 

went around and got off the radar and poked around. The evidence 

room is full of loads under 500 pounds. I would love to work with 

you on this and I want to be supportive and helpful. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I understand that you do and I would be happy 

to work with you. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

Mr. Attorney General, I want to ask you a few questions about 

the subpoena power of the Department and the courts and the Congress. 

When the Department subpoenas witnesses to come before the 

Grand Jury, I take it they have an obligation to appear before the 

Grand Jury. They can make a claim of privilege once they get 

there, but they are required to appear before the Grand Jury; are 

they not? 

Mr. MUKASEY. As to Grand Jury subpoenas? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If they want to make a claim of privilege, they would 

have to particularize it and say that as to this question or this document, that is a matter of attorney-client privilege or some other 

privilege and I am not required to provide that? 

Mr. MUKASEY. And Grand Jury proceedings are secret. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Right. When you were on the Federal bench, if someone was subpoenaed to come into your courtroom and testify, I take 

it they were required to appear in your court and make a claim of 

privilege if they had one to make? They could not simply——

Mr. MUKASEY. Absent a successful motion to strike the subpoena, 

in which case it would happen. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But absent that, they could not simply fail to appear? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Correct. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Why does the same principle not apply when the 

Congress issues a subpoena to the executive? Why is the executive 

not required to appear and to make a claim of privilege and make 

a particularized claim and say as to this question, this is covered 

by executive privilege, as to that question, I can testify? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think what you are talking about is subpoenas 

that I testified about before the Oversight Committee relating to in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
24 

particular people immediately around the President who were subpoenaed, as to whom there was long-standing OLC authority to the 

effect that their testimony was privileged under executive privilege 

and that that privilege embraced, because they were people who 

would directly advise the President, embraced essentially no necessity to appear because what they were being asked to do was to 

discuss their advice to the President which was privileged. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Attorney General, as we have seen in the case 

of the torture issue, the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel are 

often wrong and they are often repudiated. 

I would take it if someone were subpoenaed to appear in your 

court when you were judge, notwithstanding that they had the 

opinion of their own attorney, that what they had to say was privileged, the fact that their own attorney might advise them to say 

it was privileged does not preclude them from having to go to court 

and make the argument why their testimony is privileged. 

So why is it different in the case of the executive and particularly 

in the case of a former executive official? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I reviewed the particular opinions relating to the 

subpoenas that I think you are talking about and I believe they are 

valid. 

I think what is different is, in large part, the fact that we are 

talking oddly about two matters. One is congressional oversight. 

The other is executive privilege. Oddly neither of which is provided 

for directly in the Constitution, but both of which are implicit in 

the Constitution. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But, you do not deny the power of the Congress to 

subpoena someone to come and testify, right? 

Mr. MUKASEY. We do not. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The only question is whether the privilege applied. 

How can it be the policy of the Department, how can it be legal 

to take the position that we can simply fail to appear and not have 

to particularize any claim of privilege based on our own internal 

opinion? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think when you are talking about people who 

were directly involved in advising the President—we are not talking about people who are lower down in the executive—but people 

who were directly involved in advising the President, the principles 

are somewhat different. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, they can make those arguments, I would assume, when they appear before Congress, when they are asked a 

particular question, that this question was the subject of discussion 

with the executive and, therefore, is privileged. 

The President has asserted, with respect to some of the things 

that the Congress was interested in, that he was not party to the 

discussions, and so presumably there would be areas of testimony 

that would not be within the realm of executive privilege. 

So how can we make that determination in a vacuum? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Even if the President is not himself a direct participant, there is a decision-making process within the White House 

that has been found to be the subject of executive privilege. 

Mr. SCHIFF. That is probably exactly correct, but that would not 

apply to every question about every issue and cannot be made, I 

think, in isolation within the executive. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
25 

If I can ask you also, Mr. Attorney General, ask you to put your 

federal judicial hat on again. The Congress disagreed with your 

opinion—— Mr. MUKASEY. It would have to be a violation of—— Mr. SCHIFF. Well, just for the purpose of today, the Congress disagreed with the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel. It found 

that the failure to appear constituted contempt. According to the 

statute, that when the Congress makes that finding, it is the 

United States Attorney whose duty it shall be to bring the matter 

before the Grand Jury for its action. Once it is brought before the 

U.S. Attorney, the statute says that that U.S. Attorney shall bring 

the matter before the Grand Jury. 

Now, when, as a federal judge, have you interpreted the word 

shall in such clear terms to mean may? What is the basis for instructing the U.S. Attorney that the requirement that he shall 

bring it before the Grand Jury is somehow discretionary? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think the basis is set forth in an OLC opinion 

which says essentially that when there has been a finding of a 

valid claim of executive privilege, a United States Attorney could 

not under those circumstances, that is when there has been a finding that the claim of executive privilege was valid, could not under 

those circumstances bring a contempt proceeding. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do you not see how this would inoculate the executive in every circumstance because presumably whenever the executive operates consistant with what its own attorneys tell it, they 

would then instruct the U.S. Attorney not to enforce any type of 

a contempt citation? 

It seems to me that the issue would be placed before the Grand 

Jury to decide. By the executive taking the position that we can 

write our own legal opinion to justify the failure to appear and that 

we can write our own legal opinion to justify the failure to enforce 

our failure to appear, the executive inoculates itself from any enforcement mechanism by the Congress. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Respectfully, I do not think that inoculation is 

necessarily a hundred percent effective because, as I understand it, 

and I do not know this to be the fact, but I have read that there 

is to be a lawsuit relating to those subpoenas and that matter will 

be decided in court. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, there is a lawsuit. We had to take that extraordinary step. 

The problem that I am pointing out here is that as the chief law 

enforcement officer for the country, I do not think you can take the 

position that an answer to a lawful subpoena, the executive can 

simply fail to appear on the basis of its own attorney’s view and 

it can instruct its own attorneys not to enforce contrary to the explicit language of the statute when it does so. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I certainly agree with you as an across-the-board 

matter that that should not happen. But in these particular cases 

for reasons that we have outlined, we think it should and that matter is going to be resolved in court. There have been previous cases 

involving assertions of executive privilege and they have been sustained at times, overridden at times. 

And one case that comes strongly to mind is the United States 

versus Nixon where the same material was subpoenaed by a Grand 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
26 

Jury and by a congressional committee, and where the issue broke 

was that, as to the Grand Jury subpoena, the subpoena was upheld 

and the objection was overridden. And as to the congressional subpoena, essentially the same material, the objection was sustained. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Interesting legal debate for both. You can 

tell you both know your issues. Probably both lawyers too. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I plead guilty. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. I want to try to get into three areas, 

if I can quickly, but maybe I might not be able to. 

ADAM WALSH ACT

The first thing, Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman-Schultz 

and Senator Biden have asked me to raise this issue with you. 

You are aware that the 2006 ‘‘Adam Walsh Act’’ directed the Attorney General to deploy technology to Internet crimes against children. There is a great program, a Wyoming program that has been 

very successful about bringing together the different jurisdictions 

and really has helped make a lot of cases. You now want to expand 

that program. 

We want to make sure that the Wyoming program stays in place 

until the new program is up and running and it works. We have 

had a lot of issues, as you know, in the FBI with the problems with 

our technology. 

So my question to you is, are you going to maintain the Wyoming 

program until a new program is up and running and has been tested? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I cannot speak directly to the Wyoming program 

because I am not familiar with it. I would be happy to get back to 

you specifically with regard to that. 

However, we do work very closely with an entity called NCMEC, 

which is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

out in Alexandria. And if anybody has not paid a visit out 

there——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yeah, but I do not want to get into that. 

I am going to ask you the question because I have to get to some 

other areas. 

Can you give us a commitment that you will maintain the Wyoming program? You have won a national award for this or the Justice Department has won an award for being effective, and we do 

not want to do away with one program because we are starting another one that does not work yet. 

Mr. MUKASEY. One thing I can promise you is that I will look 

into it and get back to you in writing if I have to. I am not going 

to comment on a program with which I am not familiar. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. I would suggest you look at it very 

closely and hopefully you will follow the suggestions that we have 

given you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
27 

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT

FISA, as you know, is the legislation to reform the government’s 

ability to engage in wire tapping. I am on the Intelligence Committee as is Mr. Schiff, and I do represent NSA. NSA is in my district. I spend a lot of time at NSA. 

So a lot of my constituents work at NSA. And anyone who works 

in the field of intelligence should know exactly what the law is. 

They should have the ability not to worry about whether something 

is in a gray area. So it is so important that we move ahead with 

FISA. 

We have now worked out a lot of issues. I think the biggest problem started when we tried to undertake the FISA legislation. It 

was the issue of the courts. 

And you as a judge and a lawyer know that our forefathers created a great system of government with checks and balances. And, 

you know, I personally felt very strongly as a former prosecutor 

also that we needed the court whenever you have a wire tap for 

the check and balance. And I think we have resolved most of that 

issue now. 

I think what it comes down to with respect to FISA right now 

is the Senate bill that is giving full immunity versus our House bill 

that is not going to give full immunity. 

And by the way, I believe that it is more, and I know my colleague, Mr. Schiff, believes this way, that it is not as much about 

the immunity with me. It is about whether or not anybody in the 

government really broke the law. And, unfortunately, there is a lot 

that we can’t say because of issues being classified, that really 

these companies can protect themselves. 

So now we are in a position where we are asking, will you and 

the Administration be willing to negotiate on this issue so we can 

get beyond this back-and-forth bickering. It is for our national security. It is for the people that work in this field every day. And 

we have got to have a consensus and move on in dealing with national security. 

Where are we, and will you be willing to negotiate and work with 

us so we can get this behind us? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I am not directly the person doing the discussing, 

but I should tell you that, first of all, as to the need for certainty, 

I could not agree with you more. That is a significant part of the 

problem underlying the immunity debate. 

Secondly, nobody, nobody is talking about immunity for government activity. This is immunity under two circumstances, one in 

which a carrier did not participate. And I think everybody can 

agree that if they did not participate, there should be no lawsuit. 

Secondly, a situation which a carrier received from the government a notification that they were being asked by the President to 

do something that was lawful and that served national security, 

under those circumstances, yes, immunity was requested. 

And these people need to know on a certain ongoing basis whether they are protected or not because, otherwise, their cooperation 

with us—and it is not just as to electronic surveillance. Private entities cooperate with the intelligence community across a broad 

area and cooperate voluntarily. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
28 

But they are not charitable institutions. They are not governmental institutions. They have responsibilities to their boards. And 

if they are going to be sued whenever they provide that kind of cooperation, their only response is going to be and has to be ‘‘Make 

us do it.’’

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I agree with you on that issue. 

Mr. MUKASEY [continuing]. To be resolved. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. I agree with you on that issue. However, the votes are not there on our side at this point. So part of 

our system of government is about working out issues and compromise. And this is too important an issue. 

So really my question to you, understanding the fact you might 

not be integrally involved in negotiation, would you be willing to 

use your position as Attorney General to sit down and to try to 

work a compromise as it relates to this FISA Bill? It needs to move 

forward. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think anything that can be discussed should be 

discussed. But I do not think we can cut bone simply in the interest of achieving a compromise. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. There are some other issues that I do not 

want to talk about now that could be resolved. You know, unfortunately because of the fact that we have classified information, we 

cannot talk about it. 

But, you know, we need good faith here. There are a lot of issues 

out there with the President and his interpretation of authorities, 

but this needs to move forward. 

Okay. Let me get into one other area that—yes. 

Mr. OBEY. Only if it will take 30 seconds. Your time is up. Did 

you want to——

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yeah. Real quick, because I will say it. 

Cyber security, very important issue. We are being attacked on a 

regular basis by China and Russia and we need to be aggressive. 

They could cut down our banking institution. But we are moving 

forward in this arena. 

I think it is very important that the Attorney General get involved and start discussing the issues of civil liberties and privacy 

and those issues so we do not get into a FISA situation. We have 

a lot to do here, but we also have to deal with civil liberties. 

I think we do not have a road map as it relates to cyber. We need 

a road map. And I think you in your position, you have to focus 

on where we are going to be in this regard. 

Mr. MUKASEY. One answer, amen. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Was that 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. OBEY. What? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Was that 30 seconds? 

Mr. OBEY. That was just fine. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Good. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Attorney General, welcome. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
29 

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

Mr. ROGERS. I want to ask you about the recent decision by the 

Sentencing Commission for crack cocaine offenders that allows the 

offenders in prison prior to November 2007 to petition a federal 

judge to have their sentences retroactively reduced accordingly. 

The sentencing guidelines had employed a hundred-to-one ratio 

that treated 100 grams of powder cocaine the same as one gram 

of crack cocaine for purposes of sentencing convicted cocaine offenders. 

My questions to you relate to that. What impact will that decision have on drug-related and violent crime in the U.S. and what 

impact will it have on the prosecution of cocaine offenders in the 

future? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I do not want to be alarmist about this, but the 

fact is as you know, we were against the amendment of the guidelines retroactively for a number of reasons. 

First of all, crack offenders, because of the nature of that business, were among some of the most violent offenders in the prison 

system. To release them prematurely, we thought, without the benefit of the reentry programs and other programs designed to reintroduce them to society in a way that minimizes the chances of 

recidivism was a mistake. 

Secondly, it was in the large, unfair to take the cohort probably 

least deserving of a retroactive application of the optional feature 

of the guidelines that has now been read in by the Supreme Court 

and give that group the benefit of optional application of the guidelines, whereas others were in on mandatory sentences that were 

going to hold regardless. 

Third, the sentences that had been imposed on those folks were 

the result of cases that had been built in large measure on the assumption that the crack cocaine sentences were what they were 

going to be. 

We answered pleas from communities where people were literally 

being held hostage by the presence of violent crack dealers in their 

communities. 

We went in. We made cases based on the crack statutes and the 

crack guidelines as they existed at the time, were able to forego 

problems that might be presented, for example, by figuring out who 

in the gang was responsible for the weapons at the stash house and 

so forth and made cases that were built on the existence of the 

guideline system as it was at the time. Those sentences are now 

being reconsidered with other considerations in mind. 

And it seems that we did a substantially good job at that and to 

the point where the concern has now turned from the communities 

that were besieged to the people who are in prison. And we just 

think that was a mistake for those reasons. 

The numbers are going to accelerate as these people come out. 

Frankly, I hope predictions of dire results are wrong. But it is not 

hard to see that people who come out after a crack sentence are 

going to go back to their neighborhoods and they are going to find 

one of two things, either the spot they occupied is unoccupied, in 

which case it is back to business, or the spot is occupied, in which 

case there may very well be violence. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
30 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I share your worry and fear that the worst 

may happen. 

According to the Sentencing Commission about 19,500 inmates 

sentenced between 1991 and 2007 would be eligible to seek a reduced sentence and the average sentence reduction would be 27 

months or about 17 percent. 

That is a big number, 19,500 crack offenders thrown back into 

our cities and communities. That is a rather large number; is it 

not? 

Mr. MUKASEY. It is a big number. And I should point out that 

so far as the reduction you spoke of, that is, I think, based on the 

assumption that the reduction would be limited to a two point adjustment. 

Once a person like that comes up for resentencing, the level of 

the reduction really depends on a decision by the judge, the guidelines being optional at this point. If the judge can provide a reason, 

the judge can go down as far as he or she wants. So that assumes 

only two points. It could be more. 

Mr. ROGERS. So these requests, are they being made already? 

Mr. MUKASEY. They are being made. In fact, in one jurisdiction, 

as soon as the new retroactive guidelines were announced, the 

judge did not wait for the effective date. He said that because the 

effective date is itself optional, he might as well do it right now and 

did it. 

Mr. ROGERS. How many have been released so far? 

Mr. MUKASEY. So far, I cannot give you a hard number. I will 

try to find that. It was three in that case. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. ROGERS. My information as of March the 5th was that more 

than 400 requests have been processed by BOP and they are already releasing inmates. 

Mr. MUKASEY. That is——

Mr. ROGERS. Do you know how many would be eligible for release in the near future? 

Mr. OBEY. Last question. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think that the number is around 1,600. 

Mr. ROGERS. My information is 4,000 inmates would be eligible 

for release within one year of March 3rd, 2008. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I was working with the smaller near future. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Attorney General Mukasey. 

WORKER ABUSES

This week, members of the Congress have been briefed by H2B 

workers from India about horrendous worker abuses that they have 

suffered in Texas and Mississippi at the hands of the Signal International Corporation. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
31 

They were promised green cards and family Visas and close to 

600 workers gathered 20,000 U.S. dollars, their life savings, only 

to be provided with H2B Visas, temporary Visas, wage and hour 

violations, inadequate facilities, cramped living quarters, isolation, 

constant surveillance by armed guards, and threats of deportation 

for those who reported these abuses. I am aware that the workers 

have reported these abuses to the Department of Justice. 

Could you confirm that DOJ is conducting a serious investigation 

into this case? And I hope that DOJ is the lead on the investigation 

on these cases, that they are and not immigration customs enforcement. And how will DOJ ensure that these H2B workers will be 

able to fully participate in the investigation given their current 

vulnerabilities? 

The other section of my question in this area is I am concerned 

about whether the DOJ is generally putting effort into investigating these types of labor trafficking cases and how many past 

investigations have been conducted involving labor abuses of guest 

workers by U.S. corporations and recruiters and how many of these 

cases have been prosecuted and what were the results? 

The current temporary worker program in the United States permits serious abuses to occur. What is the protocol for investigating 

cases that involve guest workers given their particular situation 

and vulnerabilities? And later I have another question on Korean 

immigrants. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I have heard about it, but I am not familiar with 

it to the point of being able to discuss it, the particular case that 

you mention, and I would like to get back to you further on that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committtee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Although from the facts you describe, it sounds like a fraud investigation might conceivable be warranted. But I would like to 

know more about it and will respond in writing about that. 

The Department’s response to the situation of workers who are 

brought here and kept essentially in slavery—and when I was district judge, I prosecuted a woman who headed what was called the 

snakehead operation and kept people in virtual slavery. She is 

doing a substantial sentence as a result of that. And people who 

worked with her are doing substantial sentences as a result of that. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Mr. MUKASEY. But the particular case you mention is something 

that came to my attention the other day. I have not gotten into the 

details of it and I should not respond without knowing that. The 

same is true for the numbers that you asked for. 

Mr. HONDA. Right. We will look forward to working with you 

very closely because of the seriousness of the case and its implications. 

IMMIGRATION FRAUD

My second question, Mr. Attorney General, is, over a 12-year period, a long-time INS supervisor accepted over half a million dolVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
32 

lars in bribes from immigration consultants in exchange for green 

cards he later authorized. 

In 1999, the four immigration consultants were convicted for 

their participation in this green card scam that affected some 275 

Korean immigrants based on the testimony of the corrupt INS officer, who paid a fine and only received probation. 

As a result of this fraudulent scheme conducted by this INS official and immigration consultants, hundreds of these Korean immigrants are facing uncertainty for almost eight years now. They are 

facing deportation hearings and undue anxiety after building their 

lives in California for the past two decades. 

And I am sure that the Department comes across cases of immigration fraud such as this where innocent victims may be subject 

to deportation proceedings. 

How does the Department handle these cases to ensure that the 

innocent victims are not punished for the wrongdoings of corrupt 

officials and middlemen? Is there a collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the lives of innocent victims are not destroyed and families not separated? 

Mr. MUKASEY. The way cases are built has to vary on a case-bycase basis. And as you point out in your question, the responsibility 

for what happens to people who are here and are undocumented is 

principally that of DHS rather than DOJ. 

That said, we try to prosecute people who are principally responsible for schemes like the one that you mentioned. 

And, again, calling on my experience as a district judge, I tried 

somebody who was a guard over at 26 Federal Plaza who was conning people into believing he had authority. He, too, is serving time 

in jail. 

Mr. HONDA. I do not want to be disrespectful, but I just want to 

make use of the time. The point is that this case was shifted over 

to DHS because of the shifting of responsibilities. 

My question is, if we are pursing justice and in your preamble, 

you talked about ensuring justice and even though it goes over to 

DHS, when these cases are prosecuted and we go after and punish 

the perpetrators, why would the victims be victimized again when 

they are up for review of their green cards, and why could we not 

argue on their behalf and say let us put them in another situation 

and treat them as if none of these things have happened so that 

they can be dealt with in a way that there were no other situation 

that was negative on their behalf? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think that it should be the responsibility of the 

Department to call to the attention of anybody who adjudicates 

their situation at DHS. The cooperation that they have provided to 

the Justice Department in prosecuting cases and in disclosing this 

kind of thing, I would be surprised if that were not taken into account. 

Mr. HONDA. I wrote a letter to the previous Attorney General, 

Ashcroft, asking for that consideration, even a communication to 

DHS indicating that or even suggesting that they be treated in a 

way that would recognize their situation and not be treated as if 

they were part of that fraud. 

Mr. MUKASEY. It is our policy to call cooperation to the attention 

of any authority that deals with somebody who cooperates, whether 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
33 

it is DHS or the Bar Association or anybody else. And I do not see 

why it should vary here. I will——

Mr. HONDA. I would like——

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman’s time is about to expire. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. 

PROSECUTORIAL ABUSE

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Attorney General, the court a long time ago in a 

famous case observed that the power to tax is the power to destroy. 

I think that people would also agree that the power to prosecute 

is the power to destroy. 

When the FBI Director was before this Committee two days ago, 

I told him about something I witnessed in Wisconsin when I was 

in the legislature, an event in which a Democratic Attorney General’s Office in the State of Wisconsin, in my view, engaged in prosecutorial abuse. In the process, they virtually destroyed the career 

of the Republican leader in the State Legislature. 

I have now witnessed the exact opposite case where it seems to 

me that if not prosecutorial abuse, at least prosecutorial spectacularly bad judgment virtually destroyed the career of an innocent 

woman and enabled millions of dollars of demagoguery to be directed against an incumbent Democratic Governor. 

I do not know if you have ever heard of Georgia Thompson. She 

is a 59-year-old single woman, an employee of the State of Wisconsin. If you lived in Wisconsin, you would certainly have heard 

of her because she was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin. Her prosecution was, in turn, used 

as the central issue in the Republican party’s efforts to unseat the 

Democratic incumbent Governor. 

Of the $7.6 million spent by the party in that race, $4 million 

was spent on TV ads talking about the fact that she had been indicted and somehow trying to drag the Governor into the controversy. 

She was a career civil servant. She was not on the Governor’s 

staff. She worked for the State for years before the current Governor was even elected. Yet, the prosecution contended that she 

had awarded a contract out of political favoritism, and the U.S. Attorney, operating in an atmosphere which we often see in which 

anyone accused of a political crime is automatically assumed to be 

guilty, unfortunately succeeded in getting a conviction, and she was 

sent to prison for 18 months until the case got before the Appeals 

Court. 

I think it is fair to characterize the reaction of the three judges 

on that court as being appalled at the prosecution and the judgment exercised by the U.S. Attorney in that instance. 

After 20 minutes of oral arguments, Judge Diane Wood told your 

Department’s attorneys, ‘‘ I have to say it strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin. I am not sure what your actual theory in this 

case is.’’ The judges then called the prison from the courtroom and 

demanded that the woman be released immediately. 

Now, your Department released some documents months ago 

which included an e-mail by Craig Don Santo. I believe he is in 

charge of the Department’s Election Crimes Branch. His e-mail 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
34 

asks how in heck did this case get brought. That is a question 

which I would still like to have the Department of Justice answer. 

Georgia Thompson is now out of prison. She is back at work. She 

lost her home. She lost a year of her life. But the guy who brought 

this case, Stephen Biskupic, where is he? He is still the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

So your Department continues to invest him or invest in him, I 

should say, the power to destroy people’s lives if he makes a serious misjudgment. 

Now, we all make mistakes. I have been around long enough to 

see a lot of prosecutorial abuse. However, it is very hard to understand how any thoughtful or balanced prosecutor could have allowed this to happen. 

Prosecutors, as you know, have a job not just to prosecute but 

to also assure that justice is done in the process. It sure as hell 

does not appear to have been done in this case. 

Now, that case would be less disturbing to me if there were not 

examples of perhaps similar situations in other jurisdictions. I do 

not want to even get into the Alabama, I believe it was, Governor 

who was prosecuted recently. I guess that case is now open again. 

When we see some of the activities associated with that case, it 

frankly makes one wonder. I am not qualified to reach any conclusions on that case, and I do not want to even get into it. It is not 

my job. 

But it is my job representing the State of Wisconsin to speak out 

when I see something that amounts to a travesty of justice, and 

that sure as hell was the case in the case of this woman who was 

doomed before, thankfully, the Appeals Court finally recognized an 

injustice and demanded that it be corrected immediately. 

I would like to know when there is going to be an accounting for 

those missteps. The only people who can provide that accounting, 

in my view would be the Justice Department. 

I recognize that this did not occur on your watch, but you have 

got the kind of reputation that leads me to believe that you would 

care about correcting something like this. I would like to know 

what we can expect from the Justice Department. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I do care about it. I will take a look into the facts 

surrounding the prosecution. To the extent that I can disclose them 

without violating Grand Jury secrecy, I will try to do that in a way 

that answers your question. 

[The information follows.] 

Question. Will there be an accounting from the Justice Department for missteps 

in the Prosecution of Georgia Thompson in the Eastern District of Wisconsin? 

Answer. The Office of Professional Responsibility initiated an investigation into 

the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Georgia Thompson after the Seventh Circuit reversed her conviction in United States v. Thompson, 484 F.3d 877 

(7th Cir. 2007). The investigation is pending. We will advise you of the results after 

OPR has completed its investigation. 

Mr. OBEY. I just think it is important. We all talk about accountability, but it is important that people who are lodged with the 

power to impose accountability are also themselves accountable. 

That certainly so far has not seemed to be the case in this instance. 

I have a number of other questions that I have to get through 

for the record and they will take some time, so why do I not ask 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
35 

each of you if you have any other questions you want to ask before 

I get into those. 

Oh, Chaka, I did not see you walk in. Sorry about that. Why 

don’t I yield to you for five minutes. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you and let me welcome you to the Committee. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Thank you very much. 

EAVES-DROPPING ON MRS. KING

Mr. FATTAH. I have one question that is on my mind having not 

much to do with your appropriations request. But nonetheless we 

are at the 40th anniversary of the death of Dr. King. 

The Department which you now lead a few months back acknowledged that for years after Dr. King’s death, his widow, his 

late widow now, Coretta Scott King, was eavesdropped on by the 

Justice Department for no apparent reason. 

That acknowledgment from the Department of Justice was a factual acknowledgment. And I would like to know what your opinion 

of that circumstance is? And I think it would be important to put 

on the record now, you know, the facts surrounding that. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I do not know precisely of the circumstances relating to the eaves-dropping on Mrs. King. I have read, obviously as 

we all have, of the former FBI Director having eaves-dropped on 

Dr. King. And if the circumstances were anything like that, it is 

just as reprehensible. 

Mr. FATTAH. But this is after Dr. King’s death and it is an acknowledgment from your Department. We will leave the record 

open and perhaps you could make some comment to the Committee 

on this matter. 

[The information follows:] 

EAVESDROPPING BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON CORETTA SCOTT KING

As reflected in documents released pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 

Coretta Scott King was never the target of electronic surveillance by the FBI. In 

1968 documentation, the FBI Director expressly directed that no investigation be 

initiated on Mrs. King, and other documents during that time period indicate that 

the FBI had not, in fact, investigated Mrs. King. During the late 1960’s, when the 

FBI was investigating a long-time member of the Communist party, it appears that 

on a very limited number of occasions electronic surveillance targeting that person 

involved conversations between that target and Mrs. King. As indicated above, that 

did not result in an investigation of Mrs. King herself. 

The information contained in these FBI files was collected during an earlier era 

in our history when different concerns drove the government, the news media, and 

public sentiment. Today’s laws and other legal guidelines strictly limit the circumstances in which investigations may be initiated and various investigative techniques, including electronic surveillance, may be used. Many of the investigations 

and techniques used in times past are no longer either lawful or appropriate and 

would therefore not be initiated today. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I will. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. OBEY. I would like to have the Committee take a five or tenminute break before we resume questioning. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
36 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the time remaining, I would like to get from you, Mr. Attorney General, what 

you really need in this budget. I know you have highlighted some 

areas. I raised the issue of supplemental. It has been a while since 

your submission. I think what? Eighteen months ago. I think you 

were looking for $146.6 million to support a variety of needs. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I think what we need principally is for the 2008 

spending plan to be fully funded. That would go a long way toward 

making sure that we can do what we need to, be assured that the 

money is going to be there, and spend it in an intelligent way rather than, you know, having to go helter skelter toward the end. I 

would deeply appreciate the funding of the 2008 spending. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But the money is focused, I think, on Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

Mr. MUKASEY. So far as the $100.7 million that the 2008 supplemental that you requested, this is for FBI, U.S. Marshals, CREM, 

DEA, for agents, attorneys and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

I was over in Iraq. I saw what our people are doing over there 

and in cooperation I should add with -they are really they are helping us with that and sponsoring it. But our people are doing terrific 

things towards helping their courts function and putting the law 

into the law and order formulation over there. And we need that 

money to help. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It doubles the 2007 supplemental, but it is 

absolutely essential for your DOJ people. 

Mr. MUKASEY. It is absolutely essential for them because they 

are literally putting their lives on the line. And I spoke the other 

day with five FBI agents who were injured over there and they are 

really putting their lives on the line. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So the dollar amount you are seeking here 

would be that amount or? 

Mr. MUKASEY. One hundred point seven million dollars. 

NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. All right. So you are not asking anything 

in addition to that. You highlighted in your testimony the work of 

the relatively new National Security Division. You are basically 

looking for maintaining the same staffing level. What can you say 

about the coordinating role that division is playing with counter 

terrorism and interacting with the FBI? 

I know there are certain things you can’t talk about. You have 

mentioned some of, at least one success, but how is that effort of 

coordination and interaction occurring? 

Mr. MUKASEY. The National Security Division coordinates all our 

activities with regard to FISA applications, all our activities with 

regard to prosecutions of counter terrorism. I guess one of the best 

pieces of evidence I can give is that the Assistant Attorney General 

in charge of the National Security Division has been now asked to 

go over to the White House to serve to replace Fran Townsend. The 

compliments don’t come much more concretely than that. 

We have taken a number of otherwise independently functioning 

portions of the Justice Department and put them in that Division 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
37 

and stood it up within a relatively short period of time. And the 

person who did that, was principally responsible for it, was Ken 

Wainstein. He has now been asked to serve over in the White 

House and we are going to have somebody new put in charge of it. 

But it is functioning to do all the coordinating, all our relationships 

with the FISA Court which are very important, as well as our 

counter terrorism prosecutions. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We want to talk - 

Mr. MUKASEY. And evaluation of the intel that comes in as well. 

So it is the nerve center. 

INTEGRATED WIRELESS NETWORK

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of your other nerve centers and another key to addressing counter terrorism is this integrated wireless network. I looked over the Inspector General’s report and 79 

percent of the Department of Justice’s radios are not airwave compliant. Ninety- five percent lack the mandated security; 73 are obsolete. In the overall scheme of things you are not asking for a lot 

of money. Some of it is sort of a repair job. And then you are putting about half of the $43 million into new technology. 

We are obviously interested in supporting this effort. We know 

the need for interoperability, but some of those IG’s statistics and 

reports are pretty disturbing. 

Mr. MUKASEY. We need to look to put it very succinctly, we need 

to be able to talk to one another. We need to be able to talk to the 

State and locals. If we can’t do that then our efforts are necessarily 

helter skelter. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, my gut feeling, as a lay person, you 

are not asking for enough money. What is going to be the life cycle 

cost of what we are talking about here? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I am going to have to get back to you with regard 

to that specific number. I mean, I was a liberal arts major myself, 

and I can’t get in as far into the technology as I would like. I would 

be happy to respond afterwards to the precise number that you 

have asked for and the life cycle. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are supportive for the reasons that I 

have stated. We want to give you the tools that you need. The 

thought that some how you would be unable to meet all the things 

that you need to meet because of the lack of assets is quite disturbing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Schiff. 

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to discuss for a 

moment the situation with the DNA evidence. Before I do, I do 

want to make one final point on the discussion we had earlier on 

the subpoena issue. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
38 

And that is to raise a concern about what to me is a disturbing 

circularity in the arguments on this issue. That we don’t want to 

have to appear. We request our own lawyers to give an opinion. 

Our own lawyers tell us we don’t have to appear. We don’t appear. 

We are held in contempt. The statute says that shall be brought 

before the Grand Jury. We don’t bring it before the Grand Jury because our legal opinion says that the failure to appear was okay. 

And it just goes around in a circle. 

And the problem I see is that I think this undermines the Department of Justice. I think it undermines the Congress and I 

think it undermines the checks and balances of the system. I understand this is a position you have taken on this issue, but I 

would just urge that in other contexts that we not employ the circularity of reasoning that is flowing from these Office of Counsel 

opinions. They should not be the first and last word about the obligations of the Department. 

DNA

Turning to DNA. I understand that the FBI has a backlog of 

about 200,000 convicted offender DNA samples. The backlog increased substantially in 2006 when a new law took effect requiring 

that a greater category of felons be required to submit DNA samples. There is another law that will take effect later in this year 

or 2009 that will again expand the number of samples that we 

take. The fiscal year 2009 request is a little over $30 million. That 

to me seems far short of what will be necessary to bring that backlog down. 

So the first question I have is, is that going to be adequate to 

get rid of the backlog particularly with the new law kicking in? 

The second thing I want to ask is a lot of our States and localities have a tremendous backlog of their own. And some cities, I 

saw a report that the City of Oakland, for example, half of the rape 

kits have gone un-analyzed, which to me is a tragedy of enormous 

proportions. That we could be taking rapists off the street, serial 

rapists off the street. And we are not, even though the evidence is 

sitting there in a lab un-analyzed. 

The President a few years ago announced with great fanfare an 

initiative to spend over $200 million a year for five years to do 

away with that backlog around the country. But this year all the 

funding for DNA has been rolled in with the Byrne Grant program 

that funds everything else. And the sum of all of those programs 

is about $200 million. So it has got to be a fraction of what the 

President said he wanted to do some years ago and the backlog 

problem hasn’t gone away. 

So I want to ask your thoughts about that. And then finally one 

last DNA question. I am working on legislation that would try to 

make greater use of the private labs which localities are turning 

to. And when a private lab analyzes an offender sample, not a case 

for example that is more complicated, but just a swab from an offender, it provides that to a local crime lab. The local crime lab 

can’t upload in the system to see if there is a match with this suspected murderer or rapist until there is a 100 percent technical review of what the private lab did. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
39 

And I am interested to know if the Department would support 

a legislative change that would allow the State lab to upload that 

sample prior to the technical review being done. The technical review would still have to be done at some point. But my understanding is in every case where there is a hit because you upload 

a sample they take a new sample from the offender anyway to double check the work. 

So it is not like it is going to mis-identify someone or you won’t 

have to repeat the test anyway. But the loss of that time means 

that someone that has committed a violent crime is still on the 

street committing other violent crimes before you take them off the 

street. So I would be interested to know if you would support that 

kind of legislative change. 

Mr. MUKASEY. Obviously, we will take a look at the legislation 

and give it serious evaluation. As to the DNA problem that you 

mentioned, I think a large part of it relates to getting in place regulations that do two things. One, impose standards on labs so that 

we can say that once we get results they are reliable, but secondly, 

don’t impose standards that are so high that no lab can meet them. 

I am told that we are close to getting the regs in place that do that 

and that will help correct for that problem. And hopefully help 

clear up that backlog which I am told we can do assuming that we 

get our act together as far as getting regulations in place. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Now I assume you are referring to the private labs 

when you talk about that standards or are you referring to the 

State and local crime labs? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I am referring to State and local crime labs. 

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Culberson. 

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, my hero is Thomas Jefferson and one of the few things I disagreed with him on was he believed that the President could decide 

the constitutionality of whatever he did himself. That it shouldn’t 

go to the Supreme Court. And that is tough. And I have said I tend 

to agree to Mr. Schiff’s analysis. It is difficult, I think, for the executive branch to determine itself whether or not what they submit 

to Congress is executive privilege. I would like to see that get the 

courts myself as soon as it could. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

But, Mr. Attorney General, I also wanted to ask follow up on Operation Streamline, because it is so important for the safety of the 

country that, that border be secure. And I would suggest it is the 

real win/win solution I think we have all been looking for, because 

Streamline has the support of the local community. The community 

in Del Rio and Laredo is just thrilled with it. It works in those 

communities. I mentioned Brownsville to you. I would love to have 

your help in rolling it out in Brownsville. 

BORDER PATROL AGENT PROSECUTIONS

But the contrast between the work that is being done in Brownsville and I can tell you in Tucson is very distressing, particularly 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
40 

when the country sees in and I can tell you the whole country 

knows about the case of the two border patrol agents, Ramos and 

Compean. When I visited Nashville the guy that was driving the 

cab took me to the airport. As soon as he, you know, found out I 

was a member of Congress his first question was, ‘‘ What are you 

doing to get those border patrol agents Ramon and Compean out 

of prison?’’ He didn’t get their names right, but he knew who they 

were. 

And I wanted to ask you specifically about those agents as you 

know, it was not on your watch, but they were accused of hiding 

evidence in a shooting. They shot a drug dealer who was carrying 

a million dollars worth of drugs. The guy escaped into New Mexico. 

The prosecutor out there threw the book at these guys. They were 

thrown in and prosecuted a maximum, given 11 -ten to 12 years 

in prison. Their lives are destroyed. I am reminded of them listening to Chairman tell you about the case in Wisconsin, their lives 

are destroyed. They were denied an appeal bond. The U.S. attorney 

out there in the Western District would not even permit an appeal 

bond for these guys to get out. 

And I think about Scooter Libby who was pardoned because the 

punishment he was given didn’t fit the crime. He had already suffered enough. And certainly in this case those agents the punishment did not fit the crime. And they certainly suffered enough. 

Why couldn’t we, you recommend to the President that border patrol agents Ramos and Compean be pardoned for the same reason 

that Scooter Libby was pardoned? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Well I think that case is on appeal. I don’t generally get involved in or comment on cases on appeal. We have a 

Pardon Attorneys Office and those applications go through that office. That office reports to the Deputy Attorney General and not to 

me. But any such application can be pursued through that office. 

The case again is on appeal. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is extremely important, I think, for the nation, for law enforcement officers. That case it is not just another 

case. It is one that everyone in the nation knows about. This has 

rung everybody’s bell from coast to coast. It is one that everyone 

knows about. It is a terrible injustice. Those two officers, if they 

have certainly obviously done something wrong, but the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. 

I just want to ask if you could personally, we have written you 

a letter, Congressman Ted Poe, Congressman Rohrabacher and I 

and a number of others have written you a letter asking you to personally review that. Could I ask you, please sir, to personally review their case and see if you can’t recommend that they be Officers Ramos and Compean be pardoned. 

Mr. MUKASEY. The President has the power to pardon regardless 

of any recommendations from anybody. And so far as the Justice 

Department is concerned, those applications have to go through the 

Pardon Attorneys Office to the Deputy. And I have——

Mr. CULBERSON. But could you make a personal inquiry? This 

one would really help, I think, morale of the border patrol. It would 

be a great signal to the nation that these guys have suffered 

enough and we need to get, you know, get them out of prison. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
41 

Mr. MUKASEY. The only comment I can make on that case is that 

it is on appeal. And that the President has the power to pardon. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Following up on what is going on Tucson. 

I can tell you that the Border Patrol has offered to help the U.S. 

Attorney there with a border patrol a facility, and I just want to 

make sure this is on the record, because I am not sure that when 

you visited that they might not have told you this. 

But the Border Patrol has a facility right there in Tucson that 

they could handle up to 140 cases a day. It is an auxiliary building. 

It has got a room in it that can easily be converted to a courtroom. 

There has already been a memorandum of understanding signed 

between the Marshall Service and the Border Patrol that would 

convert that building into a processing facility for Operation 

Streamline. 

It doesn’t even require the U.S. Attorney to provide any prosecutors. The Border Patrol will handle it with the Marshall Service. 

They can handle 100 to 140 cases a day. The U.S. Attorney has 

been resistant. You have got a serious problem with that U.S. Attorney in Arizona. The prosecution rate is just absolutely outrageous at .4 percent. The officers and the Border Patrol making 

arrests know that 99 percent of their cases are going to be turned 

loose and yet we are throwing the book at Ramos and Compean. 

It is a terrible problem and I really want to urge you to get personally involved. You are a man of great integrity. Everyone respects 

you and admires you. 

And I thank you for what you have done so far. And I know my 

time is about up, but I look forward to working with you. And if 

you could please bore in on Tucson and help us roll out Operation 

Streamline from Brownsville to San Diego, the nation will be safer, 

we will keep the criminals out, the terrorists. And I think, Mr. 

Chairman, once that program is in place, I think anything is possible in immigration reform. 

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Honda. 

WORKER ABUSE

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a followup on a previous conversation on the Indian workers. I asked if we could figure out how we can help the workers to be able to participate in 

an investigation because of their vulnerabilities and their status. 

And perhaps you can, your Office can get back to us on that. And 

then the victims of labor trafficking. I believe that they are being 

surveyed by ICE officers. And so it would be very, very important 

that these folks are not deported during the case. And their testimony and their presence may be necessary. And so I was wondering what the protocol that might be followed by DOJ would be. 

DETENTION STANDARDS

And there is another arena that I was concerned about and that 

is the detention standards of immigration detainees held under 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
42 

your prison. I understand that DOJ has refused to adopt DHS detention standards which acknowledge there are big differences between convicted criminals and non-citizens held for civil proceedings that are pending in the immigration system. 

I guess the question would be why doesn’t or why hasn’t DOJ 

adopted the DHS detention standards? 

Mr. MUKASEY. That is not, the question of detention standards 

in facilities, I guess like Oakdale, Louisiana, and others, is not one 

that I have looked into specifically. I will look into that and get 

back to you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Price. 

EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, welcome to our 

Subcommittee. I add my word of welcome and want to take up with 

you a matter that, you may or may not be aware, I have been 

working on for a number of years. That is the obstacles that prevent your Department from investigating and prosecuting criminal 

incidents allegedly involving contractors and subcontractors employed by the United States government overseas, particularly in 

areas of conflict such as Iraq and Afghanistan. 

As you know, your Department and also the Departments of 

State and Defense, have now publicly acknowledged that one obstacle to effective investigation and prosecution is a vague and probably incomplete extraterritorial legal jurisdiction for dealing with 

such acts. 

The House has passed corrective legislation. This bill is now held 

up in the Senate, one factor apparently being Administration objections. But I hope we can count on your full support to get whatever 

problems need to be dealt with, dealt with, and to get this legislation on the books since three executive departments have publicly 

acknowledged the need for it. 

Today, I would like to leave aside for the moment the question 

of which contractors are not covered under existing jurisdiction and 

deal with those who are. Because there is no question that U.S. 

extraterritorial jurisdiction does now extend to a significant universe of contractors, including all contractors working for the Department of Defense or in support of Defense Department missions 

in areas of contingency operations including Iraq and Afghanistan. 

So I am interested in what you are doing with your present authority: what the Department of Justice’s current efforts look like 

to investigate and prosecute allegations of misconduct by contractors that are currently covered under extraterritorial jurisdiction, 

including the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. 

First, since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, how many incidents 

involving alleged violent misconduct in Iraq has your Department 

investigated? And in how many of these cases have suspects been 

indicted? And in how many have convictions been achieved? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
43 

I would appreciate your furnishing those statistics now if you 

can, for the record if you cannot. And we would appreciate also 

comparable statistics for incidents in Afghanistan. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I will furnish those statistics for the record. I 

would simply point out that we have prosecuted cases, but that as 

I am sure you would recognize, the difficulty of investigating cases 

that arise in a war zone and bring successful prosecutions is fairly 

substantial. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Also, unlike military prosecutions of people who may be involved 

in improper behavior, we have a much narrower set of choices 

when it comes to prosecuting people. I mean military people can be 

prosecuted for everything from conduct unbecoming an officer to 

other kinds of violations that are lesser than criminal violations. 

Criminal violations have to come up to a pretty high standard. 

So it is correspondingly more difficult and then at the same time 

when you are investigating cases that arise in the war zone, getting evidence, getting witnesses, making sure that you have got a 

chain of custody and so forth to get all those into court is not an 

easy task. We have done it. And I will provide you with the statistics. 

Mr. PRICE. Have you done it just in rough estimate? Have you 

done it anymore than just a handful of cases? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I don’t know what constitutes a handful and I am 

reluctant to say that it has been more than a handful. We have 

done it in a couple of cases. But the conviction rates have not been, 

I believe, have not been substantial in large measure because of 

the difficulty that I referred to. 

But I would like to get you the hard numbers and not simply sit 

here and work from memory. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. PRICE. Well, there is no issue as to whether this is difficult. 

We understand that it is difficult. It is very challenging, but it is 

also true that we have more contract employees now in Iraq than 

we have troops. I mean we are deeply, deeply involved in this contracting. Those aren’t all security contractors, admittedly, but the 

contract employees outnumber them in the tens of thousands. And 

so you would no doubt agree that this is a significant challenge, a 

significant problem. And your own Department has said that you 

need enhanced authority, presumably enhanced assets. 

And that is my next question. 

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. I am sorry, but—— Mr. PRICE. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit additional questions for the record. 

Mr. OBEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. PRICE. And get those questions addressed. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
44 

Mr. OBEY. Absolutely. Mr. Latham. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome the General here. Last fall the GAO noted that, overall, U.S. law enforcement entities charged with assisting foreign governments, foreign 

nations in dealing with terrorists, lacked any coordinated guidance. 

GAO noted defined roles as far as responsibilities in assistance in 

fighting terrorism, identifying, disrupting and prosecuting terrorists. 

Could you give me your opinion as to what has been done to address this? Are there any U.S. laws that are obstacles to coordination like the GAO stipulated? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I am not familiar with the GAO report that you 

mention and I would really need to take a look at it and respond 

to you in a supplemental way. I am sorry I don’t know the report. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME AND TERRORISM

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. If you would, I would appreciate it. On another note, can you talk about the coordination between organized 

crime and terrorist entities today, recognizing that we are in an 

open hearing here, obviously. We can’t talk about everything, but 

try to keep it in an appropriately general level. The connection between international organized crime and terrorism is one that we 

have encountered more than once. 

The international organized criminals will sell anything to anybody and buy anything from anybody. And that includes terrorists. 

And so we found even with such seemingly routine criminal matters as intellectual property violations, you find that somebody who 

is selling counterfeit intellectual, that is counterfeit bags or sneakers or whatever, is selling them on behalf of somebody who has 

been using the money and laundering the money and using it for 

terrorist related activities. 

Those people have one thing in common, that is a desire to move 

as much money around as possible. And there is no particular effort about what they sell or how they sell it, including weapons, including counterfeit electronic parts for weapons systems and so 

forth. And I don’t want to get—can you—— Mr. MUKASEY. There is a lot of——

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. You probably can’t publically identify 

where the worst violators would be or the regions where they are. 

Mr. MUKASEY. The problem exist to a substantial degree in parts 

of the former Soviet Union and in the People’s Republic of China 

to name only two. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. Okay. I will submit some more questions for 

the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, I have got about 16 

questions to which I need to get answers, and we have got time for 

about four of them. So I will submit the rest for the record. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
45 

EARMARKS

Let me start with this one. As I said earlier, we are getting a 

lot of, in my view, gratuitous advice from the White House about 

how the Congress should proceed with respect to earmarks. In 2007 

Congress did not earmark State and local law enforcement grant 

programs. We were assured that the Department would award discretionary grants in a fair, competitive fashion, yet today we have 

a lot of questions about the process in awards of the Part E discretionary Juvenile Justice grants for 2007. 

A number of grantee applicants are alleging that the priorities 

and criteria published in the official solicitation were not ultimately the same as those used to award the grants. The newspaper 

Youth Today has also published what appears to be raw scores for 

the evaluation of these grants, which, if accurate, indicate that 

none of the top six applicants with the highest reviewer scores received grant awards. They were passed over in favor of lower scoring entities. 

A number of questions flow from that. Although these events certainly occurred previous to your tenure, do you know how the Part 

E Juvenile Justice grants were awarded in 2007? Should we be 

concerned that the grants were handed out to cronies instead of 

being fairly competed and awarded? Did the Department use an external peer review panel to evaluate these applications? If not, 

what was the internal review process? Was it conducted by the Juvenile Justice Office staff? 

Mr. MUKASEY. Without getting into details of which I am not familiar, I can tell you what I do know about that matter that you 

have mentioned. 

Number one the Youth Today article was a subject of an inquiry 

from Congress to which I understand we are going to respond. The 

scores to which you refer are one basis and an important basis, but 

not the only basis on which grants were awarded. We also take into 

account geographic considerations. 

Mr. OBEY. That is interesting, because Congress does the same 

thing when we engage in the earmarking process. Somehow that 

is supposed to be considered illegitimate. 

Mr. MUKASEY. No it is not illegitimate. What we are doing is trying to make sure that we get money to not only to the large cities, 

but also the smaller municipalities. We have got $90 million out to 

106 separate jurisdictions. Some of which are very small. So that 

we make sure that money gets used in a wide variety of places for 

problems that really need to be solved. 

As I said, the scores are one indication, but not the only indication. And we try to not to be in a situation where we have got a 

mechanical process where we are awarding grant writing instead 

of real needs. 

That said, the situation that you mentioned warranted examination and we have gotten an inquiry about it. We are going to respond. 

[The information follows:] 

PART E DISCRETIONARY JUVENILE JUSTICE GRANTS

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in the Office 

of Justice Programs (OJP), awards formula, block, and discretionary grants directly 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
46 

to states, units of local government, Indian tribal governments, and private organizations to administer selected programs. These grant awards support an array of 

activities, including preventing delinquency, supporting state and community efforts 

to prevent and respond to delinquency, holding youthful offenders accountable for 

their behavior, and protecting children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In Fiscal Year 2007, OJJDP posted 32 solicitations, under which OJJDP made 488 grant 

awards totaling more than $383 million. 

In FY 2007, six solicitations were posted for grants to be awarded under Part E 

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Specifically, these solicitations are the FY 2007 National Solicited Juvenile Justice Programs; FY 2007 National Juvenile Justice Program; FY 2007 Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention Programs; FY 2007 Project Safe Childhood Programs; FY 2007 Prevention 

and Intervention Programs; and FY 2007 High-Risk Youth Offender Reentry and 

Family Strengthening Initiatives. 

For all of the FY 2007 solicitations, except the National Solicited Juvenile Justice 

Programs, a peer review process was used to identify sound proposals that addressed a broad array of needs. In addition to the peer review scores, OJJDP was 

mindful of the Department’s priority areas and whether funding had been provided 

in the past for similar programs or proposals. Additionally, attention was given to 

proposals that encouraged cutting edge improvements, held the promise of significant impact, focused on helping children most in need, and aimed to reduce the 

numbers of minority children who have contact with the law enforcement system. 

Funds were awarded to support local prevention and intervention efforts and national-scope projects designed to combat delinquency, reduce child victimization, and 

promote innovations in the administration of juvenile justice. Emphasis was placed 

on programs that would increase collaboration with state and local governments and 

community and faith-based organizations to build effective programs and services 

for juveniles and their families. 

Experts, to include in-house and external reviewers, evaluated the applications to 

determine whether the proposals met the requirements set forth in the solicitations. 

Each applicant received a score that was measured only against the solicitation criteria. This pool became the universe from which the Assistant Attorney General for 

OJP, in consultation with the Administrator of OJJDP, selected programs to be 

funded. 

Mr. OBEY. All right. Thank you. I have two more questions on 

this point for the record. Now let me turn to another subject. 

MONITORSHIP CONTRACTS

Recent news reports have brought to light the Department’s 

widespread use of lucrative no-bid contracts to monitor compliance 

with out of court settlements and deferred prosecution agreements 

in criminal cases. The most notable of those is a contract worth up 

to $52 million awarded by the New Jersey U.S. Attorney to former 

Attorney General John Ashcroft’s consulting firm. According to the 

Washington Post, the number of corporate monitors has risen 

seven fold since 2001. Since the initiation of those reports, it apparently took nearly two months for the Department to issue guidelines for the selection and use of these arrangements. What took 

so long? Were there no departmental policies on oversight mechanisms in place before March 11? Since 2001, how many of these nobid contracts have been awarded? What is the status of your internal review of these contracts? 

Could you also provide for the record a full accounting of these 

contracts including their value, how they were awarded, and their 

current status? 

Mr. MUKASEY. First of all, examination of monitorship contracts 

was under, was a matter that was a departmental concern well before the story that you mentioned hit the newspapers. 

Mr. OBEY. Good. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
47 

Mr. MUKASEY. So I guess, well not so good maybe, because you 

asked what took so long. I guess what I am telling is it took longer 

even than you suggested. But we took this up. We were taking this 

up with the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee which consists 

of U.S. Attorneys across the country. And on March 7, we issued 

a set of best practices for the appointment of monitors. I should 

also point out that the money that you mention comes from the entity being monitored. This is not public money in any case in which 

a monitor is appointed. We are not talking about the giving out of 

public funds, we are talking about money that comes out of the entity being monitored. 

Monitorships arise in a variety of situations from a labor union 

that was doing things it shouldn’t have done, it needs a monitor 

to non-prosecution agreements in connection with a—— Mr. OBEY. Well in response to that I would simply say that I 

know my argument isn’t with you, but it is with the White House 

Budget Office and the political geniuses down there who are finding unique ways to set double standards. They argue, for instance, 

that earmarks add to federal spending. They do not. What earmarks do is simply move dollars from one place to another within 

ceilings established by the Committee, and a single member of 

Congress can knock the entire bill off the floor if the bill exceeds 

the amount that was allocated. 

So I welcome your response, but I wanted to get that on the 

record to illustrate the view from the other end of the avenue. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I understand that perspective is a great deal in 

these matters. But under the further of the issue of monitors, they 

arise in a wide variety of situations from labor unions to private 

entities where there are non-prosecution agreements or where 

there are deferred prosecution agreements. And one size, in other 

words, doesn’t fit all. 

What we are trying to do is get a set of best practices that end 

up with every monitor having to be approved by the Deputy Attorney General, which achieves it seems to me two things. One is uniformity. And the second is political accountability. And that is what 

we have tried to put in place. 

Mr. OBEY. Well our point is simply that these apparently are nobid contracts, and I think one would have to admit that when you 

see one of such size provided to a former Attorney General and his 

associates, that sort of becomes a poster child for concern, just as 

the ‘‘bridge to nowhere’’ did in congressional discussions. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. OBEY. Sure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. With all due respect, a former U.S. Senator 

from the State you mention was awarded a similar contract. Hopefully, we are making some progress that future such arrangements 

are indeed reviewed. 

Mr. OBEY. Amen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Amen. Thank you. 

GRANT FUNDING

Mr. OBEY. Let me turn to something that was discussed somewhat earlier this morning. As you know, for 2008 Byrne JAG was 

funded at $170.4 million, a 67 percent cut below the 2007 funding 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
48 

level of $520 million. A high profile campaign has been launched 

by coalition groups including the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Sheriffs Association and the International 

Chiefs of Police to seek emergency supplemental funding to restore 

Byrne JAG to $600 million, the fiscal year 2008 House-passed 

level. 

Why are all those folks wrong? 

Mr. MUKASEY. What we are trying to do is to coordinate the 

granting of money and get away from formulas and getting to a situation where we put the money in a focused way and take into account as well our own law enforcement efforts within the Department. That is what we have been trying to do. 

We have made some provision for Byrne JAG grants. On the 

other hand, strict formulas that allocate in ways that we don’t 

think are responsive, aren’t of as much help particularly in lean 

budgetary times. I mean recognizing that everybody can always use 

more money and I am not arguing with the people who say they 

can. But what I am saying is that what we have tried to do, given 

particularly the lean budget times we are working within is to coordinate on the one hand our own law enforcement efforts which 

have tended to be more successful when they are in the nature of 

task force efforts, with grants, when they are grants to local and 

state police forces in such a way that difficult problems get solved. 

ANTITRUST DIVISION

Mr. OBEY. Let me turn to the Antitrust Division, which has, as 

you know, an operating shortfall of $7.3 million for the current 

year. What is the impact on the Division’s pre-merger filing and 

criminal investigations? Do you intend to seek a reprogramming to 

address the shortfall? Assuming that $7.3 million is restored, is the 

2009 request sufficient to maintain current services at the 2008 

funding level? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I believe the 2009 request is sufficient. I mean the 

strong point here is that we are funding our base. There has been 

in the Antitrust Division a hiring freeze that hopefully we can loosen up. We believe that we have been able to meet the requirements 

that are imposed on the Antitrust Division. But nonetheless, we 

are going to welcome the return to a normal budget when, and if, 

it comes. 

COUNTERTERRORISM OVERSIGHT

Mr. OBEY. On counterterrorism oversight and the FBI’s abuse of 

National Security Letters. As you know, the Justice Inspector General, in a report issued in March, was highly critical of the FBI’s 

use of NSLs from 2003 to 2005. Last month the IG issued a follow 

up report looking into the FBI’s use of those NSLs in 2006. Unfortunately, he found a similar pattern of abuses, including unauthorized data collections, under-reported violations and noncompliance 

with statutory mandates. The new report praises the FBI for its 

commitment to preventing these abuses and notes the Department’s attempts in 2007 to improve guidance, training and oversight, but the IG apparently is not ready yet to say that these steps 

are sufficient. He noted that, ‘‘ Several of the FBI’s and the Department’s corrective measures are not yet fully implemented and it is 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
49 

too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the 

problems.’’

The IG was required by the Congress to undertake both of the 

studies conducted so far. If we were to require yet another report 

to assess 2007, do you believe we would see the same issues appear 

again? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I believe based on what the IG himself said, you 

would see an improvement. The IG reported that he believed that 

the steps that were being put in place by the Bureau and I—it is 

important to keep in mind the dates that you just referred to. The 

earlier study concerned an early period. The second study concerned a later period, but neither study concerned a period that followed the implementation of the corrective measures that were 

suggested. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

And the IG had generally positive things to say about those corrective measures. My own belief is that we would see an improvement. Are we going to see perfection? I seriously doubt it in this 

life. But I think that if we do see problems we will see them as 

being a whole lot smaller and subject to further tweaks. We are 

certainly open to that. 

Mr. OBEY. I have two more questions on this point for the record, 

which I would appreciate your answering. Again, the Department 

is sponsoring an NSL Working Group to evaluate how NSL-derived 

records are used, stored and disseminated. According to the IG’s 

March 2008 report, the Working Group initially declined to set limits on the use or retention of NSL-derived information beyond the 

FBI’s existing general data policies. We understand this recommendation was withdrawn, and the NSL Working Group is continuing its work. 

When do you expect the NSL Working Group to submit a revised 

report and recommendations? 

Mr. MUKASEY. I don’t know precisely when that is expected, but 

I can find out how close they are. Generally projected dates for 

completion of projects that don’t have strict time lines is a very difficult matter. At least I knew that when I was a judge people 

would ask me when I was going to decide a case and I could never 

give a satisfactory answer. But I am going to find out when they 

expect to have that study completed. 

Mr. OBEY. Again, I have three more questions on this point for 

the record. 

With that, let me simply say that I will submit the rest of these 

for the record. It is afternoon. We are expecting votes very shortly. 

I appreciate your appearance here today. 

Does anybody have any last parting questions before we shut it 

down? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
50 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. All right. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Mukasey. 

Mr. MUKASEY. I really appreciate the opportunity to appear. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBEY. Good to have you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
51 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 42792A.011
52 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 42792A.012
53 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 42792A.013
54 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 42792A.014
55 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 42792A.015
56 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 42792A.016
57 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here 42792A.017
58 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here 42792A.018
59 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 42792A.019
60 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 42792A.020
61 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here 42792A.021
62 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 42792A.022
63 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 42792A.023
64 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 42792A.024
65 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 42792A.025
66 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here 42792A.026
67 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here 42792A.027
68 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here 42792A.028
69 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here 42792A.029

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(71) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

WITNESS 

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. OBEY. Good morning everyone. I think we will get started. 

Let me welcome everyone to the hearing this morning on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. Our 

witness today will be Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI. 

Director Mueller, this Committee has more than doubled your 

agency’s annual budget since 2001. Its given you hundreds of millions of dollars in supplemental money. It has bailed out the agency 

on several occasions when the agency has made multi-million dollar mistakes. A significant number of those mistakes came before 

your tenure, I understand that. All of this has come at a significant 

cost to the rest of the Department of Justice, where criminal enforcement, litigation and state and local assistance have suffered in 

the budget year after year. And I would point out that this year 

the President is again recommending a $1.6 billion reduction in 

state and local law enforcement. It is very hard to justify an increase in any of the other agencies in this bill when those kinds 

of reductions are being contemplated. 

Given the amount of support that this Subcommittee has provided to your agency it is disappointing to see the numerous occasions on which money has been wasted and authorities have been 

abused. Let me say simply that I can think of no two government 

agencies that are more central to the healthy functioning of a democracy than the Attorney General’s Office and the FBI. My brother in law is a former DA. He was shot in the line of duty a number 

of years ago, and I think that I have seen enough of law enforcement problems through him through the years to have a healthy 

respect for each and every person who enforces the law, be they 

members of local police, or members of any state or federal agency. 

They put their lives on the line and it is far from the easiest job 

in the world to enforce this country’s laws. 

I can think of nothing more corrosive to a democracy than to 

have the American public lose confidence in the determination of 

either the Attorney General’s Office or the FBI to abide by the law. 

And yet we have seen a number of instances where the law has 

certainly been bent. Three weeks ago we received a report from the 

Justice Inspector General documenting significant abuses and deficiencies in the FBI’s use of National Security Letters. This is the 

second year in a row that we have had such a report, and this 

year’s findings are, to say the least, unsettling. Unauthorized colVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
72 

lections, undercounted violations, inconsistent compliance with 

statutory obligations, and many more. 

Even worse, we know that there is more news on the way which 

is of concern. The IG is still working on an assessment of the FBI’s 

use of so called exigent letters, which were used to obtain information through misrepresentation, and blanket NSLs, which apparently were attempts to retroactively justify the illegal use of the exigent letters. This cavalier approach toward legal protections may 

have temporarily gained the agency some useful investigative information, but it had a long term cost to our rights and to our trust 

and to our government’s credibility. 

Today is April 1st. This is the thirty-ninth anniversary of my 

election to Congress. I was elected on April Fools’ Day, it could not 

have happened any other day. But one of the things I have learned 

through the years is a very unpleasant fact. When I am often asked 

by college students what is the most disturbing thing that I have 

learned in the years that I have been in the Congress, I tell them 

that the most disturbing thing that I have learned is the government has routinely lied to me and to the Congress of the United 

States. All you have to do is to go back to Lyndon Johnson’s days 

in Vietnam, trace it through Richard Nixon’s days, and a number 

of more recent examples. 

But the second most disturbing thing that I can think of is to discover that almost on a regular basis we see agencies of the United 

States government that do not appear to have complied with the 

requirements of law. And it think it puts us at a tremendous disadvantage, because it means that our constituents lost faith in not 

just the agencies involved but all of government. And I think we 

need to know that this kind of conduct is not going to happen again 

and we need to know that we will have something more than pleasant assurances that some of these incidents with respect to NSL 

programs or FISA collections will not be occurring in the future. 

We also have a number of concerns about your budget, which you 

and I touched on yesterday. But in the interest of time let me forego comments on those for the moment and simply ask Mr. Frelinghuysen for any comments he might have before we begin. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Chairman Obey. Director 

Mueller, I join the Chairman in welcoming you to appear this 

morning to testify on your 2009 budget. I am pleased we are holding this hearing today, particularly since we did not have the opportunity to hear your testimony on last year’s budget request. For 2009 you are seeking an appropriation of $7.1 billion, an increase 

of $450 million or 6.8 percent. We look forward to your testimony 

on the new increases you are seeking as well as on the FBI’s continuing transformation activities to fulfill its role as our key domestic counter terrorism and intelligence agency. 

In addition the Committee will act soon on the administration’s 

pending supplemental request. In this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction the FBI has by far the largest supplemental request at $100 million. However, that request was formulated almost a year and a 

half ago, so perhaps there are some updates you can give us this 

morning and provide us concerning those requirements. 

Lastly, I would like you to pass on to your people the deep appreciation all of us have for their hard work. The responsibility of your 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
73 

agents, your analysts and support staff to protect the nation from 

terrorism and crime is perhaps the most important activity we support in this overall federal budget. We recognize the tireless efforts 

required to carry out those missions both at home and today very 

much abroad as well. But the work is often dangerous, sometimes 

underappreciated and misunderstood, but essential to keeping us 

safe. 

While I have not been here thirty-nine years, I have been here 

fourteen years, and I think you know my father served as a member of Congress for twenty-two years. So my perspective of the FBI 

is I have not lost faith in you. I have great faith in the work of 

the FBI, its proud history. There have perhaps been a few missteps 

along the way but I think you have done your level best. I know 

of you. You enjoy a good reputation as a very honorable and outstanding person. I think you have done your level best to make 

those corrections. So I admire you for that, and with the Chairman 

I welcome you this morning for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Director, why do you not proceed? We will put 

your full statement in the record. Take whatever time you wish 

and then we will proceed to the questioning. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by congratulating you on your anniversary. Congressman Frelinghuysen, 

it is a pleasure to be here. I have a very short statement. Thank 

you for including my longer statement with the numbers in the 

record. I do have a short statement and then if you will allow me, 

I will address a couple of the items that you mentioned at the outset. 

What I would like to do in this opening statement is put in context the request for this year. As I know everyone on this Committee is aware, the FBI’s top three priorities are counterterrorism, 

counterintelligence, and cyber security. These priorities are critical 

to our national security and the FBI’s vital work as a committed 

member of the intelligence community. Important too are our efforts to protect our communities from the very real threat of crime, 

especially violent crime. In the counterterrorism arena, Al Qaeda 

and related groups continue to present a critical threat to the 

homeland, So too do self-radicalized home-grown terrorists and 

home grown extremists. They are difficult to detect, often using the 

Internet to train and operate. At home, through our domestic Joint 

Terrorism Task Forces and abroad with our Legal Attache ́s and 

international partners, we together share real time intelligence to 

fight these terrorists and their supporters. An important aspect of 

the fight against terrorists is the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and the FBI’s commitment to our Render Safe Mission 

to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the threat of WMD in the 

United States. With your support we will continue our work in this 

critical area. 

With regard to the counterintelligence threat, protecting our nation’s most sensitive secrets from hostile intelligence services or 

others who would do us harm is also at the core of the FBI mission. 

We reach out to businesses and universities, we join forces with the 

intelligence community, and we work closely with the military to 

help safeguard our country’s secrets. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
74 

Cyber threats to our national security and the intersection between cyber crime, terrorism, and counterintelligence is increasingly evident. Today the FBI’s cyber investigators focus on these 

threats and we partner with government and industry through our 

sponsorship of a program called InfraGard, an alliance of more 

than 23,000 individual and corporate members who help identify 

and prevent cyber attacks. 

I am mindful of your abiding interest in the FBI’s progress in 

building an intelligence program while combating these threats. 

The FBI has made a number of changes in the last several years 

to enhance our capabilities. Today’s intelligence is woven through 

every FBI program and every operation. Utilizing this intelligence, 

we have successfully broken up terrorist plots across the country, 

from Portland, Oregon; Lackawanna, New York; Torrance, California; and Chicago, Illinois; to the more recent- last year’s Fort 

Dix and JFK plots. We have increased and enhanced working relationships with international partners, sharing critical intelligence 

to identify terrorist networks and disrupt planned attacks. With 

your assistance, we have doubled the number of intelligence analysts on board and tripled the number of linguists. We have tripled 

the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces, from thirty-three in 

2001 to over 100 now, combining the resources and expertise of the 

FBI and the intelligence community, military, state, local, and tribal law enforcement. 

Another important part of the FBI mission is quite clearly our 

work against criminal elements in our communities, very often in 

task forces with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners. Public 

corruption remains the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. In 

the past two years alone we have convicted over 1800 federal, 

state, and local officials for abusing the public trust. 

Similarly our work to protect the civil rights guaranteed by our 

Constitution is a priority, which includes fighting human trafficking as well as our focus on the civil rights cold case initiative. 

Gangs and violent crime continue to be as much a concern to the 

FBI as it is for the rest of the country. The FBI’s 141 Safe Streets 

Gang Task Forces leverage the knowledge of state and local police 

with federal resources and contemporary investigative techniques. 

The FBI also sponsors fifty-two additional Violent Crime and Interstate Theft Task Forces, as well as sixteen Safe Trails Task Forces 

targeting crime in Indian Country. 

The FBI combats Transnational Organized Crime in part by linking the efforts of our nation’s 800,000 state and local police officers 

with international partners through the FBI’s over sixty FBI Legal 

Attache offices. 

Finally, major White Collar Crime, from corporate fraud to fraud 

in the mortgage industry, clearly continues to be an economic 

threat to the country. In recent years, the number of FBI pending 

cases, including those associated with subprime lending, has grown 

nearly 50 percent to over 1,200 cases. Roughly half of these have 

losses over $1 million and several have losses greater than $10 million. We will continue to work to identify large scale industry insiders and criminal enterprises engaged in systemic economic fraud. 

We recognize that for the past 100 years of the FBI’s history, our 

greatest asset has been our people. We are building on that history 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
75 

with a comprehensive restructuring of our approach to intelligence 

training for both our professional Intelligence Analyst cadre as well 

as for new FBI agents coming out of Quantico. We have and will 

continue to streamline our recruiting and hiring processes to attract persons having the critical skills needed for continued success. 

I also remain committed to ensuring our employees have the Information Technology (IT) infrastructure they need to do their jobs, 

and this includes the continuing successful development of the 

SENTINEL Case Management System as well as other IT upgrades. 

I am very aware of your concerns that we always use legal tools 

given to the FBI fully, but also appropriately. For example, after 

the Department of Justice review of the use of National Security 

Letters, we instituted internal oversight mechanisms to ensure 

that we, as an organization, minimize the chance of future lapses. 

Among the reforms was the creation of a new Office of Integrity 

and Compliance within the Bureau, reporting to the Deputy Director to identify and mitigate potential risk. 

In closing, the FBI recognizes that it is a National Security service, responsible not only for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence, but most particularly for taking timely action 

to neutralize threats to this country, be it from a terrorist, a foreign spy, or a criminal. And in doing so, we also recognize that we 

must properly balance civil liberties with public safety in our efforts, and will continually strive to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, you did comment at the outset on the National 

Security Letters issue and the report that was issued most recently 

by the Inspector General. And I will tell you that the report did 

cover part of 2006, before we had put in place the modifications to 

assure that this will not happen again. I also believe that with a 

fair reading of that report you will see that the Inspector General 

found that we have done a great deal to resolve the problems and 

appear to be on track to make certain this does not happen again, 

although he does quite obviously hold out the expectation of further 

reviews by himself. But I do believe we have addressed that fully. 

I also understand your concerns, but I know you would understand that the heart of what the Bureau stands for is integrity, and 

you can expect from anybody in the Bureau, myself included, absolute honesty in whatever is said to you, whether it be in this hearing or otherwise. 

[Written statement of Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
76 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 42792A.030
77 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 42792A.031
78 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 42792A.032
79 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 42792A.033
80 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 42792A.034
81 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 42792A.035
82 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 42792A.036
83 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 42792A.037
84 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

FBI TRANSFORMATION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you yield to me for questions, Mr. 

Chairman? Thank you very much. You have implemented, is an 

understatement, a pretty dramatic transformation since September 

11, 2001. Obviously the emphasis is on our counter terrorism mission. What are your top priority areas that you are focusing on? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, in this particular budget, the 2009 budget, 

we have requested a number of positions for special agents, analysts, and professional support for our National Security mission. 

We have requested 145 positions for surveillance. We find as our 

cases grow, the necessity of having a professional surveillance 

cadre has come to the forefront, and we have not requested this 

volume in the past for surveillance positions. And our third area 

is resources to enhance our workforce training and the handling of 

human sources. Specialized training and initiatives weigh into both 

national security as well as the criminal side of the house. So our 

three main areas in this budget are additional positions for national security, which will relieve some of the tension we have in, 

cannibalizing the criminal side of the house to pay for national security. Secondly it is surveillance, and third funding for training, 

particularly when it comes to specialized training in the national 

security field. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The training falls under what you would 

call the human capital management area? 

Mr. MUELLER. It does. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In reading over your testimony in the section on surveillance, this just struck me, ‘‘shifting from a reactive 

criminal prosecution approach to a prevention and intelligence 

driven focus in our counter terrorism program is taxing the FBI’s 

capacity to gather intelligence through both physical and electronic 

surveillance.’’ I mean, that sort of says to me, as a layperson, that 

as this transformation is occurring maybe something has to give 

here between what you have been traditionally doing and things 

that you have actually focused and concentrated your efforts on 

since September 11th. 

Mr. MUELLER. In the past, I think we have been amongst the 

best in the world at collecting information for a prosecution, to go 

into a courtroom. And we have tended in the past to look at pieces 

of information and determine whether those pieces of information 

are admissible in the courtroom. In the wake of September 11th, 

we understand that our obligation is not just to investigate a case 

or a terrorist act after it has happened, but prevent that terrorist 

attack, which requires us to identify individuals who are taking 

steps to undertake a terrorist attack before that attack occurs. To 

do that we need intelligence. We need analysts. We need the surveillance capabilities to run an intelligence operation to not only 

capture the conversation through technology, whether it be e-mail 

or the phones, but also to back it up with surveillance. 

As we develop this capacity, which I would say it augments what 

we have done in the past——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is also the issue of making your case 

solid. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
85 

Mr. MUELLER. Well yes, it is. But the recognition has to be that 

we have tremendous capabilities in the Bureau. We have to augment those capabilities with the gathering of intelligence, the exchange of intelligence with our counterparts in the CIA, DIA, NSA, 

and the like, and build our capabilities to be a domestic intelligence 

agency at the same time we are a domestic law enforcement agency, understanding that as we grow those capabilities we have to do 

it within the framework of the Constitution, applicable statutes, 

and the Attorney General Guidelines. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You also say in that paragraph, and I do 

not mean to take words out of context, ‘‘We need a vigorous surveillance capacity to keep on top of known and emerging targets.’’ I assume we should have every confidence that we are well placed in 

that regard? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are well placed in that regard. But quite often 

we will find we will have, if you take a case such as Lackawanna, 

New York, and Torrance, California, where we have a group of individuals, and we have substantial predication that they are working together to undertake a terrorist attack. We have to pull resources from elsewhere in the country to do the type of investigation and follow up of the organization that would be necessary to 

gather the information we need ultimately to disrupt that plot. 

That means surveillance teams from around the country. It means 

individuals who, assuming we have either a FISA wire or a Title 

III wire, the individuals who are capable of putting up and monitoring those wires. And they are very personnel intensive to do that 

kind of in depth investigation. Consequently, while we are pushing 

the resources around the country to do this, as our work expands 

we need the resources to accomplish this. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And lastly, my time is limited, but your 

budget request is linked to the new Strategy Management System? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How will that system enable you to align 

your budget with these emerging threats and trends? 

Mr. MUELLER. Over the last two and a half years we developed 

a Strategy Management system that focuses on our priorities. Anyone in the organization who feels that they need additional capabilities has to link that request to one of the priorities that we have 

agreed upon in our Strategic Management System. And then we 

prioritize, under the Strategic Management System, to make certain that we are focused on that which is most instrumental to us 

being successful in the missions that have been given to us. We 

will tell you, as was pointed out I believe by the Chairman, and 

I think everyone knows, in the wake of September 11th, focusing 

on our particular priorities, there are a number of criminal priorities we cannot focus on. And we have to identify those priorities 

and align the budget, the personnel, the recruiting, the hiring, the 

training, the career development, to those priorities as they are established in our strategic management plan. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So it is a Strategic Management System 

but humans are still the ones that are running it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Always. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Schiff. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
86 

DNA EVIDENCE

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, I appreciate your being here. I spent six years as Assistant U.S. Attorney 

and worked extensively with the FBI on counter espionage and corruption cases and I have a tremendously high regard for the people 

in your agency. There are a number of areas I want to cover. I was, 

very concerned, as our Chairman indicated, with some of the problems that I have seen, where the NSLs, more specifically where the 

exigent letters saying, ‘‘Provide us these records,’’ that there is an 

exigency, that there is a grand jury subpoena forthcoming, when in 

fact there was no grand jury even impaneled, let alone a subpoena 

forthcoming. That did not sound at all like the FBI that I had the 

pleasure of working with. I want to ask you about that. 

Before I turn to that, one of the areas that I am also interested 

in is the use of DNA evidence. There has been a very substantial 

backlog of DNA samples which is expected to get a lot worse when 

the new law kicks in and a broader pool of convicts and arrestees 

will be within those required to be sampled. In the budget request 

there is a request of only a little over $30 million. I do not see how 

that will be enough to try to deal with the backlog we have now, 

let alone the backlog we can anticipate when the new law kicks in 

later this year or in 2009. Do you know what the current backlog 

is of DNA samples? Do you have a sense of what resources would 

really be necessary to eliminate that backlog? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get you those specifics but I can 

also tell you that we are still recovering from the changes in law 

in 2005, which added a substantial number of individuals that we 

would need to process. Clearly it is going to occur again. We put 

into the budget that which we think we could utilize, and hopefully 

build upon in years to come. I would have to get you both the figure on the backlog as well as a break down of what it would cost 

to remove that backlog. 

[The information follows:] 

DNA SAMPLES

As of March 2008, the FBI has a backlog of 231,488 convicted offender samples. 

The FBI is working with resources provided in the FY 2008 budget to control this 

backlog. However, additional resources requested in the FBI’s FY 2009 budget will 

be necessary to reduce this backlog and help to prevent future backlogs. The requested resources include: 

• 36 positions and $20.8 million to expand the capacity of the Federal Convicted Offender Program (FCOP). This will allow the FBI to reduce the backlog 

and process increased submissions expected as a result of the USA Patriot Act 

of 2001, the Justice for All Act of 2004, and the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. 

Funding would provide additional technical personnel, space, and equipment to 

support the processing of samples. 

• 6 positions and $735 thousand to perform Combined DNA Index System 

testing and quality assurance. 

The FY 2009 budget also requests additional funding for other related improvements to the FBI’s DNA program. 

• 3 positions and $1.2 million to enhance the functionalities of the National 

Missing Persons DNA Database, which is part of the FBI’s Combined DNA 

Index System. 

• 2 positions and $7.9 million to address the increased volume of 

mitochondrial DNA casework related to items submitted by the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
87 

The FBI will work with DOJ, OMB, and Congress to ensure the appropriate level 

of resources to eliminate the backlog and provide for timely processing of future 

samples. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would very much like to get that. This is such a 

powerful tool. There is perhaps no other tool like it in the sense 

that you can directly correlate and say, ‘‘If we clear up this backlog 

we can anticipate getting x number of thousand new hits. We get 

that many thousand new hits that means we can take that many 

murderers and rapists off the street.’’ We can say, I think with absolute certainty if we do not eliminate the backlog there will be 

people who will be raped by serial rapists that we could have taken 

off the street that we can identify now. We have the power and we 

may have even collected the rape kits or the offender’s DNA but 

not have had a chance to analyze it yet. So I would look forward 

to getting that information and would love to work to see if we can 

get the resources necessary to really deal with this and make sure 

that, at least vis-a-vis the most serious offenses, law enforcement 

can get those samples analyzed very quickly. 

Can you share with me on the——

Mr. MUELLER. Can I just add one other point? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. One of the other things we are looking at is advances in technology to expedite the examinations and some of the 

process, the DNA process, that would also eliminate the backlog. 

Not just the additional personnel, but we are looking hard at technology being also a contributing factor to removing that backlog. 

And we can brief you on that as well. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Wonderful. One other issue that is related to that, 

the state and local law enforcement have a tremendous backlog 

problem as well, probably greater than yours. One of the obstacles 

they face is that when, like a local police department in my district, 

they do not have a facility themselves, they have to go to the County Sheriff’s Department. That often takes so long that they go to 

a private lab, which is very expensive to do. I guess there is a 100 

percent requirement of review of the private lab’s work by the 

County, but when the County uses the same private lab for its 

overflow without evidently the same requirement. I think, according to a National Institute of Justice study, some of these 100 percent review requirements are adding tremendous cost without improving accuracy. I would love to work with your office as well on 

that issue. 

On the issue of the exigency letters, specifically can you share 

what the audit has found? Or what you have found? Or what steps 

have been taken to try to ensure that we do not have a situation 

again where you have agents telling phone companies or others, 

‘‘We need these records, it is an emergency, you are going to get 

a grand jury subpoena,’’ when in fact there is no grand jury even 

impaneled? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are working jointly with the IG in an investigation of the exigent letters and that is still under investigation. 

So I cannot get too far in depth into the investigation. There are 

a couple of things I can tell you. Back when the IG report came 

out, we issued a ban against the use of them. So they have not 

been used once we became aware of the extent of the use in the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
88 

IG report last year. I will say that my understanding is the practice arose, first of all, in New York and was to a certain extent imported to headquarters as a result of the shift of primacy for handling a case from the field office back to headquarters. And the 

practice arose from persons using forms without reading the forms. 

This is my understanding; it is not by way of excuse. But it was 

transported from New York and was utilized here without the appropriate attention to what was happening, and to assure that 

whatever representation was made in a piece of paper as to what 

was going to happen was in fact true. As I said, the investigation 

is ongoing and I will see what the IG recommends in terms of 

whatever further steps need to be taken to assure that this practice 

does not grow in another way. 

I will tell you one other thing that we have found that I think 

covers not just National Security Letters but other areas as well. 

And that is, while we would establish procedures, we did not have 

a mechanism to assure that the procedures were being followed. So 

we established an Office of Integrity and Compliance to look at 

those areas where there is weakness or potential weakness to identify them early on and address them. So when Congress passes a 

statute and requires that we adhere to certain procedures in the 

future, we will not only set forth procedures within the Bureau but 

we will make certain that we have red teams and others who are 

looking to assure, throughout the organization, that the procedures 

are indeed being followed. The lesson we have learned from this 

episode is that it is insufficient to issue procedures without also 

having a mechanism to assure that the procedure is being followed 

in our fifty-six field offices and in our 400 resident agencies. 

FISA

Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate that. This colors our view of the whole 

FISA debate when we see some of the authorities we have already 

provided with the NSLs or in other areas without adequate safeguard and abuses. It certainly colors how we view the additional 

requests in FISA. Thank you, Mr. Director, I appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Aderholt. 

NEW TECHNOLOGY

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Director, for being here. Going back to the technology aspect that you 

addressed in your testimony, you discussed the aspect about working with the local law enforcement officers, and in some of these 

cases that this new technology would provide forensic, analytic, and 

operational technologies. In what sense do you, when you say with 

the local law enforcement officers, in what sense do you all work 

with those? And how do you make a priority for the cases on the 

local level? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well if you look, we have fourteen Regional Computer Forensics Laboratories around the country in which federal, 

state, and local authorities all work together to prioritize the computer forensics in a particular area. And they have been tremendously successful. Again, if you are looking at the narrow range of 

cyber issues where we do not have the Regional Computer 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
89 

Forensics Laboratories, our agents spend a great deal of time with 

state and local law enforcement, both on training, exchanging new 

methods of doing the forensics, and helping each other out. I think 

most state and local law enforcement agencies would tell you that 

keeping up with the change in technology is tremendously difficult 

for a smaller jurisdiction. We do what we can to assist. As I said, 

the Regional Computer Forensics Laboratories have been tremendously successful throughout the country, and I think if you talk 

to any state and local law enforcement entity that participates in 

those laboratories they would be very positive in their views. And 

as I said, where we do not have one we look to help as best we can 

on a particular issue. 

As I have indicated to the Chairman in the past, I am a great 

believer in working on task forces, that we leverage our capabilities 

by sitting shoulder to shoulder with state and local law enforcement and with other agencies. And my own belief is that to the extent the mode of addressing the threats in our communities or indeed overseas can be funded across the board. It is beneficial to the 

American public, not just to the FBI. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You indicated in your testimony that you plan to 

open a new Legal Attache Office in Algiers, Algeria to address a 

significant number of counter terrorism cases and leads in that region. Of course, currently Algiers is covered by the Attache in Morocco. Will Algiers now have its own office? Or will responsibility 

for countries such as Tanzania and Niger shift into this office as 

well? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I am not certain what other countries would 

be covered by the office that we put in Algiers. Over the last year, 

year and a half, the capabilities of Al Qaeda in the Maghreb after 

it has become associated with Al Qaeda have been substantial. We 

have great concern that as the capabilities of Al Qaeda in the 

Maghreb have grown, so too has the possibility of individuals with 

joint passports, say with France and Algeria, could find a way into 

Europe and then be an e-ticket away from JFK Airport here in the 

United States because it is a visa waiver country. So the first 

chance you get to see the individuals coming in is at the airport. 

We have developed a good working relationship with our counterparts in Algeria, and this is the next step in the building of that 

relationship to address this new phenomenon, the new threats that 

come out of the Maghreb. 

[The information follows:] 

LEGAT ALGERIA

The Legat Algeria will cover the following terrorities; Chad, Niger, Tunisia,and 

Libya. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So the bombings and Al Qaeda connection has 

definitely been a factor in that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Ruppersberger. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
90 

NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Director Mueller, good to have you here. I 

know we have had numerous conversations in the Intelligence 

Committee and private conversations about particular issues. 

The first issue I would like to talk about today is the National 

Security Branch. Basically I guess that is our domestic CIA, and 

the FBI has the responsibility for standing up this group. The FBI 

is clearly our top law enforcement agency, and the culture has been 

to investigate, arrest, convict. And now we are going into an intelligence mode, which is an entirely different culture. And this, I believe, it has been, what, four years now that we have attempted to 

stand up the National Security Branch? 

Mr. MUELLER. It was three. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Three or four years, and I think that you 

have an individual from the CIA that I respect a lot, and is with 

you, and working with you to help stand up. How are we doing as 

far as the change in the type of agent or investigators you have to 

hire? How are we training our people in this National Security 

Branch? And another thing from a point of view to motivate people 

to become full time in intelligence in the FBI is to have a line of 

promotion. I make an analogy that in fire departments where you 

have paramedics who are a small group, and then you have the 

firefighters that are a large group, a lot of paramedics were trained 

to be paramedics and yet they want to switch over because they 

can get promoted quicker on the other side. How are you dealing 

with standing up the National Security Branch? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are in the process, in the next six months to 

nine months, of executing a number of projects that have been in 

the making for a period of time. We have a Field Intelligence 

Group in every one of our fifty-six field offices. We have had them 

for several years. But we have adopted a standard Field Intelligence Group structure that is going to be in place in various 

iterations throughout the country. What this does is enable us to 

do a better job of recruiting, hiring, and training to particular job 

positions within the Field Intelligence Groups. We also have a look 

first of all at the analyst side. We have undertaken a substantial 

recruiting drive for analysts in many of the top colleges around the 

country. We are building a career path for the analyst cadre all the 

way to the top. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We talk about collecting intelligence but it 

is so important to analyze it. 

Mr. MUELLER. It is. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And I know it is difficult in the beginning 

when you have FBI agents and then you have analysts. And it is 

almost a different profession to analyze. Can you address how are 

you motivating and getting the analysts that you need to do the 

job? To analyze the information that is collected? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have had no problems in getting applicants for 

the analyst positions. We have a good retention rate. But as I said, 

we have undertaken a special recruiting drive to hire in excess of 

400 this year. We had approximately 1,000 analysts in 2001. We 

have doubled that almost to 2,000, or a little above 2,000 analysts, 

who have remarkable pedigrees in terms of their capabilities. What 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
91 

we are finding is that the relationship between the agent and analyst is improving day by day. We have a remarkable cadre of analysts with whom I work day in and day out. They are well trained, 

contribute a lot, and they have the respect of the agents. And increasingly we as an organization understand that we need a number of specialized skills in order to be successful. One of those are 

the analysts. On the agent side of the house, we have just changed 

our new agents course to enhance yet again the emphasis on intelligence, and secondly we have developed career paths for each of 

the National Security Branch professional areas. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me say this. Your fiscal year 2009 re- quest includes eighteen positions and $43.6 million to address 

these workforce requirements. How much of that request is for 

training in the National Security Branch? 

Mr. MUELLER. Almost all of it is for the National Security 

Branch. Very little of it is solely on the criminal side of the house. 

I will tell you, though, the criminal agents need the training as 

much as anybody. And to a certain extent one of the things that 

was pointed out by the Chairman in his remarks is the criminal 

side of the house, whether it be ours or the Department of Justice, 

budgets have been squeezed, one would say cannibalized, by the 

necessity for building up the national security side of the house. I 

am the first one that believes we have to build up the national security side of the house. We have done it by taking away from the 

criminal programs. And as was pointed out, we are squeezing in 

the Department of Justice. The funds are coming, I think appropriately so, to the FBI, but are squeezing out some of the other programs in the Department of Justice that should be funded. 

FY 2009 BUDGET NEEDS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We are about finished. All right, well I 

have got a couple of other questions but I am going to ask you just 

one more question. I know that you are part of the administration, 

and the President determines the budget, and that you have to 

honor that budget. But I am going to ask you the question that I 

think is important, especially with all that is going on with the 

FBI, the JTTF, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, setting up the National Security Branch, is there anything that is not in the President’s budget that you feel is important or a high priority that we 

should look at to increase that budget? 

Mr. MUELLER. Going through the budget process, as this Committee would know as well as any, you go through a prioritization 

process. And so the top priorities that we have addressed have 

gone through the Department of Justice, have gone through OMB, 

and become part of the President’s budget. Quite clearly we could, 

in programs, have requested and could utilize additional funds. But 

we have gone through the prioritization process and what you have 

before you in the President’s budget are the top priorities for the 

Bureau. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So that was a nice answer as a Director of 

the FBI protecting the President’s budget. I appreciate the answer. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I will be a little bit more forthcoming in that 

regard in the sense that one of the challenges for us is to enhance 

training. And we have somewhat outmoded buildings that were esVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
92 

tablished, or built I think in Quantico back in the 1970’s. I would 

like to bring on additional instructors, have the capability, the 

physical capability, to add training capacity as we go through this 

transformation. Another area that I can assure that you will be 

hearing from us in future years is that we need funding to address 

the advance in technology where we need to collect in terms of 

intercepting, and you have cell phones and a number of more innovative communications mechanisms that require building up the 

expertise in the Bureau that I think we are going to have to address down the road. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. OBEY. I have a whole series of questions that need to be 

asked, but before I get to those so that we can keep it more systematic, I would like to have another five minute round for the other 

members of the Subcommittee. So Mr. Frelinghuysen? 

GWOT SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank 

your people for giving me a tour of your Quantico operation. I must 

say I have quite a lot of school districts in New Jersey that you 

have antiquated facilities, and certainly you need some upgrades 

there. You have got to balance it between other needs out there. 

What do you call it? Squeezing or taxing? It is a pretty difficult 

task, to balance all of those interests. I mentioned in my initial remarks the supplemental. Can you talk a little bit about what your 

needs are there? Can you put some flesh on the bones? 

Mr. MUELLER. Without going too far into detail, our presence in 

Iraq and Afghanistan relates to our contributions when it comes to 

interviewing detainees. And we have a substantial role in evaluating IEDs and running them through forensics, DNA, and fingerprints for instance, and providing the results back to the military. 

We do sensitive site exploitations when a safe house is taken. We 

then go in and help with the exploitation of the information using 

the techniques that we have developed over the years in our law 

enforcement capacity. What we are seeking in the supplemental is 

equipment that enables us to participate as I have described. Body 

armor, armored vehicles, airlift support, generators, evidence collection materials, other areas of——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The dollar amount you are looking for at 

this juncture? 

Mr. MUELLER. $100 million. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. $100 million——

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would you anticipate that you would be 

coming in with a larger figure? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well this was a figure, as I think you or others 

have pointed out, of some time ago but what we have on the table 

at this point is $100 million. 

SENTINEL

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to shift briefly to the SENTINEL 

program, one of your biggest challenges. I have been on the Committee fifteen months but there has been a lot of challenge and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
93 

frustrations relative to the automation of your case files and case 

management system. Can you give us an update? 

Mr. MUELLER. Certainly. The—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As to where we stand? Obviously this is an 

issue, and the Chairman alluded to it, oversight issues. Give us a 

sort of a synopsis of where we stand on this system. 

Mr. MUELLER. It is a system that is going to take approximately 

four years to develop, and it is called SENTINEL. The first phase 

was successfully deployed in June of last year. And since that deployment of Phase One we have had twelve separate additional 

builds on Phase One. We are well into Phase Two, and Phase Two 

is on schedule to begin implementation in the spring. It is within 

the planned cost. I really do not think there are many in the way 

of programs that have as much oversight as this particular program. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I know. Just for the record, what is the last 

estimate for the current life cycle cost? 

Mr. MUELLER. Generally in the range of $335 million. It may run 

a little bit over that, in the sense that we have developed an incremental development strategy as opposed to a straight phased strategy which will mean that we want and will get earlier in the cycle 

enhancements to SENTINEL. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thought the last estimate was $425 million? 

Mr. MUELLER. That may be with O and M. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think the total value of the contract with Lockheed Martin is $335 million over six years and we anticipate, still 

anticipate, delivering full capacity in 2010. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What do you see as additional funding requirements? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. But again 

it would be on the end. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable etablished by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I understand you have deployed two of the 

most critical deliverables in Phase One, a web-based portal and 

word boxes and summarize cases and leads. Are you satisfied with 

the quality of the Phase One products? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What have you learned based on staff use? 

Mr. MUELLER. The staff use is not as high as we would like at 

this juncture because, really the core of the program is coming in 

Phases Two and Three. The heart of it is to take the base information we have in what is called ACS, make it first of all available 

through the SENTINEL program, but then migrate that data to 

other databases. The problem we face, and many companies face, 

is that the database, the ACS database is an antiquated database. 

The persons who knew that database way back around are few and 

far between. And much of the funding in upgrading goes to identifying the pathways by which you can migrate the data into the new 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
94 

database. As I said, we are on target both in terms of time and 

money in Phase Two. My expectation is there may be, as we go 

down the line and we bring in earlier pieces of the program, that 

there may be, a very modest enhancement in terms of cost. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The recommendations from the IG came 

out within August. I think there were nine? One was limit the 

scope and duration of future project phases to make them more 

manageable. Where do those recommendations stand? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we decided one of the lessons we learned in 

Phase One is that the phased structure, where you go for a period 

of time building it up and then all of a sudden, push it out to the 

field, is not as beneficial as incremental development. So we have 

shifted to an incremental development with various increments 

during the phases. So, as I said, Phase One has had, twelve additional builds in the incremental development. So as opposed to 

doing it in straight phases, we are doing it incrementally. Some 

people call it spiral development or incremental development, 

based on what we learned in Phase One, which will make it more 

efficient and will enable us to push out to the field enhancements 

earlier than we had anticipated when we started the project. 

One of the problems with a project like this, and one of the problems I believe that you have with new government projects such as 

this, is you get locked into a project early on with requirements, 

which you need in order to have a contract that is structured and 

you can meet the gates. On the other hand, technology changes, capabilities change over the period of the contract, and your challenge is to keep the contract within budget, make use of the new 

technology that comes along in the meantime, but assure that you 

come to the finish line on time and under budget and utilize whatever mechanisms you can to enhance your abilities to get your people what you need in terms of technology as you go through that 

project cycle. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It would be an understatement to say the 

Committee is not following this with interest and all sorts of language in the omnibus to provide greater direction and reports. We 

wish you would keep us posted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well if I might add, there is not a lack of oversight on this project. We have GAO, we have the IG, we have 

OMB, we have a number of congressional committees, and—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We want the system to work. 

Mr. MUELLER. And anytime you need, or would like, a briefing, 

we are happy to give them. We try to give them periodically, every 

couple of weeks, and we will offer them to the staff whenever they 

need more insight into how the project is going. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Schiff. 

GANGS

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, my district 

is the Los Angeles district and we are facing a problem that has 

become increasingly nationwide and in fact crosses international 

borders, and that is dealing with gangs. Back when I was with the 

U.S. Attorneys we did very little gang prosecution. It was mostly 

a state and local issue. But as gangs have proliferated and become 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
95 

national and international and gotten more heavily involved in the 

drug trade I know that is changing. 

Senator Feinstein has a bill that passed the Senate. I have got 

a slightly different version here in the House that would invest a 

substantial sum in prevention to try to keep kids out of trouble on 

the front end. It would also invest a substantial sum on the back 

end in getting law enforcement additional resources to deal with 

the gang problem with programs like Hydra and others. It would 

also establish a RICO like statute specifically for dealing with 

gangs, so that prosecutors do not have to resort to something that 

was designed with the Mafia in mind to deal with a very different 

criminal structure. And I wonder if you could share your thoughts 

on the FBI’s increasing role in dealing with this problem, and why 

that has been necessary, as well as whether you think these tools 

in terms of a statute that is more on point than RICO for dealing 

with gangs, whether that would be something of value to federal 

law enforcement? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe very strongly, to the extent that the FBI 

can assist state and local law enforcement in reducing violent 

crime in the cities, the FBI should. We certainly cannot supplant 

state and local law enforcement whose principal responsibility is to 

address it. But to the extent that whether through technology, intelligence, or federal statutes, we can assist, we should. 

Consequently since September 11th, through one of our priorities 

Transnational-1, International Organized Criminal Groups, we 

have addressed gangs as well as our violent crime program. We 

have over 180 Safe Street Task Forces around the country. I believe, the most effective and efficient way of addressing it is to combine the resources of state and local law enforcement with the FBI 

because we have the jurisdiction across the town lines, the city 

lines, the state lines, and now international lines. 

If you take something—if you take a gang such as MS–13 they 

started in Los Angeles. Los Angeles and El Salvador basically, but 

it spread to Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, and then across the 

country. 

Our ability to gather the intelligence and make it available to 

Bill Bratton in Los Angeles for instance I think is important in assuring his success in addressing gangs in Los Angeles. We now 

have a task force. We have task force members down in El Salvador that are assisting the El Salvadorians in collecting fingerprints and putting together databases that can be useful in addressing the gang structures in the United States. 

That is the type of effort that I think is important. I would also 

go back to a belief that state and local law enforcement should be 

funded in my mind with the view towards funding going to participation in task forces, because that is the way you are most effective. 

As to the other question, in terms of the statute, I think I agree 

with you that we continue targeting criminal enterprises who, have 

elements that make it difficult in many situations to address the 

configuration of gangs as we see them on the streets in America 

today. 

I am not familiar with your legislation but we should be seeking, 

additional capabilities to address the differing gang structures that 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
96 

we see around the United States, which are, as you point out, 

somewhat different from the narcotics trafficking gangs of the past 

and the mob, the mafia. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you on the terrorism front. My colleague, 

Mr. Ruppersberger’s, mentioned the cultural change that FBI has 

had to undertake in going from a law enforcement agency that also 

did counterespionage to a heavy focus on gathering information in 

terms of potential domestic terrorism. 

Part of the changes, you know, that have been required to make 

are institutional within the FBI. But part of the broader changes 

are—involve information sharing and the attempt to make sure 

that we can connect the dots and to use an overused expression. 

Part of that, improvising some of the laws about when you could 

share information that was derived in criminal investigation with 

people doing intelligence and vice versa. 

Can you share your thought on how that has worked out? Are 

there any remaining impediments to your ability to get the information you need from the intelligence community to do your job, 

or conversely information you derive, and on the criminal side from 

sharing that with those that need to know in the intelligence community? Are there any remaining legal obstacles that we should be 

aware of? Are there any legal or otherwise that we should be focused on? 

Mr. MUELLER. In that particular area, I can’t think off the top 

of my head another area which we need to open to enhance better 

sharing. I would have to get back to you. I would have to think 

about that. 

But I will say since September 11th, the Patriot Act and certain 

rulings of the FISA Court, have broken down the walls that were 

there before within the FBI, in other words, on the intelligence side 

of the house. That counterintelligence cannot talk to criminal and 

vice versa. But also between the FBI and the CIA, DIA, NSA, and 

the like. Those have, in large part broken down, and appropriately 

so. 

You are also seeing, at the same time, the growth of entities such 

as the National Counterterrorism Center. They understand that we 

collect information under different authorities. 

Once that information is collected, it has to be integrated in 

order to get a clear picture of the threats, because many of the 

threats to the United States now may well come from outside, 

whether it be cyber or terrorism or the like. 

And without that, that integration of information, we cannot get 

the picture. So I think we have come a far way. There is one inhibitor. I am not going to say we are perfect, it is less institutional, 

far less institutional now than in the past. Now, I will have somebody, or my counterparts will have somebody, who has not seen the 

light and we have to address those individual instances. The institutional chasm has been addressed. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Director 

just addressed my question on interagency cooperation. So I will go 

ahead and pass for right now. 

Mr. OBEY. All right. Mr. Ruppersberger. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
97 

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I think in 2006 that the Bureau established 

a new headquarters directorate for weapons of mass destruction. 

And I think that is very positive. I think even the country isn’t 

aware of what is probably our biggest threat, nuclear threats, and 

the components that might be coming in from an al-Qaeda situation or other countries. 

The directorate’s mission, I understand, is going to be to basically identify, deter, disrupt, and respond to WMD threats. And 

then coordinate with Department of Energy, both domestically and 

internationally. 

How will this year’s budget request for the directorate further 

this objective? 

Mr. MUELLER. I know we have in the budget additional requests 

for personnel, 30 agents, 20 support, for a total of 50 at $15 million. And so each year we are seeking to enhance the personnel we 

have in the WMD Directorate. 

So yes, we are looking for 50 positions that includes 30 agents 

to be coordinators in the field. And, again, each year starting when 

we set up the directorate, we have sought funds and generally had 

received the funds not only for the directorate, but also for our 

Render Safe Mission. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Is part of that mission to identify where 

components of nuclear bombs and fertilizer are purchased in different parts of the world? I know that the CIA and other agencies 

are looking at that. Are you working with them in that regard? 

Mr. MUELLER. Oh, yes. We are looking at both counter-proliferation as well as establishing tripwires in the United States so that 

we trigger persons who are seeking to either build or to buy components of nuclear devices. 

But we have not forgotten about the biological and chemical 

weapons. And the directorate addresses not just nuclear but bio 

and chemical as well. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. Developing the expertise so we have the tripwires 

out there to identify it and then can move very quickly to render 

any device safe before it can——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And one other——

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Trigger. 

NARCOTICS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER [continuing]. Area I want to get into, since 

9/11, rightfully so, we needed to really step up what we do from 

a resource point of view in dealing with the issue of terrorism. And 

I believe strongly that the best defense against terrorism is intelligence. 

But as a result of that it seems to me that there have been a 

lot of resources that have not been given in the area of narcotics. 

If you look across this country, and this is just my opinion, but our 

citizens are more impacted by narcotics than anything else and 

that causes violent crime. And the resources just don’t seem to be 

going there. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
98 

I know that you have some jurisdiction, DEA has total jurisdiction. DEA is all over the world attempting to deal with drug trafficking. But it seems to me that the narcotics situation now is getting worse instead of better. 

We have Afghanistan which has more poppies coming up now 

than ever in the history of the world. South America is really, really gearing up. And what concerned us in the beginning in the intelligence field was that the cartels would connect with al-Qaeda and 

the cartels with money. Al-Qaeda and some of the extremists sometimes seem to be more religious. But now those two seem to be 

combining together. 

Where are you, the FBI, as far as your priorities as it relates to 

narcotics? Are you getting the resources that you need for narcotics? Are you still working very closely with DEA and state and 

local law enforcement as it relates to the issue of the large cartels 

and also in the domestic area? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the bottom line is that I had to transfer approximately 900 agents from our criminal program to our national 

security in the wake of September 11th. And those agents have not 

been replaced. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That is a very serious problem. Do you believe this? 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Do you believe that is a serious problem? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I believe it is. Although I do believe the DEA 

has covered some of the shortfall. We still require—

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Have you seen DEA’s budget by the way? 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is not real good. 

Mr. MUELLER. I understand that from my counterpart. But I 

have not seen it. 

But, no, we still participate in a number of drug cases, particularly through the OCDETF Program. 

But one thing that we did have and still do have is 400 resident 

agencies around the country. So our coverage was somewhat more 

than other agencies. 

In terms of the intersection between narcotics trafficking and terrorism, we have seen it certainly in Colombia with the FARC. You 

see it to a certain extent in Afghanistan, certainly with the 

Taliban. And it is an issue that is principally in the purview of the 

DEA. But needless to say, human resources would enhance our 

participation in that area. 

But as I said, we had to prioritize in the wake of September 

11th. And this was a result of our prioritization. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Mueller, I 

just want to tell you what a huge fan I am of you and the FBI. 

It is a great comfort to know that you are there. The superb job 

that you do is deeply appreciated by I know everybody on this 

Committee and in the country. 

I want to ask you about two areas in particular. First of all, CIS 

has actually adopted a new policy that I wanted to ask you to comment on. That they are no longer going to issue green cards before 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
99 

the FBI completes a background check, which seems to me to be 

a bad idea. 

And I just wanted you to comment on it. If you thought that was 

prudent, particularly since once the green card is issued that it is 

the responsibility of the government to prove that the aliens should 

not be in the country. It will sort of flip the burden of proof and 

allow this person in before you have been able to do your part. 

Mr. MUELLER. I must say that I am not familiar with the details 

and the rationale. I understand that may have been the case but 

I really don’t feel prepared to talk about that decision. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Maybe if I could also ask you to do this 

is specific request. And I think you and the FBI could make a significant different right away. 

I had a chance to go to Tucson. I have been working up and 

down the border with my friends, Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, 

Congressman Henry Cuellar. We have successfully been able to get 

a policy called Operation Streamline expanded from Del Rio to Laredo where the Border Patrol is enforcing existing law and arresting everyone who comes across the border illegally. 

So essentially a zero-tolerance program that is very successful. 

The local community loves it, because the crime rate has dropped 

about 76 percent in the Del Rio sector. It has got broad-based support among local officials. The local community is delighted with it. 

Illegal crossings in the Del Rio sector are the lowest they have been 

since 1973 when they began keeping statistics. 

And in the process of working with my colleagues in Texas to get 

that program rolled out along the Texas border, we are working on 

Brownsville next, I visited Tucson, because I had heard that Tucson has about half of the arrests in the country where illegal border crossings are made in the Tucson sector. I know you are aware 

of that. 

And I was mortified to discover in talking to the sector chief 

there, Robert Gilbert, a good man with the Border Patrol, he gave 

me these statistics. I went to the booking station, talked to the officers. 

It turns out that the people arrested—if you are arrested in Tucson carrying up to 500 pounds of dope, you have a 99.6 percent 

chance of never going to jail and in fact being home in time for dinner, quite literally. They are turning them all loose. I have no idea. 

I just was thunderstruck. 

The U.S. Attorney in Tucson sector will not do anything to attempt to try to reverse that. They are turning loose literally 99.6 

percent of everybody arrested in the Tucson sector, even if they are 

carrying up to 500 pounds. The evidence room is stuffed with loads 

of dope that are 500 pounds or less. It is unbelievable. 

So my good friend from Maryland is exactly right about the narcotics problem. We know you have testified. We have seen evidence 

that the terrorists are attempting to use these smuggling routes to 

enter the United States. 

What I was going to suggest specifically, because I know you may 

not be familiar with that, so I just wanted to ask—I think it would 

be very productive for the FBI. I noticed in your request to this 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
100 

Committee, you are asking for 568 new positions, a number of special agents, intelligence analysts, 228 professional support to enable the FBI to work more closely with federal, state, and local 

partners. 

I would suggest if you could to think about assigning an FBI 

agent to sit in the booking room of Tucson sector. They had a State 

Department employee there part time, because the Border Patrol 

was so desperate to get some help that they had a State Department official there to look for visa violations so they could hold 

these guys or anything, because the U.S. Attorney is turning them 

all loose. 

This is something I am going to explore with this Subcommittee 

with the Attorney General tomorrow. And I have been—I am working something up, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Frelinghuysen, for you 

and the other Committee members so we can look at sector by sector. 

It never occurred to me. I was assuming an arrest was made. I 

know you do when an arrest is made by an FBI agent that you assume it is a good arrest. That the person is going to be at least 

presented to a grand jury and there is going to be some effort at 

prosecution. 

From what I understand, the U.S. Attorney in Tucson is even 

turning loose over 90 percent of your arrests. They are turning 

them loose when your folks makings arrests. They are cutting them 

loose. 

Are you aware of this problem number one? And number two, is 

there something you can do? Can the FBI assign some additional 

people there to help the Border Patrol in identifying people that, 

A, might be a terrorist threat or a dangerous criminal that the U.S. 

Attorney is just letting walk out the door? 

Mr. MUELLER. As I think I indicated before, I am not familiar 

with the 

Mr. CULBERSON. This is——

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Issue, but will look into that. 

[The information follows:] 

ASSIGNMENT OF AGENT IN TUCSON SECTOR

The FBI has a number of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and 

Safe Street Task Forces along the southwest border that work with state, local, and 

other federal law enforcement agencies to address the problem of drug smuggling 

across the southern border. 

Although an arrest may not be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney, the criminal is not 

necessarily released into the community. Many suspects who are arrested are processed for deportation through Customs and Border Patrol; other are handed over to 

state and local justice systems for processing. 

The FBI concentrates resources on making the largest impact possible. The FBI 

works cooperatively with law enforcement partners along the border to target the 

criminal enterprises behind the smuggling crime problem. If the arrest cannot be 

prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney, the FBI makes every effort to ensure that justice 

is served and that the best intelligence possible is gathered to dismantle the enterprise responsible. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. It is apparently going on in the San 

Diego sector. Director, I understand that they are turning loose literally almost everybody. This is dumbfounding to me. 

I have been meeting with the Department of Justice and attempting to try to find some resolution. They tell us in the budget 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
101 

request they have submitted to this Committee will help resolve 

that. But in the meantime, there has been no effort to change the 

.39 percent prosecution rate, which is deeply disturbing. 

In the brief time that I have got left, I wanted to ask you if you 

could to talk to us a little bit about the threat that the Homeland 

Security Secretary has talked to us about that al-Qaeda is recruiting Caucasians, people from Western Europe, that we might not—

that would be more difficult for us to respond. 

Can you talk to us about the changing nature of the type of people that al-Qaeda is trying to sneak into the country? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can speak generally, because it is an open session, to the fact that Al-Qaeda is utilizing portions of Afghanistan 

in federally administered tribal area of the Fatah for smaller training camps. 

The information we do have is that they are recruiting westerners, because they believe that persons with a valid passport, 

with either a European country or North American passport, will 

more easily pass scrutiny and be able to enter the United States. 

That is a current threat that we, the CIA, NSA, and ODNI are all 

concerned about. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Have you seen any additional evidence of this? 

Since the last time we visited last year and the year before I asked 

you about the FBI had seen indications of individuals from countries with known al-Qaeda connections changing their Islamic surnames either to Hispanic or other surnames. 

Could you talk to us a little bit more about that and how many 

examples of that type of identify change you have seen? 

Mr. MUELLER. I have no further information on that, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. I would like to work with someone in 

your office, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, you have been generous 

with the time, to work with you on this Tucson problem. 

And I think the FBI could do a world of good assigning an agent, 

maybe rotating him out in those booking rooms, in the Tucson sector and the San Diego sector. I think in the Laurenceberg also, 

which is the El Paso area. It is frankly appalling that the U.S. Attorney is not prosecuting arrests that you agents are making. It is 

ATF; it is FBI; it is DEA, and above all the Border Patrol. 

It is just astounding to me. And I know that it will be a real concern to you and your agents as well. And I would like to work with 

you to help try to resolve that. 

Mr. MUELLER. I must say I have not heard that was a problem. 

I would have thought that if there was a problem about it I would 

have heard about it. But we will look into that. And get back to 

you, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Latham. 

CYBERCRIME

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. We just 

opened a cybercrime facility in Iowa that deals with identify theft, 

child pornography, child predators. I just would like to have you 

maybe elaborate more on what is being done in that area. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
102 

I don’t think we are putting enough attention to this issue myself. You talk to some of the parents who have had children subjected to child predators and they believe that they can find a lot 

of these predators beforehand online. Additionally they believe that 

we are not doing what we should. If you could elaborate or what 

initiatives you think that we should be doing or that you are doing, 

that would be great. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well every one of the U.S. Attorney’s offices 

around the country, as well as every one of our offices, have some 

form of task force with state and local law enforcement to address 

this. 

And of course we have had a program called the Innocent Images 

Program for number of years. Our cases have grown expodentially 

over the years to address the proliferation of child pornography on 

the internet. 

As I may have indicated previously, state and local law enforcement often lack the resources to address this, because it takes 

some capability, not only investigative capability, but the understanding and additional capability of understanding and knowing 

how to investigate on the internet. 

Consequently, in each of these task forces around the country, we 

combine our expertise with the expertise that is developing in state 

and local law enforcement. 

We also have 14 Regional Computer Forensics Laboratories that 

are spread around the country. The forensics, which can be very 

time consuming, are conducted by our agents along with state and 

local law enforcement. That has been tremendously helpful. 

I see the problem getting worse as more persons utilize the Internet and more predators gravitate to the Internet. Several weeks 

ago, we took down a group of individuals here in the United States 

but also with our counterparts in Australia, Germany and the 

U.K., who had something along the lines of 400,000 child pornographic images that they would trade utilizing a specialized server 

with encryption. That arrest was substantial. 

It indicates that it is not just us working alone. It is us working 

together with our counterparts in countries such as Australia, Germany, and the U.K. in this particular case. So it is an issue that 

is going to be with us for a period time. 

Mr. LATHAM. You know, the parents in some of these very high 

profile cases have been in my office as well as those of other members. And, you know, they basically say there are systems available 

to track these people today. 

And I just am very concerned that we are not doing everything 

we can to go after these people. Some of the cases are so horrible, 

to see what has happened to these children. The forensics are what 

is being explored in Ankeny, Iowa, through the area community 

college. I believe there is cooperation with the FBI and local and 

state enforcement. 

But I would just encourage you to do everything possible. I think 

it is one of the most horrible crimes we should attack. 

But I will quit there for the moment anyway, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Fattah. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
103 

SURVEILLANCE

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have something very 

positive to say. First and foremost, I want to thank you for the 

FBI’s assistance in Philadelphia in terms of what has been a fairly 

significant violent crime and definitely a homicide rate increase 

over the last couple of years. We now have a decline in the homicide rate. The FBI has been working very closely with the local police department and the task force with DEA. I want to thank you 

for that publicly and on the record. 

I want to raise one other concern with you slightly off the budget. The issue is that your office acknowledged the surveillance of 

the late Coretta Scott King a few months back. And even after—

obviously, she was no longer with us. I thought that appropriate 

to be publicly acknowledged. And I want to thank the agency for 

doing so. 

Obviously, the eavesdropping was wrong. However, I didn’t hear 

that in the announcement. There was a factual announcement 

versus the one that, years after the death of Dr. King acknowledged that wiretapping and eavesdropping on a woman who had 

broken no laws was inappropriate. 

And so even though I appreciate the candor, I didn’t hear any 

suggestion in the acknowledgment that it was wrong. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, what I can tell you is that the Bureau today 

is a somewhat different Bureau than it was before. And my hope 

would be that we would treat any similar circumstances far differently. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Director, I have about ten different subjects that 

I need to cover, so I will try to make the questions as short as possible. If you can do the same with the answers, I would appreciate 

it. 

NSL VIOLATIONS

First of all, with respect to the NSL violations, let me simply ask 

a series of questions on this point. Is this the last time that we are 

going to hear about the FBI’s abuse of those authorities, or are we 

going to get a similar report about your use of those NSLs in 2007? 

Second question, an internal FBI audit, as I understand it, found 

out that the NSL violation rate in FBI field offices was two percent 

higher than the rate originally documented by the Office of the Inspector General. In the most recent report, the OIG found fault 

with your audit methodology and determined that the violation 

rate was still higher. 

What are you doing to ensure that we have an accurate baseline 

on the violation rate so that we can use that to evaluate your 

progress? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I answered the first question. And my open 

expectation is that this is a last time you will see an FBI or an OIG 

report that reflects the practices in some of the offices. It wasn’t 

all of the offices. Some of the offices that occurred in 2006. The last 

IG report covered 2006. It was required by Congress to cover that 

period. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
104 

And as I indicated before, the report said since that time, we 

have taken substantial steps to assure that it would not occur 

again. So, I would not expect that it would. 

In terms of the rate, there had been some disagreements with 

the Inspector General in terms of what is deemed to be a risk or 

not a risk, an error. 

I will say that in the wake of the IG report, we directed a ten 

percent audit of all of our offices, which was way beyond what the 

IG had done for the purposes of getting our own baseline much 

more throughly throughout the country. And I am not sure whether it was 2.7 we found slightly more than the IG did or not. I would 

have to check that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

An example of some of the disagreement many of these instances 

where we would send out a request, an NSL letter, and the communications carrier would respond with information that was beyond 

the request. 

Now, this was not initially our responsibility, but we did have a 

responsibility to identify what was within the request and that 

which was not in the request, to sequester it, and to make certain 

it was not used or didn’t go in our databases. 

We had some differences of opinion on how you would treat that 

particular issue, because many of the ones that he had come up 

with in that kind of circumstance, which is different than our—not 

having the appropriate approval, which is a different category. So, 

yes, there were disagreements with the IG, but I think they were 

relatively minimal. And we were on the same track in terms of 

evaluating our progress. 

Mr. OBEY. So you just raised the question of third-party errors. 

I will get to that in a minute. But before I do that, let me ask you 

a different question. 

You placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that the FBI is committed to implementing the recommendations for corrective actions. 

But most of those actions rely on the FBI itself to actually accomplish them. 

And the Inspector General report singles out turnover among 

middle management as one of the causes of noncompliance. But 

what are the corrective actions to address that problem? What are 

you doing to blunt the effect of high middle management turnover? 

Mr. MUELLER. When you look at those—I look at those statistics 

periodically. It depends to a certain extent how you define middle 

management. But in our SES ranks, the turnover is less than it 

has been over the last ten years. 

Inevitably in an organization such as ours as, well as in an organization such as the military, persons move through various stages 

of their careers and spend maybe two to three years in a particular 

position as they move up the ranks. 

That is a problem, because when persons go through the ranks, 

there may be an unwillingness to take ownership of problems that 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
105 

you get when you are there. And you don’t take ownership of it, 

because you are going to leave two or three years down the road. 

What we have done to address that is what I have talked about 

before is to assure compliance, because if persons from the Compliance Office are routinely looking at the procedures in place they 

have to assure that the procedures are being adhered to by the current occupant of that particular position. 

But that was a weakness. It was a weakness that contributed to 

the issues we had with national security. And I think we have addressed that with the Compliance Office. 

Mr. OBEY. I have two more questions on that point that I would 

like you to respond to for the record regarding third-party errors. 

The IG’s report gives us the impression that the FBI does not have 

consistent procedures for handling information that is mistakenly 

provided under an NSL. 

The result is that some agents are compounding third-party errors by uploading unauthorized information into FBI systems or 

sharing that information with other parties. 

Do you have a firm, consistent policy now for the disposition of 

unauthorized collections? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it definitely was a problem in the past, but 

we have changed our policies to address that. 

Mr. OBEY. Will you expand on that for the record? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on the details. I 

know that is one of the issues that we have addressed by requiring 

agents to make certain that they review the documents that are 

provided by the third-party carriers and make certain that they are 

relevant in the ambit of the NSL. When that is not the case, to 

take appropriate action where those are, outside say the time period requested. And that means not uploading it, not utilizing 

them, and sequestering them until a determination can be made, 

or in some cases where they become necessary as the investigation 

goes along, issuing additional NSLs. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. OBEY. It is our understanding that the NSL Working Group 

has declined to set limits on the use or retention of NSL-derived 

information beyond the FBI’s preexisting general data policies. 

First of all, is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain that it has reached a definitive 

decision on that. I know the IG is concerned about the work that 

he perceives has not been done by the group to fully address this 

issue. And I am not certain of where the group is at this juncture 

in terms of addressing that particular issue. 

Mr. OBEY. Well our concern is that this could mean that an individual’s NSL-derived information can be uploaded into FBI systems 

and retained for extended periods of time, even if that person is 

subsequently determined to no longer be of investigative interests. 

The IG recommended that the NSL Working Group reevaluate 

these recommendations and try to find a better balance. Will the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
106 

FBI, as a Working Group member, commit to reexamining this 

issue and forming a more measured data use and retention policy? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I have indicated to the IG we will. Absolutely. 

Mr. OBEY. And what do you think the time frame will be on that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am really uncertain on that. I would have to get 

back to you on that, sir. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

Mr. OBEY. Okay. With respect to harsh interrogation techniques, 

it is my understanding that the FBI is due some credit on this 

issue. The FBI has refused to allow its agents to engage in harsh 

or enhanced interrogation techniques. And the FBI has even pulled 

its agents out of joint interrogations with the CIA when FBI personnel witnessed methods that violated the Bureau’s internal policies. 

Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. OBEY. Would you state for the benefit of the Committee, why 

you think it is good policy for the FBI to not engage in or even witness the types of harsh interrogation techniques that are suggested? 

Mr. MUELLER. Our longstanding policy prohibits the use of any 

coercive techniques. And over the years we have come to the belief 

that policy is appropriate and sufficient to our mission. Understanding that our mission traditionally, and in most cases, has 

been applicable to the work that we do within the United States 

or with the view towards the information only being used in a 

courtroom. 

But we believe that one needs to develop rapport with the individual being interviewed. And that has been the method we have 

used. We have prohibited the use of coercive methods, and we believe that is sufficient and appropriate to our mission. 

Mr. OBEY. Well, I appreciate that. And I commend you for that 

response. 

I will submit a couple of questions to you for the record on this 

point. And then let me turn to our friend FISA. 

FISA SURVEILLANCE

How common is it for an information provider to give the FBI 

more information than is requested when executing a FISA order? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well in execution of a FISA order, I think it is uncommon. I would have to go back and ask that particular question. 

But I think it is very uncommon, because there is a court order 

that general counsel usually has, and the company has the responsibility of providing the information within the ambit of that court 

order. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
107 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Attaching that to national security letters was relatively common. And I say ‘‘relatively’’ in terms of the errors that we looked 

at in the national security letter issue. It was relatively common 

that the errors would be third-party errors because their accounting systems or their internal bill keeping systems would enable 

them very easily to respond to a request for telephone calls on a 

particular number for a particular time period. And that time period may well not have matched up with the time period requested 

in the subpoena. 

It was easy for the third-party carrier to just give us everything. 

I would say it is far, far less of a problem when it comes to responsiveness to a FISA order. But I would have to get back to you on 

that. 

Mr. OBEY. Did anyone notify the holders of the accounts in question that they had been inadvertently collected? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. 

Mr. OBEY. Why? 

Mr. MUELLER. In part because it would disclose ongoing investigations. 

Mr. OBEY. Well, I have two more questions for you on this point. 

I mean, the reason we raise it is that a New York Times article 

last month reported that in the course of a FISA surveillance operation, the FBI inadvertently received access to the email messages 

of an entire computer network instead of the single email address 

that was approved through the FISA court. 

It seems to me that when something like that occurs it raises interesting questions about what the target ought to be told. 

Mr. MUELLER. I understand your concern in that regard. 

Mr. OBEY. Unpaid bills. For the record, how many FBI wiretaps 

do you believe were dropped due to nonpayment of bills? 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t think there were any wiretaps that—well, 

I take that back. I think if I recall correctly, and I would have to 

go recheck the report, but I think the IG identified five instances 

where that may have occurred. I believe we investigated them. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

We found two instances where in 2002 that occurred. But that 

in neither case did—was the investigation adversely affected as a 

result of that. 

There were 16 recommendations from the Inspector General. And 

we have resolved—at this juncture I think closed one or more or 

otherwise resolved all 16 of those recommendations. 

TERRORIST WATCH LIST

Mr. OBEY. Okay. On the question of terrorist watch list reporting, the Justice IG, as I understand it, has released a new report. 

And in that report he found that the FBI was not always providing 

updated nominations when new information became known about 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
108 

an individual, including information that should have resulted in 

the individual being removed from the watch list. 

When will you finally have all the necessary procedures in place 

to ensure that people who are mistakenly on the watch list will 

promptly be removed from the list? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I believe there was some delay in getting information on that. My belief is that we have addressed that at this 

juncture. 

And I would have to get back to you with more specifics on that 

one. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. OBEY. One more question on that. Again, as I understand it, 

the OIG review was done in concert with reviews by other IGs and 

agencies that also participate in the terrorist watch listing process. 

Can you tell us anything about the findings of those other reports? 

Do they indicate any additional problems with information sharing 

that you and the FBI and other watch list——

Mr. MUELLER. I did read the report. It did mention the experiences of other agencies. I did not focus on that. I do think that the 

procedures we have in place for the most part were valid and appropriate. As you pointed out and as the IG pointed out, there was 

a delay in getting information if I recall correctly that should have 

been updated from the particular record of individuals. My belief 

is that we have addressed that. 

MISTAKEN IDENTITIES

Mr. OBEY. Let us move to the question of mistaken identities. In 

recent years, the FBI mistakenly linked an Oregon lawyer to a terrorist bombing in Spain, wrongly suspected the security guard who 

found a bomb in the Atlanta Olympic bombing, wrongly arrested 

several men for the Yosemite murders, and shot a 20-year-old Baltimore man when he was mistaken for a bank robber. 

Why do these mistaken identity cases persist? What is the FBI 

doing to avoid those mistakes? And what kind of public affairs 

standards are in place to guide what an investigator can say to the 

media about a suspect’s presumed guilt or innocence? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, addressing the last question. The guidance 

says that the case should not be discussed, except for certain limited exceptions prior to return of an indictment or the filing of an 

arrest. Then whatever is said should be within the parameters of 

that charging document where the statement is always made. Until 

conviction of the individuals, they are entitled to the presumption 

of innocence. 

With regard to the number of cases that you have listed as mistaken identity, I think if you look at each of them it has been a 

different set of circumstances. The shooting in Baltimore was an 

agent in a very fluid situation who believed that the individual 

that he was pursuing was indeed a criminal. That was a mistake 

in a very fluid situation. It was a wrong. But it was a very fluid 

situation. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
109 

The circumstance of the fingerprints in Oregon was a completely 

different type of mistake whereby the individual had fingerprints 

that were very close to fingerprints found on a package at one of 

the Madrid stations. Our examiner did not do the type of thorough 

evaluation that should have been done. 

We brought in, in that particular case, an outside panel of experts to see what happened, why it went wrong in this particular 

place, and put in procedures to assure it would not happen again. 

So in each of these cases of mistaken identity, we have looked 

at and put into place procedures to assure they would not happen 

again to the extent that we can give that assurance. 

Mr. OBEY. Let me digress for a moment to explain to you why 

it personally gets under my skin when I see information come out 

in the general public implying that someone has been involved in 

a crime, and then we find out afterwards it was false information. 

This story is going to take a little time. 

When I was in the Wisconsin Legislature, I was subpoenaed to 

appear before a grand jury to testify about what I knew about the 

conduct of the Republican floor leader in the Assembly. I had been 

told by the Attorney General that no one would know that I was 

coming to that grand jury until I actually appeared. 

One hour after I had been given that assurance, my name was 

all over the radio in Wisconsin, with the AP reporting that I was 

to be called before the grand jury. No indication that I was not a 

target. No indication that I was being called to testify about what 

someone of the opposite party had done, about which I knew nothing. Yet I can assure you that within 24 hours, there were a hell 

of a lot of people in the entire State of Wisconsin who thought I 

had been guilty of something, or I wouldn’t be called before a grand 

jury. 

It took about four months before the information became public 

enough that people had their impression corrected. 

Now that is just a minor, little example of what happens to 

someone called as a witness in a case. You can imagine the turmoil 

when people’s lives are literally ruined. There will always be people 

who think that the parties in the Atlanta case, or in the other 

fingerprinting case in Spain, were guilty. 

So it seems to me that the government has a special obligation 

to be damn careful before they ruin somebody’s life through mistaken information or carelessness. 

I really want to know what the agency is doing to make certain 

that that simply does not happen again and that you have adequate guidelines to make sure that some loudmouth doesn’t accidentally loose that information on the American people. 

Mr. MUELLER. I agree with your view of the issue and the problem. Whenever that occurs, we conduct an investigation. I take 

what action is necessary to address what I would consider that 

misconduct. 

I will tell you also that I think we do have an obligation to put 

out the information as to the innocence of a particular person. 

When I was Chair in the Department of Justice, if that did happen, 

it happens in this town, there are a lot of people that talk unfortunately. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
110 

If that happened, the lawyer could send a letter saying is my target either a subject or a target in an investigation. We would be 

very quick to send a letter back saying no. 

So the person could say, I was called into the grand jury, but I 

am neither a subject nor a target of the investigation and have the 

word of the Justice Department if that is the case. 

So, I share your concern about those issues. I wish it did not 

happen. I also can tell you it is unfortunate that we do make mistakes in our investigations and investigations are not always clean. 

We hope to do as thorough and efficient investigation as we can to 

determine the persons who deservedly will face some form of process and to assure that others who may have been under the shadow of that investigation are outside that shadow. 

DEVELOPMENT OF BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. OBEY. Okay. I raised this with you yesterday on your budget. 

The FBI, in your new budget request, is requesting funding for 41 

different initiatives, some as small as a million dollars. 

As I told you yesterday, it seemed to us that that is quite a scattershot approach, especially when increases for your agency are essentially being financed by cutbacks in aid to state and local law 

enforcement. We are looking for an indication that the agency’s 

budget request is in fact disciplined. 

I know you would like to respond to that and give your view. So 

why don’t you go ahead. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, each of our budget requests fits into a category that is essential to our growth as an organization, as we augment our law enforcement capabilities with intelligence capabilities. 

We are requesting additional people for weapons of mass destruction, confidential human source validation, the field investigations. 

All within the category of domain and operations. 

There are a number of areas under surveillance, whether it be 

technical surveillance in which we have to keep up with technology, or physical surveillance where we have to augment our capabilities in the physical surveillance arena. 

Infrastructure, we have to build. One of the things that we recognize is we have to build the capability in our offices to handle 

growth. As we become more a part of the intelligence community 

in Washington, we have to have the capability to handle top secret 

information in all of our offices, which means building the infrastructure. 

Regarding technology, DNA was mentioned today. We are requesting $30 million to address the backlog in DNA. I talk about 

partnerships, the fusion centers, the counterterrorism operations, 

which include the Joint Terrorism Task Forces are exactly the vehicles that I think we can maximize not only our effectiveness, but 

the effectiveness of state and local law enforcement where the 

crimes they see in their communities transcend the borders of 

those communities. The Bureau has the jurisdiction to conduct the 

investigation with them throughout the United States or internationally. 

Lastly, in the workforce, the key to our growth is developing the 

recruiting capabilities to hire, to train, the career development in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
111 

each of our specialized areas, whether it be cyber, intelligence, 

source development. That requires the growth of our workforce to 

do it. 

In the past, we have done a very good job with new agents. Our 

new agent training at Quantico is probably second to none. We do 

a very good job with the National Academy, where we bring in 

every quarter 250–300 state and local law enforcement. 

But we have not built up the capacity to train beyond that. 

Training career paths for agents or analysts to provide the type of 

training we need for our intelligence cadre. Those are the areas 

that we put forth in our budget. 

While we have itemized them and some of them are small enhancements, they all fit in to our strategic management system 

outline of what we need to make the Bureau a flexible, adaptable 

organization for the threats of the future. 

Mr. OBEY. Before I ask you these last questions, let me ask you 

if you have any other questions. 

CNC

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if Mr. 

Mueller could expand on the cyber initiative. That is one of your 

largest initiatives. Could you talk a little bit about why that is so 

important? And obviously within the bounds of this room how you 

are going to be using all of these employees. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, cyber expands across a number of particular 

venues. It could be fraud schemes now moved to the internet. 

You have the capability of those who want to target our infrastructure, whether it be the energy infrastructure or the electricity 

infrastructure where you can utilize the internet to infect systems. 

You have a number of countries, as well as individuals seeking 

to extricate information from our banking system, from our commercial enterprises, either to gain intellectual property or obtain 

information that would enable them to undertake some fraudulent 

scheme. You have terrorists using the internet now to communicate, to train, to introduce persons of the same ideology to others. 

You have to develop defensive mechanisms within the United 

States to protect that information that is and flows on the internet. 

Our piece is the investigative piece. And we do it in conjunction 

with the NSA, with DOD and on a task force. 

The funds that we are seeking will help us both in terms of the 

training, in terms of the personnel, in terms of the computer capabilities that we need to be effective as the threat of— in each of 

these areas grows in the years ahead. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are tripling the staff. You are doubling 

the budget. The key people are your cyber intelligence analysts. 

Tell us a little bit about them? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Any one of them——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Who do you have out there? What does the 

landscape look like? 

Mr. MUELLER. You have——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is really one of your largest initiatives. 

And that is something that we want to be supportive of. 

Mr. MUELLER. It is all part of the Administration’s address of the 

cyber challenge in the future of which we play a substantial role. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
112 

We need new persons in the organization who not only are knowledgeable of technology today, but can continuously keep up with 

the technology as it expands tomorrow. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You will bring on over 100 people here. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume you are pretty confident you are 

going to meet that target? 

Mr. MUELLER. Without a question of doubt. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBEY. Sure. Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. I will pass. 

Mr. OBEY. Okay. I have a whole series of questions I will submit 

to you for the record. 

Mr. MUELLER. Okay. 

INTELLIGENCE ANALYST STAFFING

Mr. OBEY. Let me just wind it up by asking you a question on 

two subjects. With respect to intelligence analysts, what were your 

hiring goals for analysts in fiscal year 2007? Did you meet them 

based on your end-of-the-year on board level? How close were you 

to the authorized level? Also what is the current attrition rate for 

intelligence analysts? And what are you doing to lower attrition? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just ask for a second. Last year, I think 

we came within five percent of our goal. This year the hiring goal 

is 461. 

And as I said, we have an initiative addressing the recruiting 

and the hiring of the enhance analytical cadre this year. 

I would have to get back to you on the retention rate. We just 

had a survey that was actually a part of DOD survey in terms of 

the retention. And we did quite well. Not as well as others in the 

intelligence community, but we are always looking for ways to enhance the—our retention rate. 

INTELLIGENCE ANALYST RETENTION

The Department is working expeditiously on this response and will transmit it to 

the Committee on Appropriations as soon as it is complete. 

There is tremendous competition out there in as much as a number of agents are looking or agencies are looking for analysts. I will 

tell you that almost all our agents like working with the FBI, enjoy 

the work that they do there, and want to stay. 

Part of it is for us it is building—as was alluded to by yourself 

or Congressman Ruppersberger is building up the career paths for 

analysts so that they replicate the career paths that other intelligence agencies and have been for a number of years. That is one 

of the things that we are working on hard. 

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Mr. OBEY. Okay. One last question on international activities. I 

am told that the NYPD’s intelligence division established its own 

international program in 2002 and now has personnel in ten locations worldwide. 

Why does someone like NYPD have an intelligence or 

counterterrorism issue overseas that shouldn’t be run through the 

FBI? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
113 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, Ray Kelly—— Mr. OBEY. Why do they think they have to establish another program? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think there are probably two reasons. I 

haven’t talked to Ray Kelly about it. But I am not certain if I were 

in his position I wouldn’t do the same thing if I had the resources 

to do it. 

First of all, their officers overseas intersect with their direct 

counterparts in terms of developing new ways of addressing terrorism. So it is a learning mechanism for NYPD to see what other 

police departments do where this would not be high on the list of 

our legal attache ́ offices. 

Secondly, it gives him immediate return on a particular incident. 

Whereas ours would come through the security service or from our 

counterpart through our legal attache ́ and through our New York 

office. 

So, in terms of speed of response and information as well as the 

opportunity to learn the best practices of other police departments, 

he has done that for a number of years. And I am not sure in his 

position I wouldn’t be doing the same thing, again, if I had the resources. 

STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS

Mr. OBEY. All right. Let me ask you one last question. I know 

you are concerned about the state of budgets for state and local law 

enforcement. What are the impacts of a billion and a half dollar cut 

in state and local law enforcement funds? What are the negative 

impacts of that on local law enforcement? And do those impacts net 

back on you or the Justice Department in general in terms of your 

work in dealing with crime? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think I would refer you to the state and local 

law enforcement about the impacts on their particular departments 

from those cuts. 

From our perspective to the extent that the police departments 

do not have the funding, we have fewer participating on task 

forces. For many communities in the United States, terrorism is 

not an immediate issue. But for the country as a whole, it is tremendously important that we integrate the capabilities of the Bureau and state and local law enforcement to understand if a Mohammed Atta is moving into the community or others who would 

undertake a terrorist attack. 

It does not give an immediate response or the capability to state 

and local law enforcement when they are facing their own budgets. 

What is primary for them is reducing violent crime and the like. 

Consequently, we see the impact in terms of fewer personnel participating in our Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which I think are 

tremendously important in addressing the threats of today. We 

have to do it together as partners shoulder to shoulder. 

Mr. OBEY. Okay. Thank you for your time. We are out of time. 

But we will be submitting a number of questions for the record. 

Thanks. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
114 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(115) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS 

MICHELE M. LEONHART, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. 

I would like to welcome Michele Leonhart, Acting Administrator of 

the Drug Enforcement Administration, to discuss DEA’s fiscal year 

2009 budget request. We appreciate your testimony, Ms. Leonhart, 

and commend you for your services both as Deputy Administrator 

and Acting Administrator while the top position at DEA remains 

unfilled. 

The last few fiscal years have been difficult ones for DEA. Due 

to shifting priorities within the administration, we have seen less 

emphasis on criminal enforcement matters such as drug trafficking 

and violent crime. This lack of emphasis has been apparent in 

DEA’s proposed budgets which have included offsets and other reductions, particularly in the area of State and local assistance. The 

committee has attempted to help where possible by rejecting or 

scaling back proposed offsets and providing funds to mitigate the 

impact of a longstanding hiring freeze, but we were not able to go 

as far as some might have liked. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 request for DEA is $1.9 billion, 

an increase of 4 percent and includes 21 million for new enforcement operations and diversion control efforts. I am encouraged that 

this year’s budget request does not include any harmful offsets to 

DEA’s services, but I am also not entirely convinced that this budget provides everything needed to continue making progress in the 

fight against drug trafficking and related crimes. I am interested 

to hear your thoughts on the adequacy of your request and how you 

intend to get the best possible results through the initiatives you 

have proposed. 

Your written testimony will be made a part of the record and we 

will invite you to make your oral presentation, but first I would invite Mr. Frelinghuysen, the subcommittee’s ranking member, for 

any comments he would like to make. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Leonhart, 

welcome aboard and your team this morning. At the onset I would 

like to commend you and your employees for the important and 

often dangerous work you do every day, both domestically and 

overseas, to protect American communities from the scourge of 

drug trafficking. You are also increasingly making yourselves indispensable in our counterterrorism efforts. So please pass along from 

all of our committee members this committee’s thanks and the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
116 

Congress’ thanks. And congratulations on your apprehension of the 

merchant of death in Thailand, Viktor Bout. Just the name puts 

a chill in your blood. Overall you are requesting $1.94 billion, an increase of 4.2 above 

the current year. For fiscal year 2008 the committee was able to 

increase your funding at least to the level where you were able to 

lift your hiring freeze. We were disappointed that we couldn’t do 

more, quite honestly. I understand that during the freeze there was 

a considerable loss of agents. I am sure we will hear more about 

that in the course of our discussion and that you are reversing 

some of those losses. I will have questions about what resources 

are requested or required to fill those vacancies and bring you up 

to full strength, and again I welcome you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Ms. Leonhart, thank you. 

Ms. LEONHART. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to discuss the President’s 2009 budget request for the Drug Enforcement 

Administration. I want to thank the subcommittee for its support, 

which has allowed DEA to resume hiring and restoring our Mobile 

Enforcement Team program. I have been a DEA Special Agent for 

almost 28 years and I have had the privilege to fight the drug war 

with some of the most talented, creative and courageous people. 

DEA agents work their whole career to inflict severe damage to 

the drug trade, and I am proud to report we are doing that kind 

of harm like never before. We know we have hurt traffickers because demand is at its lowest levels in years. 860,000 fewer teenagers are using illicit drugs now than 6 years ago. 

We are now experiencing a sustained period in which drug prices 

increased and purities fell, demonstrating that the illicit drug delivery system is under considerable stress and suggesting insufficient supply. During 2007, the average price for a pure gram of cocaine increased 21 percent and the purity decreased 20 percent. 

For meth the price increased 84 percent and the purity decreased 

26 percent. Shortages of cocaine have been reported in at least 37 

United States cities. 

Quest data released today further demonstrate this trend. In the 

last year, 19 percent fewer workers tested positive for cocaine and 

22 percent fewer for meth than in 2006. 

We know what we are doing is working when we see that traffickers have been forced to delay or suspend their activities, divert 

their routes, change their modes of transportation, and even jettison their drug loads. We have achieved these tremendous successes as a result of a perfect storm of enforcement, working closely 

with Colombia and Mexico in a true tripartite environment to simultaneously launch drug enforcement and military action against 

the highest level traffickers and unprecedented attacks on the financial foundation of the drug trade, resulting in the amount of 

revenue DEA denies to drug traffickers going from $1.6 billion in 

2006 to a staggering $3.5 billion in revenue denied just last year. 

I am happy to report that we are currently surpassing last year’s 

record numbers, and it is the convergence of intense pressure 

placed on meth producers and traffickers thanks in part to national 

legislation passed by Congress, strong laws passed by many States 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
117 

and joint enforcement efforts. Seizures of domestic meth superlabs 

dropped 93 percent over the past 5 years. Seizures of small domestic toxic labs dropped 73 percent from the peak in 2003. This success is due in large part to DEA designing and successfully implementing a revolutionary enforcement strategy, attacking transit 

zone routes in the Western hemisphere. 

The plan was devised by seasoned DEA agents who, using our 

agency’s 35 years of experience, calculated innovative ways to 

cause traffickers to make mistakes. We then capitalize on those 

mistakes and disrupt their traditional transportation lines for 

drugs, money and chemicals. We force traffickers to change their 

operating procedures and put them into an uncertain reactive 

mode, which has resulted in unprecedented money and drug seizures and arrests of druglords. 

With our drug flow attack strategy, which we call DFAS, we 

went from playing checkers to playing chess. This perfect storm of 

enforcement has flooded traffickers with obstacles, resulting in a 

reduction in the drug supply across the country. But we are not 

claiming all out victory, many challenges remain, chief among them 

prescription drug abuse. 

What we are claiming is that innovative, sustained drug enforcement is working and to build on these efforts we look to you for 

help. I don’t come to you with just a concept or an idea on paper 

that might work. I come to you with the proven strategy that has 

already yielded tremendous results and contributed to a decreased 

drug supply in neighborhoods across America. But we want to do more. With an additional $20 million investment in DFAS, we can address a critical missing piece, an end 

game capability. This is the enhanced ability to move law enforcement officers and resources to remote locations very quickly, to get 

cops to the fight when large amounts of drugs are moving by air, 

land and sea, and there is no time to lose. With that we will have 

the flexibility and mobility to beat traffickers at their own game. 

On behalf of the men and women of DEA, I thank you again for 

your unwavering support last year and ask for your support once 

again to help us achieve even more dramatic results in the fight 

against drugs. 

Thank you. 

[Statement of the honorable Michele M. Leonhart, Acting Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
118 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 42792A.038
119 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 42792A.039
120 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 42792A.040
121 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 42792A.041
122 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 42792A.042
123 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 42792A.043
124 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 42792A.044
125 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 42792A.045
126 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 42792A.046
127 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 42792A.047
128 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 42792A.048
129 

ADEQUACY OF FY 2009 REQUEST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for the tremendous job you are doing, 

and your presentation there reflects that, and your record leading 

up to your testimony is clear that you are all doing a great job. The 

committee was pleased to support you all last year and understand 

the necessity for you to have adequate resources. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I was encouraged to 

see the DEA’s fiscal year 2009 budget request includes new money 

for DEA without accompanying offsets, and we hope that these increases will allow you to build on the support that the Congress 

provided in 2008. 

With that being said, we know that the administration sometimes proposes budgets that don’t provide enough base support to 

maintain the prior year’s service level. Does DEA’s fiscal year 2009 

request contain all the necessary funding to sustain the level of operations that Congress provided in the 2008 bill? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, Chairman, we are happy with the President’s budget. It includes resources to maintain the hiring that we 

will do this year. That was our most important piece that will allow 

us to have agent and non-agent hiring. It also continues the funding Congress provided to restore a portion of our meth program. 

The base adjustments will ensure we keep pace with our increasing costs. And the one initiative we are asking for is a very small 

initiative, but it is our highest funding priority. So we are very satisfied with our budget request. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about balance between your major activities, international enforcement, domestic enforcement, State and 

local law enforcement, diversion control? Do you have a balance in 

your request? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am glad that you asked me that. As a seasoned 

agent looking at that budget and being involved in the budget, I 

can say it looks like it is heavy on international, but being a drug 

agent I can tell you that we cannot just look at the picture down 

here. We can’t on the domestic end do damage to these cartels and 

take drugs off our streets without really focusing on the international front. So the balance is there. What we are asking for with 

our new threat on prescription drugs, what we are asking for in the 

diversion fee account, allows us—I will get into that later about 

what we are going to use that money for—that allows us to attack 

our biggest threat now domestically, which is prescription drugs. 

At the same time our budget request now is asking for a piece 

to help out our drug flow attack strategy. By having these resources we will be able to attack in the source zone and transit 

zones in the western hemisphere before cocaine and these drugs 

ever reach Mexico. This helps out every community in the United 

States. The loads that are sent by these cartels, Mexican and Colombia cartels, through the transit zone to Mexico are in the metric 

tons. The seizure you see down here is the world’s largest seizure 

of cocaine. I will talk about that in a minute. This is how it arrives 

in Mexico. But when it comes across the border, it is coming in carloads with 40 to 50 kilos at a time and going out to our cities. We 

need a defense in depth where we are attacking the cartels and we 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
130 

are doing what we can in the transit zone. We are protecting our 

borders by this strategy. 

So as a domestic agent who has worked all over the country, 

done a lot of undercover cases, and I consider myself a street agent, 

I can tell you that I could never round up enough police officers 

and task force officers to seize that much cocaine. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are going to stick to the 5-minute rule in the 

first round so all members have a chance in the first round, and 

then members can take more time in the second round. 

If other members don’t ask about your career in the second 

round, I am going to ask about it because it sounds very interesting. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to Mr. 

Rogers. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

Mr. ROGERS. I thank you for the courtesy. I have another hearing 

that I have to attend at Homeland Security, which is my main subcommittee, but I wanted to be sure and be here at least for the 

opening part of your testimony. And I want to thank my colleague 

for yielding me this time and being very courteous. 

Like the chairman, I think DEA does a fantastic job and you are 

leading this organization at a very critical time. I appreciate your 

focus; at least part of your focus is on prescription drug abuse. In 

my district in southern and eastern Kentucky we were ground zero 

for that; in the U.S. we lead the country in prescription drug abuse. 

In 2005, a story by a statewide newspaper gave rise to an organization which has been unbelievably successful. UNITE seeks to mobilize citizenry, church groups, and we have been able to get 35 undercover agents that so far have arrested nearly 2,500 pushers 

with a 98 percent conviction rate. Therefore, counselors at schools, 

drug treatment centers, vouchers for poor people who can’t afford 

treatment that have treated 1,100 people. There are drug courts in 

every county now and they have 1,470 people who have participated. 

But the big story was the amount of seized drugs, with DEA’s 

help and all other law enforcement officials, has been phenomenally successful. So far they have taken out of circulation 9,000 

grams of cocaine, 74,000 pills, 197 grams of marijuana, you name 

it. But I wanted to compliment DEA for the tremendous cooperation that we have between UNITE and the DEA agents. 

Once the FBI pulled out of law enforcement and entered anti-terrorism, something that I think all of us feared at the outset would 

be a problem, DEA stepped up on drug enforcement. Karen Engle, 

the Director of the UNITE operation, says, ‘‘The DEA is our most 

supportive agency, they are the best Federal agency by far in terms 

of helping us get the bigger dealers.’’ just a word of thanks for the 

great cooperative effort in my part of Kentucky. 

But I wanted to ask you about prescription drug abuse, which in 

my area is the biggest problem. I think you said nationally it is the 

same. These are deadly. We were having a death a week of kids 

in the emergency rooms of our hospitals because of prescription 

drug abuse, and it is still going on. A lot of these people are elderly 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
131 

citizens who have a legitimate prescription for painkillers, but who 

take a portion of their prescription and sell it off making tons of 

money. 

OxyContin still is one of the most abused drugs, a good drug for 

terminally ill patients for severe pain. But the FDA refuses to 

change the prescription rules under which OxyContin can be prescribed. It should be just for severe, terminally ill patients, severe 

pain, but FDA allows it to be prescribed for common pain. It is extremely addictive and extremely difficult drug to get off of once you 

are hooked. It has been a deadly problem in my part of country. 

But the biggest source I am told now by the agents of UNITE 

and your folks as well, investigative agents, is off the Internet by 

a few unscrupulous pharmacies and doctors. People get on the 

Internet and order a supply of whatever they want. The most dangerous job in my district a while back was not coal mining, although that is dangerous. You know what the most dangerous job 

in my district was? Driving a UPS or FedEx delivery truck, loaded 

with drugs ordered off the Internet. People will stop at nothing to 

get those drugs and they were hijacking these trucks. It is an incredible situation. 

So prescription drug abuse on the Internet is most severe issue. 

Kentucky ranks seventh in the Nation for per capita unintentional 

drug poisoning fatalities. But guess what State is first, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I was afraid you would ask me that. 

Mr. ROGERS. West Virginia is number 1 in the Nation for per 

capita unintentional drug poisoning mortalities. Kentucky has 11.6 

per 100,000. I don’t know what yours is, but it is higher. 

The number of Internet pharmacies selling controlled prescription drugs from 2006 to 2007 increased by 70 percent, 342 went up 

to 581. Eighty-four percent of these pharmacies do not require a 

prescription to purchase drugs, and of those that do, 57 percent accepted a faxed prescription. So it is a major problem. I wonder 

what you might think about that, Madam? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, Congressman, for recognizing the 

problem that we have with the prescription drugs. Let me start by 

saying a lot of what I have learned over the last 5 years on prescription drugs came from Mike Sapp from the Kentucky State police. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Ms. LEONHART. So I know exactly what you are talking about 

when you talk about the FedEx trucks. We invited him to sit on 

a committee for IAW, and at two meetings a year he tells us about 

what is happening in Kentucky. And I can tell you both West Virginia, which is leading the country, and Kentucky, we learn more 

from your local law enforcement about what is going to show up 

next around the country when it comes to prescription drugs. So 

let me tell you a little bit about what we are going to do about it 

and have been doing about it. 

This is a new area for law enforcement officers. You know most 

of us don’t have a lot of experience on a computer. We spend our 

time going after drug dealers. So we have spent the last 41⁄2, 5 

years educating our agents on how to best combat this problem and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
132 

how to go after these rogue Internet sites. You are absolutely right 

when you say it is a problem. 

I will give you an example. Rogue Internet sites, 95 percent of 

what they sell is controlled substances. A real pharmacy, a brick 

and mortar pharmacy, in this country typically only sells about 11 

percent. Their prescriptions for controlled substance only add up to 

about 11 percent. So we have had to look very hard at what we are 

going to do and very quickly bring our agent workforce and our 

task force officers we work with up to speed on this problem. 

What we have done is convert 100 vacant diversion investigator 

positions over to agents, to bring agents into the diversion program. They bring with them the law enforcement authority. So like 

a Mike Sapp, they can go out and investigate these. It is organized 

crime is what it is. We have already begun that. We also are asking for a $4 million increase for our online investigation for SOD to do wire taps on these pharmacies. We realize 

that we also need to look internationally and we need an extra diversion investigator in Guatemala. We have found that we have 

had cases coming out of Guatemala and Belize where, on the Internet, because they are uncontrolled when they are international, our 

citizens are buying drugs using a credit card. These drugs are coming in from these foreign countries illegally and nobody knows if 

they are counterfeit, nobody knows if they are really safe. So we 

have looked at it from the international standpoint. 

We also looked at what we are going to do domestically and we 

came up with a strategy. If you go on the computer and you type 

in hydrocodone no prescription, you will get about a thousand hits. 

And when you go through those websites you can’t tell if those are 

tied to one person or one organization, but this is how they advertise. So we have done a couple of things. Instead of chasing the 

ants at the picnic we have decided we had to find out what the 

chokepoint was and use that and we found the perfect chokepoint 

about a year ago and we have had success. 

There are only a handful of major wholesalers that are the distributors to these pharmacies. So we have turned our cases against 

them and have had quite a bit of success. Not only are we able to 

stop the distributor who is supplying the drugs that someone is 

buying from these Internet pharmacies, but there is also a real 

pharmacy behind the Internet pharmacy. The Internet pharmacy is 

nothing but a broker, someone who goes out and buys doctors and 

buys a pharmacy and says I will pay you, doctor, $200 a script if 

you will sit there all day and push the button and approve these 

prescriptions. So it is big business and we have gone after the 

wholesalers, these distributors under our distributor strategy, and 

we are shutting down Internet pharmacies and brick and mortar 

pharmacies. And two of the wholesalers we just shut down are a 

part of Fortune 500 companies and this has sent this message that 

you better know who you are distributing to. 

We are in the works now on some settlements and quite soon we 

will probably see one of the largest settlements civilly the DEA has 

ever had going after the wholesalers. We have taken a different 

look at it and we realized that our diversion investigators that do 

not have law enforcement authority can only investigate. They 

can’t do search warrants, they can’t do surveillance, they can’t 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
133 

make arrests. They need to be side by side with agents and with 

intelligence analysts, and that is the way we are going to get ahead 

of this problem. 

Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member’s indulgence to allow me to go first here and I have used up 

my time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have another one? 

Mr. ROGERS. I wanted to quickly point out two things. One, I 

think there needs to be a new Federal law that grants DEA more 

authority to go after illegal Internet pharmacists. In Kentucky, 

UNITE took busloads of people to lobby this bill through the State. 

They passed a statute that says that no one can ship drugs to a 

patient without the patient having had a face-to-face meeting with 

the doctor who prescribed the medicine. If an Internet pharmacy 

ships drugs into the State without having done what I just said, 

we can seize the drugs. We have had raids on UPS and FedEx 

warehouses under that new law, and it really has had a big effect. 

I wonder what you might think about the need for a Federal statute that governs the same practice? 

Ms. LEONHART. You are absolutely right. There are loopholes, especially with the face-to-face doctor piece. I am aware that there 

is legislation right now addressing these Internet gaps, S. 980, and 

I hope that Congress will learn more about this and act on this legislation. That would significantly help our efforts. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a need for such a law? 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you think it would be effective? 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the biggest source of drug abuse in my area 

and I think probably the country is Internet prescription drug accessibility. Tons and tons of drugs have been coming in. We have 

made a dent in that with this new State law, but without an equivalent Federal law the States across the border from my State can 

get those Internet drugs in and they quickly come across the State 

line. There needs to be a Federal law that would do much of what 

I said Kentucky’s new statute does. 

I want to thank you for your focus and I think one reason why 

you are being so successful is you have been a street agent and you 

know what is out there. It is not a pretty sight, and there is a lot 

of kids that are now orphaned by parents who have become drug 

abusers and they are the most pitiful people who are victims of 

these crimes. 

Thank you for your great work. I want to thank the chairman 

and the ranking member again for indulging me. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Hal. You are doing a great job down 

there in Kentucky. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would think you might want to go to one 

of your members and I would like to go after one of your members, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Aderholt. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
134 

METHAMPHETAMINE

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. It is good to have you here before the 

subcommittee today. When I walked in I was just noticing your 

chart here with methamphetamine and of course cocaine as well, 

but methamphetamine is an issue that probably more affects the 

area that I represent. I represent a district in northern Alabama, 

and methamphetamine has been an issue that we have dealt with 

a lot. We have seen a number of these mom and pop labs that have 

sprung up and have been on the increase here recently. Probably 

with my law enforcement, methamphetamine is the biggest issue 

they deal with, not only from a drug standpoint, but probably any 

issue that they deal with. I guess what I would like to talk with 

you about or get your thoughts on is how can DEA in particular 

trains or assists these local agents? I understand there are some 

parts of the country where methamphetamine is not the issue, 

there are pockets of the country that are worse than the others, but 

the part of country where you have a high rate of incidents with 

methamphetamine, it is a real problem and those of course are the 

ones that need the real work. So just in ways that you see DEA 

reaching out to those local drug enforcement officers on a local 

level, because a lot of them are not trained and, as you know, with 

methamphetamine it is not a cheap thing to deal with, especially 

when you have these labs that have been set up. It is rather expensive to go in and try to take down these labs. 

So just your thoughts on that and ways you could work with 

local law enforcement agencies on this issue. 

Ms. LEONHART. A couple of things. First, a good portion of my career has been spent on the West Coast in California. I remember 

the very first lab I ever hit in my career was in 1986 in Festus, 

Missouri and I remember saying I never wanted to hit another lab 

again. I went out to California and it was a very regular occurrence 

that we took down meth labs. This is before we saw the introduction of Mexican traffickers into the methamphetamine business. 

But when you go back to the late eighties, DEA and the California Narcotic Officers Association and Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement were really the first to start training classes for State 

and locals. That has been going on since the mid-eighties, and 

about 10 years ago it started to show up in the Midwest. Your area 

is saturated. I am aware of that. I have even been down to talk 

to the U.S. Attorneys in that region to try to find out what we can 

do. 

Taking from what those original training classes were, how to 

safely take down a clan lab, DEA has trained over 1,200 State and 

locals and special agents over the past year. We are going to train 

about another thousand next year. 

What I talked to the U.S. attorneys about was, since you’re being 

inundated with Mexican methamphetamine now, that we take 

some of these lab teams in the Southeast that have been taught 

how to attack a lab and all the safety issues and turn some of that 

training into basic investigations on Mexican trafficking organizations. Most of the finished product, even though you are still seeing 

labs in Alabama, is coming from Mexico. I also know in Alabama 

the good news is when I looked in the database 129 clan labs were 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
135 

seized last year that were recorded to the database in 2006. In 

2007 it was 69, so something has happened there. There was a 

shift on the small toxic labs, but I think we have to do all we can 

to train our State and local officers. 

The way the Mexican traffickers traffic meth is different than 

the way meth is trafficked by the Beavis and Butthead, the mom 

and pop lab operators. So we’ve identified it and we are going to 

do something about it and we have a clan lab facility that is opening up in July, and we will be able to do a lot for our State and 

local partners. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Where will that be? 

Ms. LEONHART. In Quantico. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. One thing that would be helpful to us is just 

when you do have meetings with the U.S. Attorney or locals, let us 

know those are going on because a lot of times people don’t realize 

that Washington is doing something about it and we want to let 

them know that, our local enforcement agencies, that Washington 

is very intuned to that issue. So do you foresee when this facility 

opens in the summer, do you foresee there will be programs where 

law enforcement can come up for training? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, we are planning on being able to train about 

a thousand State and local officers. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, like I said, this is probably an issue that 

law enforcement deals with the most in north Alabama and has the 

most difficulty with. If your office could just contact our office and 

let us know so that we can make sure that our local enforcement 

knows how to tap into this resource, it would be very helpful. 

Ms. LEONHART. I will do that. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to if I could. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure. 

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I like your language. You know, perfect 

storm of enforcement. When you talk about drug flow attack strategy you are basically underlying the fact that this is an all out war. 

And should we say our enemies are in a variety of domestic and 

foreign. And even though some may be imbecilic, many are very 

well organized and I assume have the ability to move money 

around pretty quickly, and they use the Internet for more than prescription drugs. They use the Internet and their cell phones to communicate the same way. And I am sure there is interaction obviously between the terrorism and vast amounts of money that come 

from drugs. 

Could you talk a little bit about the degree of international cooperation? I know that is a big issue here. In some countries we 

seem to have some major investments. We were heavily involved 

or vested in Plan Colombia, some good things happened there. How 

would you characterize international cooperation? Are some countries in the state of denial? Who is stepping up the plate to assist 

you? 

Ms. LEONHART. Right away I have to say Colombia and Mexico. 

Being a drug agent for 28 years and having lost one of our partners, kidnapped and murdered in Mexico, and having worked on 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
136 

the southwest border in San Diego for a number of years, I would 

never have in my lifetime believed that we would have this kind 

of cooperation from Mexico that we have seen in the last year and 

a half. It started under President Fox, but under President 

Calderon we have really seen action. I say that because I also need 

to talk about Colombia. Over the last year we are a tripartite partnership; it is our three countries. 

DEA has met with Mexico over the last 4 years to explain to 

them what they are going to start seeing once we did so much damage to the super labs out West. We knew that there would be a 

shift. So we started working with our Mexican counterparts. And 

at that time we really didn’t have anybody to share intelligence 

with. It was really on a relationship-to-relationship basis. We had 

no true partners in Mexico, we didn’t have anybody. It was hit or 

miss whether you could trust giving someone some information and 

working an investigation with you, but that has all changed. 

We have talked to Mexico about the Colombia experience and actually forged a relationship there. We had an executive forum and 

we brought in Colombia to sit down with the Mexican officials to 

talk about their experiences and the fight that they have had 

against these cartels. And it is amazing what has happened. Mexico and Colombia are learning from each other and it is funny because we got it together years after the traffickers did. In the midnineties, the Colombians and Mexicans hooked up and they knew 

they could make a lot of money and they could saturate our country with cocaine if they worked together. And here we are 2006, 

2007 and 2008 and we are just starting to work together with Mexico. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you have a degree of optimism? 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The basic facts are these people are armed 

and dangerous. If you look at the Mexican political situation, they 

will take out anybody, including your people that stand in their 

way. The fear and intimidation hasn’t gone away and obviously if 

a policeman is paid 50 bucks a month for their job and the cartel 

would offer them 2,000 bucks a week or something, it is pretty difficult to fight that. But you are, and through your testimony, commending both Colombia leadership and Mexican leadership for 

their full participation? 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. What they are doing to attack these 

cartels that are all shipping drugs here is unbelievable. From the 

coke end they are making record seizures in Colombia, they are 

making record seizures in the transit zone. 

Mexico, that is a world record cocaine seizure that Mexico made 

last October. 

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We congratulate you for this. I know our 

members want to speak. Many members look at the poppy crop in 

Afghanistan and the inability for us to come up with a strategy to 

sort of control it and we know all the things that it has allowed 

terrorists to do. I don’t want to shift gears here but in many ways 

we may be achieving some major things in our hemisphere. Obviously, there are other parts of the world where it has been pretty 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
137 

difficult to deal with an issue which is so visible. Would you like 

to comment? I know you have agents over there, FBI has people 

over there doing dangerous work. 

Ms. LEONHART. I would definitely like to comment on Afghanistan. In fact we have the largest law enforcement presence in Afghanistan, we have 8 agents, 3 analysts and 3 pilots over there. 

But a lot of people look at Afghanistan and only think of poppy and 

think it is a bad news story. Afghanistan, if you hear it from our 

perspective, it is an amazing story. We are helping the Afghanistan 

country reduce drug trafficking and secure their country. Just several years ago there was no police force, there were no judges, 

there were no jails, there was nothing. And we got our boots on the 

ground there a couple of years ago and we have been standing up 

the police forces there, a narcotic police force to some day be the 

DEA of Afghanistan. And DEA’s role is not eradication, but our 

role is going after the biggest and the baddest of druglords who are 

responsible for that poppy, and that money will fund the Taliban 

and terrorists. 

So we have looked over the last several years at all the successes 

there. Who would have thought we would already have an extradition of a druglord from Afghanistan? But we have had it. In fact 

we have four traffickers here facing U.S. courts and sitting in U.S. 

jails. We have also seen DEA and the Afghans go after the leaders, 

the infrastructure and illegal assets in Afghanistan. The only thing 

that prevents us from doing more over there is it is a war zone and 

it is hard for us to get around. We need the ability to get out to 

those other provinces and collect intelligence and bring the NIU, 

the National Interdiction Unit, out there with us. We are living 

with them, we are training them, we are mentoring them and have 

brought them on operations. There are seizures and arrests, there 

are actual convictions, and we are bringing defendants to the new 

court system and that is working. So it is not all about eradication. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for highlighting that. I was 

aware of some of it when I was over there. Somebody told me that, 

the indisputable fact that people view the poppy production and 

our inability to figure out how to eradicate it is sort of a failure 

on our part in terms of our work over there. But obviously your 

people have been doing good work. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How does it feel to be at the top; it is a lot 

tougher at the top, isn’t it? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think it is every agent’s dream to run their 

agency, but it is hard to believe. 

DRUGS AND TERRORISM

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I just want to say before I start I have a 

lot of respect for the DEA. I think the agents are all very committed, they work hard, they go into a lot of dangerous places, but 

they get good results. So your whole agency does an outstanding 

job and you do it without a lot of resources. It is kind of what we 

are talking about here today. 

I would like to talk about the DEA’s role in the war against terror. You mentioned some of the issues, but terrorism just isn’t over 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
138 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have issues in South America with 

the FARC and issues with Thailand, Indonesia. By the way, I want 

to acknowledge DEA’s role in taking down probably one of the top 

gun dealers. I guess the ATF were jealous, but you were out there. 

Do you want to explain a little bit before I get into some of these 

issues what happened there and why you were in a position to take 

down one of the top drug dealers in the world who was supplying 

guns and ammunition to a lot of our enemies and terrorists? 

Ms. LEONHART. A lot of people do not know that DEA plays a 

role in the war on terror. We are perfectly situated because we 

have the largest presence overseas. We are in over 80 offices in 

over 60 countries. In all of those country offices we are developing 

intelligence and working with informants on a daily basis. So it is 

interesting. We have had 2 cases where we have taken down some 

of the world’s largest terrorists. You were talking about Viktor 

Bout, the one we just arrested last week. There is another one, 

Monzer al-Kaza, who we put the cuffs on in Spain this past June. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Who is he? 

Ms. LEONHART. He is one of the world’s largest arms traffickers. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You are going to get a lot of complaints 

from ATF if you don’t watch it. They have an inferiority complex 

sometimes anyhow, when they get less than you do. 

Ms. LEONHART. They are our friends. He was on Iraq’s top 10 

list, because of what he was doing supplying arms to the prior regime. He was involved in the Achille Lauro and got away with it. 

He is an international trafficker that slipped through justice two 

or three different times. Both of these cases were done in the same 

way and they were done with old fashioned police work. Informants 

were developed and we had intel collection on both arms dealers 

that went way back. With the first one, Monzer al-Kazar goes back 

to the seventies and eighties. Both have had some dealing in the 

drug world and both are hungry and greedy for money. So with 

DEA’s informants, DEA’s plethora of informants, these were all undercover meetings, these were all undercover scenarios, both were 

the same. These two gentlemen were willing to sell to anybody for 

the right price. They had those shoulder missiles, they had weapons, and they believed that they were dealing with leaders of the 

FARC in Colombia, who were looking for arms. 

And one of the gentleman, even undercover, asks the informants 

posing as the FARC are you against America? And the undercover 

of course said, we are against America. He said then, I will deal 

with you. So both of these gentleman are not friends to our country 

and we were very, very proud of our agents that traveled all over 

the world, who just put together two amazing cases. Everybody is 

shaking their heads saying how did you do that, but this is just 

good old fashioned narcotics work. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. From the street up, informant sources and 

everything else? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Throughout the years we have always been 

concerned about the drug cartels and drug organizations combining 

with terrorism. I just met this last Sunday with the head of your 

intelligence branch and the clear indication he gave us is we now 

have that issue going on, drugs are starting to fund terrorism. You 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
139 

are the only U.S. agency whose single mission is drug law enforcement. You have from what I understand a consolidated priority list 

of top organizations in the world that you are targeting that deal 

with narcotics; is that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What characteristics do you use to evaluate 

these groups? If you can’t say because of an intelligence point of 

view, let me know, but who generally are on that list? We have 

South America, you mentioned Colombia and Mexico, we have the 

Afghanistan issue, we have issues in Thailand and Indonesia. 

Where are you as it relates to that and try to make it quick because I don’t know how much more time I have. I do want to get 

into your funding and also how you are dealing and what organizations you see are involved with terrorists. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, there is a list. We call it the CPOT list. It 

is the biggest and baddest, it is the kingpins around the world. You 

will find kingpins from the East and Middle East. You will find 

them from Asia, Colombia and Mexico. The majority are from Colombia and Mexico. It is an interagency process. The agencies 

under the OLDETF program get together twice a year. We bring 

in the intel community and we share intelligence. We nominate the 

biggest and the baddest. In fact, DEA is responsible for nominating 

over 90 percent of those CPOTs. Then by nominating them, we all 

agree as agencies that we will put our resources and our efforts towards them. Our own agents know that the number one case they 

can make, what they need to strive for is developing intelligence, 

sharing that intelligence, aiming their enforcement efforts at cases, 

domestic cells that are linked to those international——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How many of those organizations that you 

have targeted are financing terrorist activities or terrorist groups 

themselves, such as the FARC? 

Ms. LEONHART. You would be surprised. Eighteen of the 46 biggest and baddest on the list are linked to terrorism. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What part of the world? 

Ms. LEONHART. All over. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So Afghanistan? 

Ms. LEONHART. Not only those linked to the FARC and the AUC 

in South America, but a number are linked to the druglords in Afghanistan, and we have put some of them in jail. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The last time I was in Kandahar, where a 

lot of this is occurring, I saw that the British were kind of taking 

command and control more than we were at that time. If that is 

the case, are the Brits working closely with you, do they understand the DEA role? When I was there it was the British military. 

Can you comment on that? 

Ms. LEONHART. Those relationships have gotten better. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. There was a problem for a while. 

Ms. LEONHART. It is a war zone and everybody is there. The 

country is split up and everybody has their own responsibilities 

and there was no coordination mechanism. There is now. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. We have all come together and we sit at a table 

and we bring our intelligence and we identify who the top targets 

should be, and those are what we call the HVTs. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
140 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Your budget request is 2.6 billion. What 

part of your budget address is the CPOT and is that including your 

international enforcement budget of 400 million? 

Ms. LEONHART. Our budget has one major piece and that is the 

drug flow attack strategy. The drug flow attack strategy is all 

about the CPOT. It is all about doing damage to those organizations by stopping their flow of drugs, by making them change their 

behavior. Domestically, our agents work on priority targets and the 

CPOTs are the highest targets they can work. The DFAS is what 

goes down into the source countries in the transit zone and takes 

the intelligence it has developed, foreign and domestic, and goes 

after the transportation of the drugs by these organizations. We 

have domestic cases we can get U.S. indictments on those CPOTs 

and we are asking for a fast team for the Western hemisphere 

so——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What countries in the Western hemisphere? 

Ms. LEONHART. South America, Central America, Mexico all the 

way to our southwest border. So it is actually to assist us in securing the border. We are making sure——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In that regard you are making use of UAVs 

also? We had a discussion last year about UAVs. 

Ms. LEONHART. You did bring that up last year and we have had 

discussions about it. And at this point, we are in such need of a 

helicopter that we feel priority-wise——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Why are you in need of a helicopter? Just 

to get your agents from one spot to another quicker? 

Ms. LEONHART. Our drug flow attack strategy requires us to be 

able to lift and shift. And you cannot do that without helicopters. 

It requires us to be on the ground where we need to be at a certain 

time to interdict the drugs, to make the arrests, to work with our 

foreign counterparts. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How many do you have now, helicopters? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have five helicopters all being used for different things. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Especially in the western hemisphere? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Can you piggyback on the military? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have been assisted by military assets. And 

the interagency has been helpful, but the problem is we have too 

many instances where we are tracking a drug load and nobody is 

available to help us go out there. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. So we are needing to look for that helicopter and 

a FAST team that we can dedicate to the western hemisphere just 

like we have our teams in Afghanistan. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am going to have one more question because my time is up and I will probably have to talk to you again. 

We know the Administration especially is acting and probably 

have more leverage over them than the Administration. My own 

personal opinion is that in this world, drugs is a more serious problem than terrorism. And, yet, it seems all of our resources are 

going into fighting terrorism. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
141 

And I am on the Intelligence Committee, so I see where a lot of 

that money goes. But I just think that we have really underfunded 

the entire DEA budget. What you need to do is important and the 

fact that you do so well with what you have is great. 

Now, I know you have to stand up for your budget, but if you 

have an opportunity to let us know what your priorities are that 

are not in this budget, I do not know how you do that, a little secret note or something, but I think this Committee and I know the 

Chairman really feels strongly about trying to support and give the 

resources to DEA because of how serious the problem is to our 

country and our world, but also the fact that what you do get, you 

do it well. 

Thanks. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. Honda. 

BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

And thank you for your work. I know that law enforcement is 

very complicated and complex and global and where chemistry 

plays a big part of the manufacturing of drugs which differs from 

the production of the kinds of drugs that you are talking about, 

both of which need a lot funding, a lot of training, a lot of education, and support. 

And I agree with my colleague that if you do not take care of 

business, terrorism will find other sources. I am not on the Intelligence Committee, but it is common sense. 

I have had some experience in addressing some of these things 

that we look at in terms of meth labs and how complicated that 

gets and looking at over-the-counter kinds of drugs that can be 

used to create illicit drugs or even becoming aware that there are 

some over-the-counter drugs that you can ingest illegally, but your 

body converts that into the same reaction as the illicit drugs too. 

I guess some people call it date rape drugs and things like that. 

So it is a complicated area for law enforcement and for policymakers. And in the area of policymaking, I would like to just spend 

a little time here in terms of being precise because in a democracy, 

we want to get the bad guys and get rid of them. At the same time, 

we want to be able to protect our community and that is what 

makes law enforcement so like teaching. It is not as simple as it 

seems and you cannot write scripts for TV, TV consumption. 

So I just want to make sure that you knew that I understand the 

complexity of the breadth of your job. 

Having said that, some of the things that I get concerned about 

is terminologies. And I learned one today, choke point. I assume 

that that is a place where you look at where a lot of the activities 

are going on in internet traffic. 

And so, you know, being aware of that, then I guess those of us 

who are policymakers need to understand when we do policy here 

that we need to look at how technology can be misused, too, because I guess technology could be considered agnostic. It is the 

users that make it legal, illegal, or social or antisocial. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
142 

And you mentioned how Fortune 500s are contributing to the 

problem. I suspect that it is unknowingly they are doing this or am 

I wrong? 

Ms. LEONHART. In one case where we are talking about supplying 

a pharmacy, DEA has even done training with the company on 

what they needed to look for. 

Mr. HONDA. So initially they did not know, but they were selling 

their products to somebody who has an insatiable appetite for a 

certain product. 

And then you are saying that you are educating them and saying 

you got to be looking for these kinds of benchmarks. Ask yourselves, you know, why there is such a peak in the sales on some 

kinds of drugs. I think that is what you are saying. 

And so you get Fortune 500s that are being educated and that 

these are over-the-counter kinds of things, but they have to be 

watched. 

In California what we did, we have had statutes that said after 

a certain amount, you have to get, you know, some kind of a paper 

like prescriptions or something like that, so we can have a paper 

trail. 

Is that what you did also on this kind of a thing? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have a couple of things. I was a special agent 

in charge in your area, in San Francisco, and also Los Angeles and 

I know the controls that California came up with very early on 

methamphetamine. 

We have a number of controls. One of the things we do is we use 

technology. We call it the ARCOS database and it will show us 

what is ordered from pharmacies, pharmacies ordering from wholesalers. We are able to track that and from that, we are able to 

show where there are anomalies. And when there is a particular 

pharmacy that is ordering up more or a distributor who is ordering 

up more drugs than necessary—— Mr. HONDA. Kind of a diagnostic tool and it gives you some sort 

of information and—— Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. And I think that is smart. And I was the Chair of 

that Committee when we were working with you guys on that. I 

think that we have learned a lot, but we are still behind the curve 

because they seek to learn other things. 

But as we move through this process, we educate Fortune 500s, 

we educate the pharmacist, and then what comes out of there is 

the bad guys. I mean, if pharmacists have knowledge that they are 

selling a certain kind of product over the counter that is an inordinate amount, you know, they should be made aware. And I think 

that is part of your education process. 

And then I guess the other products, too, like you said kitty litter, things like that, terminologies that are used to identify, certain 

kinds of products that are used to make methamphetamines. 

Where I am going with this, and you probably understand where 

I am going with this, is that we have watchdog groups in our communities, you know, watching our communities and making sure 

that they are getting a fair shake. 

And I think that one of the things that we found is that in the 

effort of law enforcement, sometimes businesses get targeted and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
143 

this is the area that I want to know what is it that you do in terms 

of training your personnel in how to operate properly because that 

is what we require law enforcement to do, follow laws also. 

But also what do you do to engage the community to educate 

them as you do the Fortune 500s, the key things that they have 

to watch out for so that they do not get involved in unknowingly 

selling over-the-counter drugs, so that they can be part of the law 

enforcement process because we believe that policing is at least 50 

percent community and 50 percent law enforcement where you 

guys get to carry the guns? But, you know, we have to have knowledge. 

Can you tell me what you do in the area of education in these 

communities and have you had problems in the past that you 

learned from that you could share with us? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, I will tell you that the education that we 

are doing with Fortune 500 companies we are also doing with your 

neighborhood pharmacies, your neighborhood retail outlets, your 

mom-and-pop stores. 

And I think back with the, especially in California in your area, 

what we did early on with the meth epidemic when all of a sudden, 

it was pseudoephedrine that they needed out of the retailers. I remember we had citizen meetings to alert people that they could be 

living next to someone who is producing meth. We went around to 

store owners. We talked to them. We told them here is what to look 

for. You can be our eyes and ears. 

We have worked with community coalitions all across the country. So we have done what we can on the education piece. Even on 

the internet, we now try to help kids. Google and Yahoo have put 

banners on so that if someone is trying to buy drugs on the internet, they will get a banner that comes up. And it has happened a 

couple millions of times. 

Mr. HONDA. Right. Excuse me for interrupting, but——

Ms. LEONHART. Sure. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. I guess I am looking for when we talk 

about educating the law enforcement agents on drugs because you 

are hiring 1,000 of them, you are training them in the area of enforcement. The flip side of that is educating the community and 

talk about mom and pops. In this country, we have a lot of language, ethnic folks who run these programs. 

What program and what curricula do you have within the DEA 

that requires you to make sure that your educational effort is also 

in the community whom you want to have your partners? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, number one——

Mr. HONDA. Do you have one or you do not? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have——

Mr. HONDA. If you do not, do you need help with that? 

Ms. LEONHART. We can always do better at that, but we actually 

do have groups. I know when I was in Los Angeles and if there was 

an issue in a certain community, I knew who I could call to help 

us with that community. So that is something that our 21 field divisions’ SACS use. 

Mr. HONDA. So that is SOP? That is a standard that you have— is it institutionalized? I mean, I know I could trust you do to that, 

but not everybody is you. And so you have to convert that into 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
144 

some statute or some institutionalized practice so that it becomes 

SOP in terms of working in the communities. 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, actually, we have something called best 

practices where when we get together with our special agents in 

charge, some of these issues are brought up, how to deal with a 

certain type of store, how to deal with a certain type of retailer I 

remember when there was a big to-do about how to deal with tack 

and feed stores because they were actually supplying meth traffickers and did not know it. 

Mr. HONDA. Yeah. Let me get a little more definitive—— Ms. LEONHART. Okay. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. And talk about language, culture, besides just the kind of store activities, you know, tack and feed 

stores, I understand. But then if it is owned by, say an Indo-American whose language is an Indian language. 

And if that is the only language that they have and they have 

a level of exchange and that is the level of their proficiency and 

someone comes in using street language and they do not understand what the language means, but they do know that they want 

a certain product, they will sell it. And they will sell it without 

knowing what it might be used for, but they, in many instances, 

they have been arrested for the sale because the agent used street 

language regarding purchasing the product. 

Those are the kinds of things I am most concerned about and if 

people are educated, then it is not entrapment. It is knowledge. 

But if they have no idea what they are talking about, but they 

want to make a sale, I think that that requires a lot more work 

with the community. 

We wrote a letter indicating that even when the agents had said 

that, you know, they were told to target a community and in that 

community, there was X amount of stores and of that X amount, 

the majority were run by Indo-Americans, and so they were pretty 

much targeted. 

Now, a community that gets hit like that cannot feel but say that 

they have been racially profiled. And I think that, like I say, in a 

democracy, as law enforcement agents, we still have to be cognizant of how we go about, you know, combating drugs and those 

kinds of things. 

And that is the community level. You have got the international 

level with the other kinds of drugs, but methamphetamine is probably one of those things that you can do it in your kitchen. And 

that is why this is so important. 

And the response I got was not satisfactory. I say that because 

it was dismissed by saying that the judge had dismissed the case 

and that there was no racial profiling involved, but the fact is that 

it was a procedural dismissal rather than based upon the facts. 

So I just want to let you know that as a policymaker, I support 

the mission and I want to help. But in doing so, I want to make 

sure that this becomes something of the past and that we make 

sure that racial profiling in a country that has so many diasporas 

that it makes it more complicated and it could be a source of help 

from us because we can count on them to help us. But I do not 

want them to feel targeted in a country that they came to with an 

expectation of due process. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
145 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LEONHART. Racial profiling will not be tolerated at DEA. I 

now believe I know the case you are talking about. And we have 

done a number of things to include a video that is mandatory that 

our agents watch, not only agents, but diversion investigators and 

anybody that could be interacting with the community. 

Mr. HONDA. Sure. And I appreciate that. That is half the coin. 

The other half is educating the community on making sure that is 

done and the community always stands ready to be a partner. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

MEASURING SUCCESS

Ms. Leonhart, I want to talk a little bit about how you measure 

results, what results you are achieving and what indicators we 

should be looking at. 

Statistics on drug abuse trends are often used as evidence of the 

impact of enforcement efforts. However, drug use data tells us 

more about the individual users than about traffickers and the 

overall market. 

Other than usage data, what do you believe are the best indicators of DEA’s impact on drug trafficking into and within the United 

States? 

Ms. LEONHART. I guess you are asking me how does DEA selfassess and what indicators do we look at? Because of our mission, 

it will always be what damage have we done to the traffickers. It 

will always be how many organizations did we identify, how many 

did we target, how many did we disrupt, how many did we dismantle, what were the arrests. It will always be about the money, 

the financial end. 

We cannot forget that drug trafficking is big business like a Fortune 500 company. And, in fact, it brings in more money than Bill 

Gates and Oprah and Donald Trump combined. 

So how do we define success? It is when we are stripping money 

away from those traffickers. And, in fact, we had a banner year in 

2007 stripping $3.5 billion away from the traffickers, meaning we 

took that money so that could not go back to the traffickers to 

make their next cycle of drugs. 

I think success is spelled by what are you doing with the legitimate, the banking end. And we have had three cases this year that 

are just remarkable. Union Bank of California forfeited $21.6 million because we caught them not doing their part to prevent money 

laundering. The same with American Express Bank International. 

They forfeited $55 million. And at the same time, a case we had 

against the Segay Corporation, they forfeited $15 million. 

Bulk cash is the primary way that these, at least western hemisphere cartels, are getting money back. And this year, we seized a 

record amount of cash, $700 million was seized. 

So it is working with our international partners. It is being able 

to partner up and do Intel sharing. It is those kinds of partnerships 

that then lead to drug seizures. We had record drug seizures. Not 

only did we have $207 million cash seized in Mexico, but they followed up with this 23.5 metric tons that I brought the picture in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
146 

on, the world’s record cocaine seizure. Both those seizures were all 

done because DEA passed intelligence to them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Obviously we would all like to think that the 

supply side efforts, if you will, in some way impact the demand side 

by reducing drug use. And at the end of the day, collectively all of 

our efforts are directed at reducing drug use in the country. And 

that is a very elusive goal. That is a very hard thing to achieve. 

But I am interested in knowing, do you think about it in those 

terms? Do you think about it in terms of are we really reducing the 

availability of drugs on the street? 

I see that you measure it in terms of increasing the price and 

decreasing the purity, which is a supplier’s response obviously to 

the lack of availability of the drugs. 

How does that translate, or does it translate, into a decrease in 

use? And what should happen in conjunction with your very impressive efforts to achieve that last result, a decrease in use? What 

needs to happen on the other end remedially and from a law enforcement standpoint or whatever, in your overall experience? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, I can tell you the reason we call what we 

have just experienced the perfect storm is because all those things 

have converged for the first time, at least the first time in my career, where we can develop a strategy and operation and we did it 

out of hide. We wanted to test it out. We did it. And the first time 

we did it, we saw results. 

Since 2001, drug usage by teens has been going down, going 

down in every category. And now we have Quest data that shows 

that American workers’ drug use is going down. And if you plot out 

the drug usage and you look at what DEA was doing, what our 

state and local partners were doing, we are priority targeting, we 

are doing a better job of not just taking this guy off the street and 

that guy off the street, but strategizing on how to affect the supply. 

And we have. 

In our drug flow attack strategy, the centerpiece of it is called 

Operation All Inclusive. We did it. The first time we did it, we saw 

that we had a change in price and purity. So we thought we would 

do it again, we would do it a little bit longer. We brought in more 

partners. We did it and we had substantially more significant 

change in price, change in purity at the same time we are seeing 

use rates go down. 

So that is why I brought this chart in, to really show that when 

we can have a—we, by our enforcement actions, by our partnering 

with Colombia and Mexico, with our domestic agents going after 

that money, attacking that money that is going back down into 

Mexico, when all those things converge, that we see a rise in the 

price. We see 37 cities like Boston who has a 60 percent increase 

in cocaine——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Say that again. When you take Boston who has 

had a 60 percent increase in——

Ms. LEONHART. Price. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Price of cocaine. 

Ms. LEONHART. Price of cocaine——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
147 

Ms. LEONHART. Eighty—I am sorry. Eighty-six percent increase 

in price in cocaine. When you take New York, whose price of a kilo 

of cocaine doubled. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are able to associate your efforts and 

your strategies with a decrease in use directly through the—and 

you think it is this scarcity that the suppliers or traffickers on the 

street translate into higher prices and less purity? And you do associate that with a depression of demand? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And use? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Really? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is not the only indicator, but if——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But if——

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. All of those things together——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. And we watched it. We have sustained this over a year now because we have done those operations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. And every time we have done that operation, we 

have seen a change to the market. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is a very impressive linkage which I really 

would like to follow up with you some other time to understand it 

more clearly and to see what programs in or outside of DEA might 

complement that. 

This Committee funds a lot of efforts that interactively impact 

drug use in the country, which is the ultimate thing we want to 

decrease. I want to understand your perspective on that more 

clearly. But that is very impressive—your efforts, in and of themselves, are impressive, including the seizure, what you are doing 

and a number of other things. 

But how your effort translates into a decrease in the use of drugs 

and how you can measure that is something I would like to follow 

up on. I am going to have to go vote here in a couple minutes. But 

before I do, I want to talk a little bit about your efforts and your 

programs in Afghanistan. 

Our efforts in Afghanistan are effective and certainly laudable. 

And it sounds like you are prototyping strategies and techniques 

that you are interested in applying to the western hemisphere; is 

that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Ten percent of the heroin consumed in America, 

in the United States of America, comes from Afghanistan; is that 

correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. We believe about 10 percent comes——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. About 10 percent? 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. From that region, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And where does the other 90 percent come from? 

Ms. LEONHART. Primarily Colombia and Mexico. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. What are you doing in Afghanistan now 

that you would like to apply to your enforcement efforts in the 

western hemisphere? 

Ms. LEONHART. We started what we call the FAST Program in 

Afghanistan, Foreign Advisory Support Teams. And these are 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
148 

teams of agents that in a new environment can go in, can mentor 

and teach our police counterparts on drug enforcement so that they 

can then be our partners while we are there and when we are no 

longer there. We need to do the same thing in the western hemisphere. 

I just came back from a trip to the Dominican Republic. And 

these are folks that are being killed on drug loads coming out of 

Colombia and Venezuela. And they do not have the resources and 

they do not have the ability to stand up without other partners. 

So we had an operation. We call it Operation Rum Punch. And 

we ran that operation using a FAST that we brought back from Afghanistan just to try it, brought them down to Hispaniola. They 

worked with these folks in Haiti which is difficult and with our 

folks in the Dominican Republic. And what they were able to accomplish was they ran one of these Operation All Inclusives. They 

were able to find a way to go after drug loads where before there 

was no end game there. There was no one there to interdict the 

drugs. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I apologize. I have to go. Just continue with that 

answer, Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [presiding]. Thank you. 

Just to get a little bit of clarity, the issue of purity, the seizure 

there, maybe I have been watching too much CSI Miami or whatever, but where do you measure the purity? 

You measure the purity when you make a seizure and then you 

might measure the purity when, let us say, you apprehend somebody on the street. I know you are doing the job which to some extent shows that things are less pure. If you could just briefly elaborate on the purity issue. 

Ms. LEONHART. I think I am going to have to explain how we do 

this. Obviously when we have the drug loads like that, they are 

coming up and they are basically pure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. They are pure? And then it goes into other 

hands and then because of the value, it is diluted? 

Ms. LEONHART. What we have been able to do is the two tests 

of what is happening with the market is to look at the universe of 

drug buys in the country, the retail drug buys on the street. Well, 

our laboratory gets all that information. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you buy in LA, you know, Newark? 

Ms. LEONHART. All over the country. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I mean, anywhere? 

Ms. LEONHART. All over the country. So what we did is we started looking at those and we ended up with about 14,000 drug purchases that we could look at that were from all over the country. 

And we looked at those for price and for purity. And then our statisticians got it down to the pure gram. And they were able to show 

these shifts in price and purity. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And the conclusion is that because of your 

disruption and your major efforts that shall we say things are 

working in our favor because of the——

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. When you run an operation and you 

do it three times and each time the longer you do it, the more results you get and on top of that, you have informants coming forward and saying the traffickers are having to raise their costs beVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
149 

cause you are making them go all the way out past the Galapagos 

Islands to come in, so their transportation costs are more. We know 

we have caused their behavior to change and——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And I think that is commendable. But the 

last time I checked, people are operating in the Dominican Republic and Haiti with somewhat impunity? I mean, those have always 

been points where drugs—is that not accurate or——

Ms. LEONHART. That is accurate, but——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So I sort of want to build this into my 

whole question about your drug flow strategy because, actually, we 

are dealing with money here. You have requested an increase of 

$21 million, a portion of which would be for the hiring of 30 special 

agents which I am sure you badly need, a new helicopter, but also 

the money would be used for one of the FAS teams that you referred to——

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. One for Afghanistan and one 

for this hemisphere. Would in working in this hemisphere this 

FAST be focusing on places like the Dominican Republic and Haiti 

where you already, I assume, have people on the ground? 

Ms. LEONHART. So I can clarify, both teams would be in the western hemisphere. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. They would be? All right. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. If all of a sudden, especially with the threat 

from Colombia and Venezuela, all the drug loads are now going up 

to the Dominican Republic, that tells us we need to use a FAST 

team, go in and work with our partners in the Dominican Republic 

and we can do some damage to those drug loads. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have partners or God only knows how 

you describe our relationship with what is going on in Haiti. I 

mean, is there anything being built there that we could see a light 

at the end of the tunnel? 

Ms. LEONHART. We need a FAST team so that we can work. 

Haiti was more difficult, but we did an operation there. We did Operation Rum Punch there. So we——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are working there? 

Ms. LEONHART. We are working there. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to sort of change the focus here 

relative to your hiring freeze that I mentioned earlier. Your fiscal 

year 2007 appropriations level required a hiring freeze. Obviously 

if you are not hiring, your workforce is shrinking. 

Do you know how many staff you lost during the hiring freeze? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. We lost about 600 people, 251 of them were 

special agents. And that is on top of about 1,000 vacancies that we 

had when we went into August of 2006 before we even implemented the hiring freeze. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We provided money. I think parts of the 

Department of Justice got money and then you got sort of left off 

the list. We provided funding in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental 

and about, I think, ten million this year specifically to lift the 

freeze. 

Maybe I already know the answer, but will the funding be sufficient to fill your vacant positions? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
150 

Ms. LEONHART. That funding, and I have got to thank you all for 

that, was quite a morale booster for our folks when we could lift 

the freeze. That will still leave us about 52 agents short from 

where we were before the freeze. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you are short? 

Ms. LEONHART. When we do the hiring and, in fact, we have an 

agent class going on right now, as we hire in 2008, by the time we 

get to the end of the year, we will still be about 52 agents short. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much money would you need? How 

much money would that represent? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is $4 million. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In order to hire the 52? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is one agent class and that costs $4 million. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. All right. Maybe I will yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [presiding]. Thank you. 

AFGHANISTAN EXPANSION

Let me pick up, and I do not know if Mr. Frelinghuysen picked 

up where I left off before I went to vote, but you are requesting additional support in Afghanistan. And before I leave Afghanistan, I 

want to ask you about that. 

You are considering the addition of up to 67 new DEA personnel 

in Afghanistan, but the proposal has not been finalized and transmitted? Is that under review in DEA and would you talk with us 

about that? 

Ms. LEONHART. If the Administration wants us to expand in Afghanistan, we are exploring ways to do that. We have determined 

that to do what we need to do to get out to all the provinces and 

to be able to work with and stand up the police capacity there with 

the NIU and CNP Alpha, it would take about 67 agents. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what is the mission that we are fulfilling 

with that initiative or would we be fulfilling? 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely the organizational attack, going after 

the drug lords. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would be building Afghanistan’s capability 

or——

Ms. LEONHART. Well, these are drug lords that are also funding 

terrorism. So it is developing the police force there, but also we 

were out of that country for quite a while. We need to develop intelligence. We need to go after those drug lords because that money 

from the drugs being sold out of Afghanistan is funding terror. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So this is a real anti-terrorism mission principally? I mean——

Ms. LEONHART. It is drugs and terror. You cannot separate them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Hard to separate them. How much money are 

you associating with that initiative? Is that going to be a request 

of this committee? Is it in your request in any way? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is still being planned. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would we anticipate an amendment to your request for 2009? 

Ms. LEONHART. All I know is that we are going to have a plan 

and that will be worked through the NSC. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
151 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is there a time? Are you supposed to be responsive in some way within some timeframe? 

Ms. LEONHART. No. I just know—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. So it is not something the committee is going to 

expect to be asked of for fiscal year 2009? 

Ms. LEONHART. I do not believe so. I do not know—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. You do not know at this time? 

Ms. LEONHART. I do not know. 

DRUG FLOW ATTACK STRATEGY REQUEST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Your request for two new FAST teams to serve the western hemisphere, your budget request is $7 million for 

20 positions. Does that achieve the goal of creating two FAST 

teams for the western hemisphere? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, it does. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And does this request come—Mr. Ruppersberger 

asked you about helicopters there and had to go—does that request 

come with a request for a helicopter? 

Ms. LEONHART. It comes with the request for one Bell 412. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can you do all that for $7 million? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is $20 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. Twenty point six million, 40 positions, 30 of 

which are agents that would stand up two teams that would—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Twenty agents? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thirty agents. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thirty agents. 

Ms. LEONHART. Two teams. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. I can run through what that package would be 

if you would like. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure. Please. 

Ms. LEONHART. The $20.6 million would be for 40 positions, 30 

agents. It would cover the FAST expansion, which is seven million, 

which is two teams. That would be nine agents and one intelligence 

analyst per team. It would then give the operating money, $2 million, for us to do one of these operations that I just explained. 

It would also give us three agent pilots and a Bell 412 helicopter 

to achieve that lift and shift I was talking about. It would also 

fund, with $2.5 million, it would give us 16 positions for the southwest border. And that would be nine agents and two Intel analysts. 

And it would give us one analyst position to help work with the 

Intel community on an open source project. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. To what extent do you work with the military 

for your transportation needs, particularly your air transportation 

needs? 

Ms. LEONHART. It depends on what country. We depend on them 

pretty heavily, did early on in Afghanistan. They have supplied 

helicopters for the NIU. So now they have a way to lift there and 

we have our own aircraft there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In Afghanistan? 

Ms. LEONHART. In Afghanistan. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And DEA employees operate those helicopters or 

does the military operate them? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
152 

Ms. LEONHART. We have a King Air aircraft and one helicopter 

with a contract pilot. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In addition to that, you rely upon military transportation for air transportation in Afghanistan? 

Ms. LEONHART. Right now if our agents need to get out to one 

of the other forward operating bases, one of the things they do is 

wait in line to go with the military unless we can fly. And we are 

also limited in how much we can fly there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So having your own equipment enhances your 

ability to do your mission because you do not rely upon availability 

from some other——

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is also true in the western hemisphere? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is definitely true in the western hemisphere 

because for instance, we are going to spend a lot of time with Guatemala working up their capabilities. We know there is a shift happening. They do not have all the resources to assist us. 

Having that one helicopter for these two FAST teams—the two 

teams are deployed one at a time, is what we would need. So we 

are not depending on—for instance, CBP to fly us. We have depended on other agencies and the military to help us with these operations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How much of this request is the helicopter? 

Ms. LEONHART. The helicopter is a part of that 8.9 million, the 

helicopter plus three agent pilots that go with it, with the operating and maintenance money and money for them to deploy. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you were to take the helicopter out of your request, how much money would that take out of your request? 

Ms. LEONHART. Seven. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And to what extent would that degrade your capability to do your mission? 

Ms. LEONHART. That helicopter is key to these teams being able 

to move around. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You would not be able to have that supplied by 

the military, for example? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think what would happen is what we saw over 

the last year where there are drug loads that we are tracking that 

we cannot follow because no one is available. There is no end game 

there without having our own lift. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you propose to own this helicopter or rent 

it from a contractor? 

Ms. LEONHART. We would be buying this helicopter. It would be 

a part of our fleet. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to leave activities along the southwest border to Mr. Culberson. Let me ask you quickly about state 

and local assistance. 

The DEA’s 2009 budget does not appear to include any program 

increases for state and local assistance. It is difficult to tell, however, because some programs that I would consider state and local 

assistance, such as MET and state and local law enforcement training, are no longer included in DEA’s state and local assistance decision unit total. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
153 

Can you quantify how much DEA intends to spend in 2009 on 

state and local assistance, to include training and MET, and compare that to DEA’s spending in 2008? 

Ms. LEONHART. There is about $6.5 million in the state and local 

decision unit that would be funding for clan lab cleanup, state and 

local clan lab training, and the Domestic Cannabis Eradication Program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In your 2009 request? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And how does that compare with 2008? 

Ms. LEONHART. Similar to what was enacted. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you think the state and local request is sufficient? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think if I can explain what we do with state 

and local, you will see that while it may not show up here, it is 

showing up in other places. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure. 

STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. LEONHART. Our state and local training, for instance, does 

not fit under this decision unit. It is in the domestic enforcement 

decision unit. And we have trained 42,276 state and locals in 2007 

with that money. So we are giving a lot of assistance. It just does 

not show up in that decision unit. 

Through our State and local taskforce program we run 218 State 

and local taskforces. We have got a program that is almost 35 

years old. We have over 1,650 agents in that, but along with them 

2,130 taskforce officers and we pay their overtime. 

We also have vetted 8,000 federal, State and local officers to have 

access by telephone to the El Paso Intelligence Center. So that is 

assistance that doesn’t show up there. And 1,800 of those State and 

locals have web access now in our new web based epic portal system. 

Demand reduction provides assistance to communities and we 

have got nine positions for demand reduction that do a lot of work 

with the coalitions. And then thanks to you, you restored the MET 

Program. You restored not the full MET Program, but we have got 

at least a third of it back. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Talk with us a little bit about how you value 

your State and local partnerships and how important you think it 

is for DEA to support State and local law enforcement. And then, 

my specific question was, whether you believe that your State and 

local assistance request in the budget is sufficient, however you 

would like to talk about that. You have made it clear that the DEA 

supports State and local through its budget. 

Having said that, is that enough and do you recommend more assistance? And if so, where? 

Ms. LEONHART. I would say that I can’t imagine DEA doing their 

mission without the State and locals. I was a Baltimore police officer. I learned about DEA through the State and local program. I 

know we have got a strong State and local program that is doing 

wonders for our State and local partners. 

And what I didn’t mention that I do need to mention is that we 

do a number of things for State and locals. They have worked more 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
154 

with us over the last couple of years on these bigger cases and we 

have attacked those assets and the revenue from these drug organizations. We stripped them of $3.5 billion last year. Seven hundred million of that was actual cash going south. We have shared in 2007 already $326 million with the State and 

locals. So they work a case with us, we share back. So that is another way that we share and that is an 18 percent increase over 

the year before. 

So we are giving back to State and locals. There is nothing that 

we do in DEA that isn’t with our State and local partners. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. And my question is, do you see areas that 

you can increase support to State and local agencies and would 

that be useful to you? And where would you add if you were to recommend that? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well we think the President’s budget is sufficient. It is a good budget for us. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know. But I am asking you, as a law enforcement officer, where is your relationship with State and local most 

important? And where could it be stronger? And where would you 

fund that if you were to enhance those relationships? Just forget 

a second about the President’s request and answer as a law enforcement officer thinking operationally. 

Ms. LEONHART. I think it will hurt that we only have enough in 

the MET Program to stand up ten teams instead of 22. I think that 

is probably the best way for us to help the State and local. That 

being said, with the third of MET that you gave us we are trying 

to figure out how to get the best bang for the buck and be able to 

help as many people as possible. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where else? 

Ms. LEONHART. Allowing us to do our priority target cases helps 

State and local. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do we help you do that? 

Ms. LEONHART. They don’t have the resources. They don’t have 

the ability often times to go to those other jurisdictions and especially on the foreign side. So they often bring us cases—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. They? 

Ms. LEONHART. The State and locals bring us cases they have 

worked up to a certain point. And we partner with them and we 

bring their case further. 

Those are those multi-jurisdictional cases. So the money that is 

already in the budget helps and what we are doing domestically always helps State and locals. And that is why we can share more 

and more with them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER OPERATIONS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much for your work, Administrator Leonhart. I wanted to make 

sure I understood you. You said a moment ago that your agents 

have intercepted about, was it, $700 million in cash going south? 

Ms. LEONHART. Our cash seizures in 2007 were about $700 million in cash. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is extraordinary. And you, I know, share 

that with local law enforcement agencies when the arrest is made 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
155 

in cooperation with one of them. Whatever portion of that fund you 

kept for yourself you can then turn around and use for DEA operations, right? 

Ms. LEONHART. No. That is not correct, unfortunately. 

Mr. CULBERSON. What do you do with it? I know in Texas at 

least when a local agency picks up a load of cash, arrest someone 

with a nice boat or a car, you know the sheriff will be driving a 

new car. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yeah. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Do you guys get to keep that cash? 

Ms. LEONHART. All DEA can take is enough to do the processing 

of the asset. And then the rest of that money goes into the assets 

forfeiture fund. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You should be able to buy some helicopters with 

that. Maybe that is something we ought to look at and work on. 

You all do magnificent work. I am so impressed with what you 

do. And one of the requests that I submitted to you, if I could for 

someone on your staff to help expedite this for me. And I would 

really like to know of the people who are arrested by DEA agents 

along the Southwest border, if you could tell us by U.S. Attorney 

area, what percentage of those people arrested are actually prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney? 

And the reason I ask the question is because my colleagues will 

be dumbfounded to hear this. I mentioned it briefly to the Chairman and Mr. Frelinghuysen. But when I visited Tuscan in earlier 

February, I was dumbfounded to discover that if you are, you are 

not even going to believe this. You probably are aware of this. This 

is unbelievable. 

If you are arrested carrying a quarter ton of dope in the Tuscan 

sector by the Border Patrol, you have a 99.6 percent chance of 

being home in time for dinner and never being prosecuted. True 

fact. Unbelievable but true. 

The evidence room is wedged with loads of dope that are all 

under 500 pounds, of course. The U.S. Attorney actually sent out 

a memo to the Border Patrol stating that we will only prosecute 

a very narrow range of cases. And by the way, if a smuggler is carrying less than 500 pounds, a quarter ton, they will not be prosecuted. And I asked the Border Patrol how long it took the smugglers to start sending the loads in at 499 pounds and less. And they 

said about 48 hours. 

It is a disturbing and just, I frankly, was just thunderstruck. 

And the U.S. Attorney there, frankly, won’t do anything about it. 

And it is appalling, Mr. Chairman. It is something I want to pursue with the Attorney General quite vigorously. And I have been 

working on this and have some suggestions and ideas. I am already 

begun to work with the Border Patrol and the U.S. Marshals and 

opening up. And there is an administrative facility in the Tucson 

sector that the Border Patrol can open it up, literally, within 60 

days and have a courtroom operating there and process up to 140 

people. 

In the event, are you familiar with this problem in the Tuscan 

sector? I understand that it is not just the Border Patrol, but your 

agents. I have had reports from your agents as well as FBI and 

ATF at the U.S. Attorney in Arizona will not prosecute perfectly 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
156 

good arrests that your officers are just apoplectic over a very bad, 

bad problem with the U.S. Attorney in Arizona. Could you talk 

about that? 

Ms. LEONHART. What I would like to do, I have new staff in the 

area. I would like to discuss that with—— Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. Them and find out. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Please follow up because we will pursue it. I 

think we have the Attorney General before this Committee in early 

April, Mr. Chairman, I think. And I will be working with you and 

the staff and we are going to take this by the smooth handle as 

my hero Mr. Jefferson always said. Do this the right way. But we 

have got a bad, bad problem with prosecutions in Arizona. Your 

agents make good arrests and did you know, for example, I want 

to make sure you are aware of this one, put this in your notes. 

That a 1,000 pound load of dope was the Border Patrol’s unmanned 

aerial vehicles tracked it. Saw it in Mexico. It comes across the border, a 1,000 pounds in a little convoy. The Border Patrol vectors 

agents out to intercept it. They make the arrest. The U.S. Attorney 

said, ‘‘No, we are not going to prosecute.’’ Twenty-eight pounds of cocaine is sitting in the evidence room in 

the Tuscan Border Patrol Office. And they were prosecuted. In any 

event, this is an urgent problem and I bring it your attention, because it is something I know your agents are concerned with as 

well. 

Also let me ask, because we have got a vote and the Chairman’s 

been always indulgent with his time with me. Your fast teams that 

you deploy to foreign countries, Afghanistan and elsewhere to take 

out, you know, drug lords. I asked last year about, and I am not 

sure if you are aware of this or not, but there is apparently anywhere between 50 and 100 manned observation posts in Southern 

Arizona manned by lookouts for the drug smugglers who tell the 

smugglers where the Border Patrol or DEA is about to intercept a 

load. 

I was told that you guys were going to make an effort to take 

those out. Can you tell us how many of those, have you taken those 

out? They have got repeater stations, satellite phones, night vision, 

binoculars. These guys are heavily armed and they are on U.S. soil, 

you know, semipermanent locations. They move around, of course, 

but can you talk to me about that? And what has been done to take 

those out? 

Ms. LEONHART. I would have to talk to CBP about that because 

it would primarily be their responsibility, however, in cases where 

in our investigations we come across counter surveillance, people 

that had a load and were vectoring it in, we have indicted them 

and made them a part of our case. I don’t know if these are the 

same ones you are talking about, but they have been made a part 

of our investigation. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. You can follow up with me afterwards, because I know we are short of time. 

But on the asset forfeiture fund, is that money distributed by 

statute? Is that a statutory requirement, or is DEA entered into an 

agreement that just that money you seized, the $700 million, the 

portion of it that does not go to the local agency or to some other 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
157 

law enforcement, it goes into the asset forfeiture. Is that by statute? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe it is statutory. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Someone is nodding back there. 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe it is statutory that no more than 20 percent can go to the federal agencies for processing. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. That is something worth pursuing, Mr. 

Chairman. And cash only would help the agency, but I know that 

the drug smugglers—that really hurts them. They can regrow the 

dope or recreate it, but it’s the money that really zings them. And 

congratulations, that is a magnificent number. And keep up the 

good work. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This whole hearing has 

been very educational and I appreciate it. 

We were talking about—and I will submit mine in terms of question, get a written response back on it. You talked about racial profile education. Then you must have a protocol that you have established. Could you share that with us—the protocol regarding 

profiling and working with individuals with limited English. 

And if there is any work being done on capturing information 

post arrest. What the demographics are of the groups that are arrested. 

And then if you have initiatives by your Department that increases the exposure to the different communities that are language communities and would love to be of some help also in that 

area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Ms. Leonhart, does the 

DEA believe that there is a workable, secure way for physicians to 

prescribe controlled substance prescriptions electronically? 

I understand you are engaged in the rule making on this subject. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. And I can tell you we did come up with 

what we think would be a solution and we have sent that forward. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the proposed rule published? 

Ms. LEONHART. No. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When do you plan to publish the proposed rule? 

Ms. LEONHART. It went up the end of February for a 90-day review. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Going up? What does that mean? 

Ms. LEONHART. OMB. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Goes to OMB. For a 90-day review? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. And we can’t, of course, publish it until it 

is approved by OMB. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And when do you anticipate that happening? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think we sent it up about the 13th of February. 

So we would be expecting something within the 90 days. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. From OMB? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are talking about summer. Then you publish a 30 or 60-day comment period. And then you would anticipate——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
158 

Ms. LEONHART. Right. There would have to be a comment period. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So would you, and you may not know the answer 

to this, but would you anticipate the finalization of a promulgated 

rule by the end of this year? 

Ms. LEONHART. We don’t know what OMB will say. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have no indication? 

Ms. LEONHART. We don’t have an idea. And when we do go to 

publish and I have been surprised on other things, that the comments that come back sometimes cause to have to rework it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well this is really important. I am following up 

on Mr. Rogers line of questioning. The experience he has had and 

the good work he has done down in Kentucky further impresses 

upon me just how important this is. 

Is there any way accelerate this initiative? 

Ms. LEONHART. What we can do is go back and see if there is any 

chance of getting it back earlier than the 90 days. But OMB does 

have 90 days to do it. And then there is that established period for 

the publication. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. But we understand that you are looking for 

something pushed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well great. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Before we conclude, I think we are headed 

in that direction. I want you to put in a plug for the mobile enforcement teams here. I mean we have seen a huge precipitous decline 

here. What do we have—ten? 

Ms. LEONHART. We had 22. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Twenty-two. I think members of Congress 

are keenly interested in seeing what we can do to restore that to 

that number. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well that was the area that——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We were in to that area a little bit, but I 

think we need to——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I mean that is the area that she said needed 

more support, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Right? 

Ms. LEONHART. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sort of. Indirectly. We could discern. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LEONHART. Hypothetical. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Hypothetically. I think we got it. And Mr. 

Frelinghuysen has been a champion for you on that topic. 

Ms. LEONHART. You all have. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. That is all the questions. Thank you 

to everyone who was here today and to your tremendous agents out 

there in the field. I can’t imagine a more dangerous law enforcement activity. And I thank you for your time up here and we hope 

to be able to support you in every way that we can. 

And with that, we thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(159) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008. 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS 

WITNESS 

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Well, good afternoon and I would like to welcome, again, Michael Sullivan, Acting 

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to discuss his agency’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. We 

are very pleased to see you again, Mr. Sullivan, and thank you for 

your time. We would also like to thank you for generously loaning 

us one of your special agents, Scott Sammis. Scott is doing a great 

job. He is fitting in very well, and we appreciate your loaning him 

to us. 

We are used to seeing relatively modest budget requests from 

your agency so it is no major surprise to me that the administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget has less than $1 million in new initiatives for ATF. What I did find surprising was the fact that in 

addition to denying ATF any significant new growth, this budget 

request makes permanent at least $21 million in cuts that are 

being carried forward from this fiscal year. It is not clear to me 

why the administration seems to place such a low priority on federal law enforcement, but that is the conclusion that I have to 

draw from proposed budgets like yours. There does not seem to be 

any other explanation for the lack of investment in our major law 

enforcement components. It certainly cannot be due to a lack of 

work waiting to be addressed by you. You cannot go more than a 

few days without hearing another story about violent crime and 

gang activity in our cities, or violence and criminal activity along 

our southwest border. ATF would have a role in addressing both 

of these problems, as well as attending to the regulatory needs of 

the firearms and the explosives industries. So it appears to me that 

we have plenty of need for additional resources at ATF rather than 

multi-million dollar cuts. 

I recognize that ATF does not control its own budget destiny so 

I am sure that decisions that went into this year’s proposal were 

not the result of ATF’s own recommendations. We are looking forward to hearing how you intend to manage your agency at the 

budgeted level, and to talking about alternatives that might better 

position you to meet the demand for your services. 

Before we begin, Mr. Sullivan, I would like to first offer the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Mr. Frelinghuysen, an opportunity 

to provide his own opening statement. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
160 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Sullivan, welcome this afternoon to 

talk about your 2009 ATF budget. I, or I should say we, would like 

to commend you and the men and women who stand behind you. 

You do a remarkable job. It is some very dangerous work every day 

to fight illegal arms trafficking and violent crime. We know you 

work very closely with agents of the FBI and DEA. You are all professionals. Quite honestly, I think in some of the budget deliberations you have been given the short end of the stick and as best 

we can we are going to try to remedy that. You are also playing 

a very important role in preventing and responding to terrorism. 

You are part of that comprehensive plan to attack terrorism. In 

particular, a critical role you are playing in Iraq relative to the IED 

problems. 

You are requesting an appropriation of a little over $1 billion, an 

increase of about $43.7 million, or 4.2 percent. However, you are 

dealing right now with a fiscal year 2008 appropriation that is basically frozen at the fiscal year 2007 level, which is $37 million 

below a current services level. The Committee will be interested to 

hear what steps you are taking to absorb those cuts and what the 

impacts are on your staff and operations. 

In addition, I will have some questions about your operations in 

Iraq and the accompanying supplemental request which is being 

put together. I also want to ask about the important work you are 

doing to combat arms trafficking across the southwest border, 

which has fueled a horrifying increase in violent crime and drug 

trafficking in that part of our country. Again, I welcome you and 

thank you for your service and the dedication of the agents that 

work with you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Sullivan, your written statement will be 

made a part of the record, and you can proceed with your oral testimony. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DIRECTOR SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Frelinghuysen. I have a very brief opening remark that I would 

like to make. And I want to start by acknowledging our appreciation for the work of this Subcommittee and for your support of ATF 

and for the comments you both have made today in support of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and most importantly for the support of the people, the men and women that 

make up our Bureau. I mean, that really is the strength of ATF. 

It is our hardworking, dedicated men and women on the front lines 

as ATF agents, investigators, and support people. 

ATF’s expertise in investigating firearms crimes, bombings, and 

arsons is a valuable asset in the federal government’s efforts to 

keep our nation’s citizens and our neighborhoods safe. As part of 

that effort, ATF has had a steady increase of prosecution referrals 

over the past number of years. And I think this is remarkable in 

light of the fact that our resources at ATF have been held relVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
161 

atively flat over the last number of years. But we have had a threefold increase in matters being referred for federal prosecution. 

A couple of noteworthy examples of our efforts include a recent 

investigation and operation in Baltimore, Maryland, and in New 

Jersey. They both dealt with dismantling two Bloods street gangs 

engaged in firearms and narcotics trafficking. As a result of our operations conducted with the assistance of our state and local partners, over twenty-eight individuals were indicted in Baltimore City 

and twenty-five individuals were arrested in New Jersey. These are 

just two of countless examples throughout the country that reflect 

ATF’s leadership in addressing violent crime. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its support of ATF 

during the fiscal year 2008 budget process. ATF is acutely aware 

of the competing priorities that face the Subcommittee and appreciates the funding it received. However, as already mentioned, we 

received the exact same level of funding in fiscal year 2008 that we 

did in fiscal year 2007, resulting, as pointed out, in a shortfall of 

$37 million. And that has required us to make some difficult decisions, including the canceling of two of our new classes, one for investigators to support the regulatory side of our business and the 

other for new agent hires. We have also reduced the number of previously announced support positions, and we have had to limit the 

funding for our permanent change of station transfers. And that 

does have a long term impact on the Bureau as you are moving 

people for professional development, as well as the needs of the organization, moving folks from the field to headquarters and also 

moving folks from headquarters to the field. This shortfall of $37 million will have a direct impact on our operations, including reducing our violent crime task force participation as well as our major case funding, equipment replacement, 

purchase of evidence and information, and the services that we provide to our industry partners. On the operational side, we will not 

be able to fund at least two of our violent crime impact team expansions planned in fiscal year 2008. A tracking center has reduced 

its contract of size, which could impact our turnaround time on 

firearm trace requests. As the year progresses it may become more 

challenging for us to sustain some of our complex investigations, 

such as those involving firearms trafficking conspiracies, and diversion activities that can require significant resources. We obviously 

have to prioritize ATF resources and expenditures in fiscal year 

2008 a bit differently than we originally planned, based on our anticipated budget. 

A less than level service appropriation has reduced the amount 

of training we are able to provide to our state and local partners. 

For example, ATF’s Explosives Detection Canine Training Program, which is internationally recognized and is also in significant 

demand, has been cut by nearly 35 percent. This will result in 

fewer state and local partners receiving canines than had been 

originally planned. Also, due to the current backlog of state and 

local partners requiring ATF trained canines, the time to delivery 

is also going to be extended from a range of two to three years to 

up to potentially five years. 

ATF also has reduced its Advanced Explosives Destruction Techniques course, which we offer for our state and local bomb techniVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
162 

cians, by 50 percent. Currently, there are more than 1,000 bomb 

technicians waiting for this training to safely handle and dispose 

of seized explosives. The training classes that ATF provides to state 

and local law enforcement agencies are not offered by other DOJ 

components and are both necessary and highly sought after by our 

state and local partners. But notwithstanding this $37 million shortfall, ATF stands at 

the forefront on addressing violent crime both here and abroad. For 

fiscal year 2009 ATF is requesting $1,027,814,000 and 4,978 positions, of which just over 2,400 will be field agents. This request includes $948,000 and twelve positions for program improvements. 

The funding and the positions will allow ATF to continue to protect 

our neighborhoods from the horrors, the risks, and the victimization of violent crime, and safeguard our nation from the threat of 

terrorism. The program improvement funding of $948,000 will increase our ability to inspect and engage the firearms dealers and 

pawnbrokers along the southwest border, helping to reduce the illicit firearms trafficking and violence along the U.S./Mexican border. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Frelinghuysen, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of ATF 

I want to thank you and your staff for your support of our crucial 

work. With the backing of this Subcommittee, ATF, the federal law 

enforcement/regulatory agency whose primary mission is combating 

violent crime, can continue to build on its accomplishments, making our nation even more secure. The funding we have requested 

for fiscal year 2009, including the increase for operations on the 

southwest border, is an important investment in this cause. And 

we look forward to working with you and members of your Committee in pursuit of our shared goals. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
163 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 42792B.001
164 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 42792B.002
165 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 42792B.003
166 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 42792B.004
167 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 42792B.005
168 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 42792B.006
169 

ATF FY 09 BUDGET SHORTFALL

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that is a sobering presentation. Did you 

make that case up through the agency and the Department and to 

OMB? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. In terms of 2008 I thought we made a pretty compelling case for the figure that was proposed by the administration 

and supported by both the House and the Senate. And I actually 

served in the Massachusetts legislature, so I felt reasonably confident of the number that would come out of a conference committee, believing that the range was somewhere between the low 

number and the high number. We felt pretty confident that we 

were going to do all the things that we originally planned for 2008. 

And when the final number came out of conference committee, it 

was $37 million short of our anticipation. 

So in terms of the impact of the $37 million, there was really no 

need to talk about those sobering comments as we anticipated our 

budget was being supported——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, except that to restore that funding and 

those services in 2009, and then provide for sustainment of that 

into 2009 and beyond. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, obviously there are the internal deliberations with regard to the budget process. And they ask for the components being looked at in terms of both level service as well as 

expansion opportunities in light of the significant challenges that 

we are all facing. We are pleased to get $16 million of the $37 million restored to our base budget. As I understood it, when the $37 

million was cut out of the 2008 appropriations then the services 

would be expected to be cut by a corresponding amount. Otherwise, 

you would have a significant structural deficit. So the plan obviously for 2008 is to spend $37 million less than we anticipated. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And your request for 2009 carries that forward. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, it does because the base number, obviously, 

is adjusted going forward as I understand it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, based on that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In other words, your 2009 request does not ask 

for a replacement of those funds and those services in order to 

build on that as a base into 2009. So I guess the question is, do 

you believe this is a sustainable budget for ATF going forward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, it is over $1 billion. With this year’s budget 

just over $1 billion plus. We will manage to those budget numbers. 

But I suspect it is like every single component that comes before 

this Committee. With more funding we would be able to do more 

things. With less funding we are going to have to do fewer things. 

You know, identify in some general terms, the areas that we have 

to cut back on in 2008 because of the $37 million shortfall that we 

were not anticipating. But you obviously have infrastructure, probably the last thing that you would address in tough budget times, 

that you delay with the hope at some point in time there might be 

some funding to address it. So you make the adjustments in terms 

of your spending plan based on the areas where it is going to hurt 

the least in the short term. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
170 

Now, maybe in the long term it is going to cost us a little bit 

more money at some point to get caught up. But we will have a 

budget number and hopefully the Committee would support the 

President’s request. We would have a budget number that would 

allow us to restore some of those items we talked about in terms 

of cuts in 2008, with that $16 million increase the level of services 

in 2009 from 2008. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Did you argue for more money to restore 

some of those services by increasing your 2009 request to accommodate the 2008 cuts and provide for that as a base into next year’s 

funding and beyond? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am confident that we had put together a proposal that was significantly more than what ultimately came out 

of OMB. There were a lot of items that we put as areas that we 

felt should be a priority from a planning perspective. We also understand and appreciate that the pie is a fixed-size pie, and it is 

a matter of trying to determine competing priorities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which pie is fixed? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the whole pie in terms of the whole appropriations for the Department of Justice. And I am looking specifically at the Justice pie. I will tell you, we have got great support 

from the administration. We have got great support from the Department. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You think this is great support? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, considering where we are at—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Great. What would be tremendous support? 

Would tremendous be more than great? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you get supported any more like this, you are 

not going to exist. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the increase from 2008 to 2009 is larger 

than the increase to sustain level services from 2008 to 2009. So 

I believe that that is certainly a step in the right direction. You 

know, if we had the $37 million in our base budget for 2008, we 

would be in better shape in 2009. No question about it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman. So OMB did give you a lit- tle more money, though? They did give you $16 million more. So 

there is a little bit of a, not much, of a cushion? But OMB gave 

you about half of that $37 million back, just so we get that clear 

for the record. But tell me, the canceling of classes, you have a 

class, how many people would be in a class for the investigators? 

How many would be agents? And when is the last time you have 

canceled classes? I assume every year, between you and DEA and 

FBI, you need to have a class, I mean—— Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is this the first time that there have been 

classes canceled? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe that there were classes canceled back in 

fiscal year 2006 because of some of the budget challenges ATF was 

facing. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How many people in these classes? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Twenty-four. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Twenty-four agents? And——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
171 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Twenty-four investigators. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Twenty-four investigators? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Our class size, standard class size, is twenty-four. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I could not really figure out the transfers 

issue. That was a little bit convoluted. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am sorry about that. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How does that work? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The cost of—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The ability, is that the ability to move people around? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Yes, because it—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Could you explain that a little bit? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would be pleased to do so. Agents coming into, 

I think, all federal law enforcement agencies sign a mobility agreement. ATF, probably compared with most of our counterpart federal law enforcement agencies, does not relocate agents that frequently. 

But we think from an operational perspective, we have to move 

about a hundred agents or supervisors or managers a year. It is because of the needs of the individuals and the needs of the organization. The cost of moving people is very expensive. Because of the 

changes in our budget appropriation in 2008, we had to significantly reduce the number from somewhere; our goal was 140. We 

are going to be under 100 this year. We are going to reduce those 

moves by about forty. So for example, if you have an opening in a 

part of the country that can only be filled with an agent, that opening may stay open. I’m not talking about a brand new agent, but 

talking about transferring an agent because we just do not have 

the funds to do it, or a supervisory position. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So the transfer would be to add somebody 

with more experience? Or it would be just a transfer in order to 

fulfill the need in that part of the country? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It could be because somebody was brought into 

headquarters in a significant position, and it has a domino effect 

in terms of trying to backfill for her replacement. And then from 

there, you know, his replacement. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You say there will be cuts to the Violent 

Crime Impact Teams. How many teams do we have and are the 

two losses in teams that would have been set up? Or are those existing teams? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have right now thirty. We have our thirty-first 

planned, I think, for Memphis, Tennessee. Our plan was to have 

at least two additional ones rolled out in 2008 beyond the thirtyone that we will have in place this fiscal year. We have no funding 

to do it so two teams that had been planned, we are not going to 

be able to execute at this time. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Obviously needed. A little more information 

on the Arson and Post-Blast Training. That is integral with the 

ATF Trained Canine. I mean, that is a pretty devastating cut, 30 

percent? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. On the—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And this is the whole issue of your 

partnering with local sheriffs, county prosecutors—— Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
172 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Local police departments, state 

police, your fellow federal agents? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. All of the above. ATF, at least within the Department of Justice, is the Department of Justice law enforcement 

agency that trains explosive detection canines for all the Department of Justice components, including the FBI, Marshals, DEA. 

Because of the expertise we have developed in the area of canine 

training, and because of the demand in a post–9/11 environment to 

do explosive detection work, the state and local partners have a 

real interest in acquiring explosive detection canines. Because they 

are internationally recognized, and the ATF-trained canines do 

such a proficient job, they are in demand. Our ability to meet that 

demand, obviously, has—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Has been severely—— Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Declined by 35 percent. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, that is pretty huge. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Substantial. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Even within the freezes and reductions that 

you have had to make, you are increasing resources, and I assume 

that is as a result of congressional direction, on our southwest border. I guess it is fair to say as you increase that, there is a war 

going on there, and you are major participants on our side. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You know, I assume there are going to be 

corresponding reductions around the country? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. I mean, there are going to have to be other 

position vacancies in other parts of the country left unfilled for a 

longer period of time. We have asked for volunteers within ATF, 

because of the fact that we do not have money available to transfer 

some folks. And I am proud to say twelve people volunteered to be 

permanently transferred to the border to try to help stem weapons 

being illegally trafficked into Mexico and the violence along the 

border. 

PROJECT GUNRUNNER

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Can you give us some statistics on Project 

Gunrunner? Obviously, drugs are being sent north. There are a lot 

of guns and money trafficked back and forth into Mexico. I have 

seen it reported that 90 percent of the 12,000 crime guns confiscated in Mexico over the last three years were traced to the 

United States. Are those numbers accurate? Where have you found 

these guns coming from? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The number of guns is accurate, but likely understated in terms of the percentage of crime guns recovered in Mexico 

being sourced out of the United States. I would say at a minimum 

it is 90 percent and in fact might be even higher than 90 percent. 

The weapons that are recovered in Mexico as crime guns can be 

traced to every single state, but predominantly are from Texas, 

Southern California, and Arizona. Those are the three principal 

source states for crime guns in Mexico. 

Now interestingly, you know, the more focus we put on the border and on those source states, and based on our relationships with 

the licensed dealers and pawn brokers on the border identifying 

weapons of choice, trace requests are now finding the source being 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
173 

further and further north. So these organizations that are principally drug trafficking organizations operating out of Mexico sending their drugs north are looking to send their cases and their 

weapons south, knowing that there is a great focus on the border 

in terms of the weapons trafficking piece. So they are using people 

to essentially acquire weapons further and further north hoping 

that they are going to stay under the radar screen. And that is 

where weapons trafficking groups become critically important, to 

link up the source and the demand. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And life is complicated even more by the 

lack of funding for the center that looks at this tracing data. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We are actually investing our resources, or 

prioritizing our resources, on the border. There is no question 

about it. We think that that is really one of the hot spots, and we 

have several hot spots, but that is clearly one of them. And even 

in spite of the $37 million shortfall, from our perspective in terms 

of our planned operating budget for 2008, we continue to add more 

resources on the border. It is obviously at the expense of something 

else because our resources are not unlimited. But at the Intelligence Center at El Paso, we have actually staffed up additional 

analysts to help assist in the analytical work between what is 

being recovered in Mexico and what we have for investigative leads 

in the United States and in farming those leads out. 

Now the concern you have in terms of limited resources is making sure that those leads are followed up in a timely fashion. Fortunately, we have a great relationship with our counterparts in Mexico. They have been extremely helpful in terms of——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is a lot better than it used to be. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Everything we have read and——

Mr. SULLIVAN. They are committed. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. They have come to appreciate the value of tracing 

the recovered crime guns. So we are getting great intel from our 

counterparts in Mexico, and we are getting great support with our 

state and local partners and our federal law enforcement partners 

on the border as well. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just satisfy my curiosity, I know the Chairman wants to get back in here, are you using technology? That was 

unheard of five years ago to expedite your investigations and your 

analysis of this huge national problem. Particularly, what is coming across the border that is now coming in greater quantities than 

ever? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We are using all the technology tools that are legally available to ATF to use to enhance our investigations. We are 

doing a much better job on the analytical side as well. On the tracing side we have gotten much more sophisticated in terms of being 

able to do that analytical work to really hone in on some of the 

areas that can be most troublesome. We are able to identify the 

weapons of choice, which is very helpful as we go out and meet 

with our licensed dealers and pawn brokers so that they can be 

helpful in terms of trying to stem the flow of weapons into Mexico 

and the crime that has erupted along the border. So, but we are 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
174 

also using good old shoe leather as well and getting out there and 

essentially acquiring——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is why you need people. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. People. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DOJ SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Department 

of Justice has requested $100 million for the Southwest Border Initiative, Department-wide, and your enhancement is $1 million. Is 

that for the southwest border? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is. It is actually $948,000 and twelve positions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Your responsibility in all of that is to look at the 

gun running or illegal gun trafficking. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, it is violent crime and obviously we do that 

by looking at what is going on on the weapons trafficking piece between the United States and Mexico. Obviously, trafficking those 

weapons into Mexico is a crime. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Describe your responsibility——

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am sorry? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry to interrupt you. Describe ATF’s responsibility in the Southwest Border Initiative. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think it is to address violent crime, what is contributing to violent crime, along the U.S. southwest border and recognizing Mexico as an important friend and ally. And if we are contributing to violent crime problems in Mexico, to see what we can 

do to assist them in addressing the violent crime problems. Now, 

what is contributing to that, obviously, is the weapons trafficking 

piece. And so it would appear that our biggest role is looking at 

what and who are responsible for trafficking weapons between the 

United States and Mexico. And the violence, as you know, is on 

both sides of the border. It is not just violent in Mexico, which is 

a significant enough problem. But it is also violence on our side of 

the border as well. So it is violent crime that is being triggered because of the weapons trafficking piece. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So I am hearing that fulfilling your responsibilities pursuant to the Southwest Border Initiative is going to cost 

you in excess of $1 million, which is your piece of the $100 million 

initiative? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. And I think——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That implies that you are going to be taking resources from other areas in the ATF to meet that responsibility. In 

other words, you are going to have the responsibility——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Of the initiative. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The initiative is going to create additional activity for you on the southwest border in excess of the $1 million that 

you are requesting for this enhancement, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, no question about it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So where are those resources going to come from 

within ATF? What is going to suffer elsewhere in the fulfillment 

of your overall responsibilities? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
175 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, as the head of ATF I think it is incumbent 

upon me, with the advice and input of my senior leadership team 

as well as the men and women throughout ATF, to establish the 

priorities in terms of how we are going to invest $1 billion of taxpayer money into supporting our mission. The southwest border is 

clearly a hot spot. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that we 

are giving as many resources as we can to address that problem. 

And I look at ATF as being the lead federal law enforcement agency to try to address that problem. And we are not doing it alone. 

We are getting some great support from DEA, FBI, ICE, state and 

local partners. The $1 million, the $948,000 and the twelve positions, is a program enhancement. We certainly welcome that additional funding 

and those additional positions. But I think I estimated that it is 

costing us, I think, at least $10 million a year more addressing the 

southwest border. So where does that come from? It comes from 

considering the other things we are doing as a lower priority compared to the southwest border. It comes from having to cancel a 

class of investigators. It comes from having to cancel a class of 

agents. It delays some investments in the infrastructure. It delays 

some of the investment I would be doing in the NIBIN Program, 

for example, in the ballistics imaging. I mean, there is a tradeoff, 

obviously. I could do less on the border and do more someplace 

else. But I have determined, and I think it is a good decision, that 

the southwest border needs, you know, significant attention on the 

part of ATF. And we have gotten great support from folks within 

ATF that recognize that the border really is the hot spot. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. What I am trying to get at is, for your 2009 budget request, you are requesting $1 million in additional 

funds for the Southwest Border Initiative. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But your activities are going to be considerably 

in excess of that. And are you telling us about $10 million? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think approximately $10 million. But I would be 

happy to try to get you a better number, Mr. Chairman. I will say 

this. In addition to all the resources we had on the border in fiscal 

year 2007, I am adding thirty-five additional agents on the border 

in fiscal year 2008. No additional funding to do that. I am adding 

fifteen additional investigators on the border in 2008. No additional 

funding to do that. So at a minimum, when I look at 2007 versus 

2008, I am adding fifty additional agents and investigators and I 

think about six additional intelligence analysts. A few to be assigned to the El Paso Intelligence Center and one each for the field 

divisions that are located on the southwest border. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I wish I had asked it like that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am sorry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. I am sorry. I appreciate your being forthcoming, and that is what I was trying to get at. So will you do that 

same analysis for 2008 versus 2009? How many more agents and 

how many more investigators you are adding in 2009 in response—— Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. To the need, whether it is the 

Southwest Border Initiative or not? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
176 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I would be happy to do that. I do not have 

those numbers at the top of my head and at this point in time I 

am not sure that there is a plan to have that type of incremental 

increase on the border planned for in fiscal year 2009 beyond the 

thirty-five, fifteen, and then the additional twelve positions that 

have been offered up. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So—— Mr. SULLIVAN. I would be happy to take a look at it to see whether or not a plan essentially has, in light of this budget and the 

other priorities, additional resources. But I can get back to you on 

that question. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So part of the ramp-up for the Southwest 

Border Initiative has already either taken place or is in the planning process for 2008? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is in process—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you have already accommodated or plan to 

accommodate those budgetary impacts on other areas of your agency? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. Now, some of that obviously does 

not happen on the first day of 2008. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So some of those costs would be less than a 

twelve-month cost in 2008 but would be a twelve-month cost in 

2009. So there will be some further impact in the 2009 budget, to 

have all of those additional resources on the border in a full fiscal 

year in 2009 where we may not have had them on the border, actually on board, for the full fiscal year in 2008. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson? I will just bet he has some questions about the southwest border. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate 

what you do, Director Sullivan, and all of the officers that work 

with you. And the Chairman and Mr. Frelinghuysen are right. This 

is an area of particular concern to my constituents and me. The 

lawlessness down there, you know, is rampant. The problems are 

legion, and your role is a very vital part of bringing stability to it. 

And I will do everything I can working with the Chairman and the 

members to make sure that we get you the funding you need to 

play that role. And it is, I know the million dollars, $948,000 and 

the twelve additional officers, that you are asking for is a good 

start. But it is kind of like one little brick in the wall. 

I am particularly concerned about a problem I discovered in a 

personal visit to the Tucson sector in early February as a part of 

an effort that we started in Texas. It is working very well, Operation Streamline, which is an enforcing effort, to enforce existing 

law with existing personnel, existing resources. The Border Patrol 

has been able to intercept and, with the help of the U.S. Attorney 

in those sectors, prosecute essentially 100 percent of everybody 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
177 

that they arrest. And the result has been a 76 percent drop in the 

crime rate in the Del Rio sector. The arrest rate in Del Rio is at 

the lowest level they have seen since they started keeping statistics 

in 1973. It is a remarkable program and the Hispanic community 

on the border there, 96 percent Hispanic, overwhelmingly supports 

it because the streets are safe. 

Now I know that you all have a role in that. I mean, as a piece 

of the puzzle. It is a team effort not only with the border patrol 

but the U.S. Marshals Service, the local sheriffs, God bless them, 

the judges, the prosecutors. It is a team effort and you are a key 

part of that. 

The problem that I encounter that I wanted to ask you about is 

the U.S. Attorney in the Tucson sector, I discovered, is systematically refusing to prosecute cases that are brought to her by the border patrol. In fact, of those arrests made by the border patrol in 

the Tucson sector, our U.S. Attorney has a policy that if you are 

caught carrying less than 500 pounds—better way to say it. If you 

are caught carrying less than a quarter ton of dope in the Tucson 

sector by the border patrol, the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute 

you. You are going to have an excellent chance of being home in 

time for dinner, in fact. They do not; all they lose is the load and 

a little time. 

It is unbelievable. It had never occurred to me to ask whether 

or not they are being prosecuted. Any arrest that you officers make 

you assume is going to be prosecuted, whether it be a sheriff or city 

police or ATF. So I wanted to ask you, and obviously this may not 

be something you know right off the top of your head, but I would 

like to work with you or whoever on your staff can talk to me about 

the prosecution rate of when you make an arrest, or one of your 

officers makes an arrest, on the southwest border, what is the percentage of those arrests that are prosecuted, presented to a grand 

jury, or pursued, or just dropped. I mean, not even pursued by the 

U.S. Attorney? 

It is far more than just the Tucson sector. I understand in California the prosecution rate is near zero. In Tucson the prosecution 

rate is .4 of 1 percent of the people arrested by the border patrol. 

Obviously that puts the officers’ lives in danger. The criminals are 

laughing at us. The smugglers actually have set up permanent observation posts in southern Arizona because of the lack of enforcement in that area. So it is a real concern. Are you familiar? Is this 

a problem with any of your, have you picked up reports from your 

officers in the field on the southwest border having trouble getting 

U.S. Attorneys to prosecute arrests that your officers make? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, Mr. Culberson, I have not. And I would think 

in terms of actual ATF arrests we would probably be pretty close 

to 100 percent of those cases being prosecuted. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Good. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is very rare to get a probable cause arrest. 

Typically it is by complaint or charged by indictment. We look at 

our declination prosecution rates by each of our field divisions. And 

nationwide they average somewhere between 90 and 95 percent 

with matters that are referred by ATF for federal prosecution. 

Mr. CULBERSON. They use good judgment. They make an arrest, 

they are going to be prosecuted. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
178 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Exactly. But that is hand in glove with working 

with the U.S. Attorney’s Office as they identify and determine what 

their local demands are, and working with your state and local 

counterparts. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And even in the areas of declination, it could be 

because somebody has determined it does not rise to a federal interest, or it could be counts, we have multiple counts—— Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, that is to be expected, 5 or 10 percent. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah, so—— Mr. CULBERSON. But actually in Tucson, and I brought this to 

the attention of the Attorney General the other day, it is literally 

.4 percent. They release everybody. They are all gone and they just 

laugh at us. So—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who released everybody? 

Mr. CULBERSON. The U.S. Attorney will not prosecute. Of all the 

arrests made by the border patrol in Tucson, they only prosecute 

.4 of 1 percent. So 99.6 percent of the people arrested by the border 

patrol no matter what—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. These are federal arresting officers—— Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And federal prosecutors? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, the U.S. Attorney in Arizona declines prosecution of 99.6 percent. So everybody goes free. It is unbelievable 

and it is wide open. And they are pouring through. And the Border 

Patrol officers are going crazy, Mr. Chairman, as you can imagine. 

And I even found a way, in fact I want to work with you Mr. Chairman and the members, I think there is a way that we perhaps with 

Chairman David Price’s help, maybe we can help with, he is giving 

me a look over there. I think I found a way maybe the Border Patrol can help with this prosecution problem because they might be 

able to help with administrative facilities, processing facilities. It 

is a terrible problem. I am glad you are not experiencing it. You 

can imagine how those Border Patrol officers feel. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I just got a DVD today that you guys ought to 

see of the smugglers coming across the border in Tucson like army 

ants. They actually look like those leaf cutter ants. They are all 

lined up, hundreds of them, coming over and none of them were arrested. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. A DVD? 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is a DVD that was taken by an unmanned 

aerial vehicle. And the officers are actually making arrests. There 

were 1,000 pounds of dope picked up by the unmanned aerial vehicle, tracked it all the way in from Mexico, the U.S. Attorney declined prosecution. It is an incredible situation that I am looking 

forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Price, there 

is I think a win-win solution to this. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield again? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are any of those arrests turned over to state and 

local authorities for prosecution? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
179 

Mr. CULBERSON. A small percentage are turned over. The local 

county jails are just full to the brim. They do not have any capacity 

to handle them. But everyone who is arrested carrying less than 

500 pounds, they are released. They are just turned loose. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Less than 500 pounds of what? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Marijuana. If they are picked up with less than 

a quarter ton of dope they are turned loose. The evidence room is 

full of loads that are 499 pounds or less. It took the smugglers 

about forty-eight hours to figure out the procedure. And it is a bad 

problem. You are right, the southwest border is key and you all are 

a key part of it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I look forward to helping you, sir. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. We have on the Subcommittee a person who has jurisdiction over some of that. Mr. 

Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would agree with 

Mr. Culberson that there is a great deal of overlap between the 

subject matter of this Committee and that of our Homeland Security Subcommittee. In fact, my line of questioning comes out of that 

same realization. 

Mr. Director, I want to welcome you and thank you for the good 

work you and your agents do every day. I want to focus on your 

testimony regarding Project Gunrunner and the ATF’s involvement 

in stopping the flow of illegal guns into Mexico, which is apparently 

the direction in which the guns flow, not the reverse for the most 

part. As you know, Congress is currently considering a request for 

the first installment of what will total $1.4 billion in assistance to 

Mexico to support its efforts against narco-trafficking and organized crime. For this so-called Merida Initiative to succeed it is essential that we enhance whatever efforts are needed on this side 

of the border to reduce demand and stop the smuggling of guns and 

drug precursors from the U.S. to Mexico. I realize this is not entirely your jurisdiction, but a good chunk of it may be, and that is 

what I want to concentrate on. 

I commend you for recognizing this imperative in your testimony 

and for the steps ATF has already taken to bolster its presence 

along the southwest border. I wonder, however, whether an additional sixty-two personnel, the twelve new investigators you are requesting in the 2009 budget and the fifty reassigned personnel you 

mentioned, are enough to sufficiently address the flood of weapons 

across the border which some of your agents have called ‘‘an iron 

river of guns into Mexico.’’ I would also like to learn more about 

your strategy for combating smugglers. 

So let me ask you three interrelated questions as briefly as I can. 

My understanding is that a great many of the guns trafficked come 

from gun shows, which according to the laws of the states along the 

border are less regulated than other gun sales. Now I understand 

you cannot change state laws, and I understand that federal laws 

are deficient in this regard. But what is ATF doing under its 

present authority to monitor guns purchased at gun shows, which 

apparently do end up in large numbers as part of this iron river 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
180 

of guns? Might you, for example, routinely station agents at these 

gun shows? 

Secondly, in addition to the support you provide to Mexico 

through the eTrace system, to what extent do you have the authority to coordinate and cooperate with Mexican law enforcement 

agencies in cross border investigations of gun trafficking networks? 

If this authority does not exist, should you seek such authority? If 

it does exist, to what extent is it working? 

And finally, regarding the so-called Tiahrt Rider, which as you 

know has been added to appropriations bills each year, to what extent are you prohibited from sharing gun trace data relating to 

cross border gun trafficking with state and local authorities, with 

public watchdog groups, or with other federal agencies? What 

measures are you taking within the confines of existing regulations 

to ensure that state and local authorities have access to trace data 

that might help identify and prosecute correct gun dealers involved 

in trafficking these weapons? Can you share with us how many 

gun traces you have performed at the request of the Mexican government in the last fiscal year? 

GUN SHOW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Price. In terms of the gun show 

monitoring, ATF obviously with limited resources tried to identify 

strategically if there was a particular gun show of concern based 

on intelligence, based on tracing information, based on source information. I think there were about 6,000 gun shows, if I remember 

correctly, last year. And we actively investigated somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of those gun shows based on intelligence information. So it was intelligence driven efforts at the gun shows. 

And we will continue to do that. As intelligence identifies the 

source of the guns coming from any particular gun show, or potentially people selling at the gun show, or even licensed dealers at 

the gun show, we will continue to operate investigations at those 

targeted gun shows. 

Mr. PRICE. And that is based on intelligence about gun trafficking in general? Or gun trafficking of the sort I described into 

Mexico? 

MEXICAN GUN TRACING

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, gun trafficking into Mexico as well as gun 

trafficking generally. If the gun trafficking information leads us 

back into a particular location, obviously that would be reason to 

open up an investigation and to do some additional investigative 

work. It could be source information as well as purchasers who are 

identified to find out the circumstances in which they purchased 

weapons, for whom, and how. And it could be, you know, as a result of other cases it opens up in a particular investigation against 

a gun show. 

On the issue concerning eTrace, right now we have established 

eTrace in Mexico at, I believe, nine of the consulate offices. We also 

have a memorandum of agreement with the Attorney General’s Office in Mexico to assist them on tracing guns. We recognize that we 

could be more effective within the country of Mexico in tracing 

guns if we had what is referred to as Spanish eTrace, eTrace in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
181 

Spanish as opposed to English. We are successful in less than 50 

percent of the trace requests coming out of Mexico, and we think 

part of the problem is language. If we can implement Spanish 

eTrace, it would significantly improve our efficiency in tracing 

weapons that are recovered in Mexico. I think around 7,000 weapons were traced last year in Mexico. Do you mind if I turn to see 

if somebody has a better number? Yes, it is between 6,000 and 

7,000 weapons that were traced out of Mexico. 

It has taken us a while to convince our partners in Mexico of the 

value of tracing. You know, from their perspective if you can stop 

the weapons coming into Mexico then there would be no need to 

trace. So they are encouraging us to put more effort on the interdiction of the weapons from the United States into Mexico. And I 

think over the last year they have come to understand and appreciate that the information from the trace actually leads to the 

source, and we can then shut down some of these weapons trafficking organizations. And we know that most of them are linked 

to the drug trafficking organizations. So we have a dual motive. We 

can address both the drug trafficking and the weapons trafficking 

with a number of these investigations. 

TIAHRT AMENDMENT

On the Tiahrt Amendment I guess that has been passed as language now, it is a permanent part. From my perspective as a 

former state prosecutor or serving as the United States Attorney 

in Massachusetts, it is important to have those types of restrictions 

in place that treat the tracing information as law enforcement sensitive information. So it is not subject to public information type of 

requests. There is nothing that limits my ability to share information that we have within ATF with our law enforcement partners. 

The language that was added in I think the last budget appropriation makes it clear we can share this information with our foreign 

law enforcement partners as well, like Mexico. And we think it that 

was important to make that clear so that there be no misunderstanding in terms of our ability to share this information with a 

foreign government, like Mexico or Colombia or Canada, where we 

are doing a lot of work on weapons tracing. 

So what do we do? We essentially promote the availability of this 

information. We trace about 250,000 crime guns a year in the 

United States. A lot of those have been requested by local law enforcement. In addition to just the information concerning that individual gun trace request in terms of who purchased it, from what 

FFL, we can what we refer to as aggregate analytical reporting information for a jurisdiction. For a municipality for a region for example, for a sheriff’s department that has regional responsibilities, 

and statewide. Like within the State of New Jersey for the fusion 

center, they are able to essentially get statewide information concerning weapons that are recovered in New Jersey that are considered crime guns. We can complete the analytical analysis. And 

then it provides them, I think, some substantial leads to do state 

investigations. It certainly provides us some substantial leads to do 

federal investigations. So from my perspective there is no limitation with regard to the language. And the language, I think, was 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
182 

improved to make it clearer that we can share this information 

with foreign law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I expect my time has expired. I will 

have a couple of additional questions for the record, but I thank the 

Director for his response. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If I might follow up on your testimony with regard to Tiahrt, and then respond to Mr. Price’s question. You said 

something in words to the effect that treats information, and I 

guess that is trace data information, as law enforcement sensitive 

without restricting its ability to be shared in appropriate law enforcement cases domestically or with foreign law enforcement. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. That is my understanding. And that is the 

way that we have been interpreting the Tiahrt Amendment and 

that is the way we have been sharing information with law enforcement partners. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So it is your testimony that you support the 

Tiahrt language that was included as a rider on our Appropriation 

Bill for 2008? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am sorry I was late. I have a lot of hearings. First, I do want to say that I think that federal law enforcement both ATF and DEA, do a tremendous job with the resources 

that we have. I mean, the testimony that I did miss that was given 

stated that you are doing a lot with a little, and you are doing a 

great job. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I was a former prosecutor also and I tell 

you, you give me either an ATF or a DEA agent, or a city street 

cop, they can really do the job. So I know you are doing a lot with 

less. 

I wanted to discuss a couple of things. First thing, I also wanted 

to congratulate you on the investigation, I think using a Strike 

Force concept, you worked with state and local law enforcement in 

Baltimore on the Bloods gang. It was very successful. And so I 

think you asked somebody from my staff, who is behind me, to observe the operation with other staff, and I think that is good. Because we as Members cannot be everywhere, but our staff does a 

lot of good work, and it is good for their morale and for them to 

see, and they are working with you. So congratulations on that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND TERRORISM

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Now all we have to do is make sure the 

prosecutors get the convictions, and we will go on with that. 

From an intelligence point of view, and you mentioned this a little bit, how much do you work with Department of Energy or 

maybe FBI on weapons of mass destruction? Are you focused at all 

in that area? Are they talking to you? Where are you with respect 

to those issues? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not sure I am prepared to answer that question in terms of the Department of Energy. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
183 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, one of our biggest threats, especially 

terrorist threats throughout the world are weapons of mass destruction, nuclear bombs being made, smart bombs, that type of 

thing. And, you know, we are trying to get intelligence throughout 

the world before they leave a port of embarkation. But you also 

know, unfortunately we have the drug cartels combining now with 

the terrorist groups, especially coming from Mexico and places like 

that. Are you working at all in that arena? I do not know. That 

is why I am asking you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, to the extent that we—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You do not have to answer. If you do not 

know the answer tell me. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I do know that we participate in the Joint 

Terrorism Task Forces. That, most of the FBI, you know, field division offices—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. By the way, let me stop you and I do want 

you to answer the question. I believe the Joint Terrorism Task 

Force is probably one of the best mechanisms we have right now 

to fight terrorism, because you have federal, state, and local all 

working together. Do you have an opinion on that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, I agree with you. I think it has opened up the 

avenues of communication between the state and locals and the 

federal law enforcement agencies, in particular, the FBI. And prior 

to the expansion of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, I think state 

and locals always saw the flow of information one way and never 

knew whether or not some of this information that was flowing was 

actually being exploited. Now they are sitting at the table and they 

can see exactly what is happening with that information. As is happening through fusion centers that are being set up throughout the 

country, typically state by state. So we have agents that are assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force. 

We have a significant investment in the TEDAC Program, which 

is a joint FBI/ATF effort to take a look at explosive devices. Most 

that are coming out of the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan are 

IED type components as opposed to what you describe as weapons 

of mass destruction. 

I would say clearly if in the course of our investigation of weapons trafficking, if in the course of the investigation of a drug trafficking case connected to weapons, we uncovered any investigative 

or intelligence information concerning weapons of mass destruction, 

we would immediately engage the FBI as the lead law enforcement 

agency on national security and anti-terrorism efforts. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not sure that we are engaged beyond that 

but I would be happy to find out for you. 

GANGS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, let us get back to something that you 

do do and, I think, do it well. And that is the issue of gangs. We 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
184 

know we have a serious problem on the west coast, and it is starting to develop a lot on the east coast right now. The Chairman and 

I worked very closely on a project last year. We were able to fund 

a new pilot program from Philadelphia to North Carolina to focusing on gangs such as the Crips, Bloods and MS–13. 

Part of that program will be working with all those jurisdictions 

and using technology and software packages that will be just-intime pictures. A lot of time there is a lot of movement in the gangs. 

And the ability to be able to communicate on a regular basis, between federal, state, and local law enforcers is important. 

And I guess you haven’t been contacted yet. But I think the FBI 

is going to be the coordinating lead agency. Are you aware of that 

program that we have just—— Mr. SULLIVAN. I can’t say that off the top of my head. But obviously ATF has decades of experience dealing with gangs. You mentioned Crips, Bloods, and MS–13. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

The two most significant MS–13 investigations in this country, 

the ones that actually reached back to El Salvador, were both ATFled investigations, including electronic surveillance in El Salvador. 

So we have significant experience dealing with gangs. And you 

look at the success in the Violent Crime Impact Teams in addressing gangs in some of those hotspot communities across the country, 

whether they are prison gangs, whether they are regional gangs, 

whether they are national/international gangs. 

You know I look at this as being the highest priority for ATF. 

I talk about ATF’s highest priority being addressing violent crime. 

And gangs obviously significantly contribute to the violent crime 

challenges, especially in the urban communities around the country. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me ask you this. What from a gang 

focus of what you do in specializing in gangs, what resources do 

you need to be able to effectively do what you need to do? And you 

don’t have a lot now. I know that. But from a resource perspective, 

what do you need, wiretaps, money, more agents? Where are we 

with respect to gangs? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well certainly doing things like electronic surveillance is very expensive. It is labor intensive. The investigations are 

longer term. I don’t have the numbers in front of me. But if you 

look over the last several years, ATF’s participation with your prosecutor counterparts has substantially increased over the last several years, looking at principally gangs using all the sophisticated 

tools that are available. 

Gangs are becoming more and more difficult to infiltrate. We 

have done it historically. What we would consider to be long-term, 

undercover operations. And a lot of that experience was developed 

dealing with the outlawed motorcycle groups. And we have expanded that. We have folks that have gone undercover with MS– 13. I am not sure there are a lot of other federal agencies that can 

say that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
185 

So we use all the tools that are available to us. But in terms of 

how do we address it, we address it I think—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. More about what resources you might need 

that we could look at as an Appropriation Committee. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we have 31 Violent Crime Impact Teams set 

up or nearly setup already. I mentioned earlier during my testimony we are going to do at least two more. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yeah. Let me ask you this, what was your 

funding last year for that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not sure if we actually get special funding 

for Violent Crime Impact Teams. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, I will ask the question another way. 

What is the increase from last year’s violent crime to this year as 

far as funding is concerned? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well we didn’t get an increase in terms of——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You didn’t get an increase? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. In terms of violent crime, we get a level service 

budget, 2008 to 2009. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So we didn’t get an increase in terms of addressing violent crime. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That is not a line item? That is not a direct 

line item that comes out of your general budget? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Exactly. And it costs us I think somewhere be- tween $2.5 and $3.5 million for each Violent Crime Impact Team 

that we set up. So we do that out of a direct appropriation in terms 

of prioritizing our resources. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Do you feel that is your most effective tool 

in fighting the gang problem? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think it is extraordinarily successful when you 

look at the statistics in terms of the number of gang members that 

have actually been charged and prosecuted and the number of 

weapons that have been recovered. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would like to hear from you. You probably 

said this. Let me ask you this, if anybody behind you knows either, 

what is the increase from last year’s budget to this year’s budget 

or ATF budget? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The total increase is $16 million that reflects the 

less-than-level service funding we had. We had level service and we 

had a level budget, from 2007 to 2008, not a level service budget. 

So that calculated to about a $37 million shortfall in fiscal year 

2008 based on a level service budget. Sixteen million dollars of that 

was included in the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, the total appropriation for a billion. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Sir, I am not interested in the money as 

much as the increase. So really that money was put back in to 

make it whole? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sixteen of the thirty seven million. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I mean this is pretty—— Mr. SULLIVAN. Could I just mention the number of—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Pretty bad. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Could I talk about the success of the Violent 

Crime Impact Teams? We launched them in 2004. We have actually arrested over 13,400 gang members. These are card carrying 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
186 

members of gangs. Twenty-six hundred and fifty of them are what 

we refer to as the worst of the worst of these gang members. We 

recovered over 16,400 firearms. And that was done by a small number of Violent Crime Impact Teams. 

We have grown them from 2004 to 2008 up to 30. But the first 

time out I think we had six or eight cities that we considered for 

Violent Crime Impact Teams. We are not up to 31. These numbers 

I think are extraordinary considering the small presence. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The bang for the buck, is that what you are 

trying to tell us? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The return on investment I think is substantial 

in terms of the—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is substantial. It is just incredible what 

your budget is. You know, there is nothing we can do at this point. 

You have the President’s budget. It is about priorities. But, you 

know, you have to take care of home base. 

And to not be able to expand when we have—drugs clearly in my 

opinion are the worst problem we have in the world as far as the 

impacts on people and crime. Terrorism is difficult. We have to 

deal with it. But it seems that all the money is being taken away 

from the enforcement of drugs and gangs. And most of the gangs 

are doing drugs. And that is part of where they are. 

But, you know, we have to deal with what we have to deal with. 

It is just from our perspective, if there was an increase in your 

budget, would you put—where would your priority be? Would it be 

in the gang task forces or the violent crime task forces we were 

talking about? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah. We—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That would be your number one? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we would clearly expand the Violent Crime 

Impact Teams beyond what we have presently in place, because 

that is a very successful model to address violent crime. 

And as I travel the country, what I hear from, local chiefs and 

our counterparts in law enforcement is, that model is very successful. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What is that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Law—— Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am teasing you. You flew out of Boston, 

right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. How could you tell? The southwest border obviously could do with more resources. We would put more resources 

on the southwest border also. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. All right. Well it is—I think from where I 

am sitting, I mean, I think you have done a great job with the resources——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER [continuing]. That you have. You are getting 

good results. Your numbers are there. I just hope that hopefully 

maybe we can reevaluate where your budget is, where ATF’s—I 

mean where DEA’s budget is, because of the results you are getting 

with not a lot, which really shows good leadership at the top and 

the people working for ATF are doing a great job. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That was a kiss up. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
187 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

GUN DEALERS ALONG THE BORDER

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I just wanted to get a few figures here. 

How many licensed U.S. gun dealers are there in the southwest 

border region? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think around 7,000 licensed dealers. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And I think related, the ATF conducts firearm seminars with a lot of the federal firearm licensees. I understand on an annual basis or at least in fiscal year 2007, about 

3,700 industry members attended the outreach events. 

How many in that neck of the woods participate in those seminars? I am not sure there is a correlation. But I just wondered. Obviously, these federal licensees need to be protective of their licenses. They need to do whatever they need to——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Keep your full confidence so 

they can be gainfully employed. How would you take a look at 

those along the border that are U.S. gun dealers? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We made a concerted effort over the last year. We 

have a plan to inspect all the licensed dealers on the border within 

three years. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Exactly. It is——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So we are making some progress. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We ended up inspecting a third of those 7,000 last 

year. The plan is another third this year and another third the following year. The reception we are getting from the licensed dealers 

on the border has been extremely positive. They are likewise concerned about somehow being used in the weapons trafficking problems between the United States and Mexico. 

So that much I think goes a long way for them to understand 

and appreciate some of the problems and challenges we face on the 

border. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Included in the Project Gunrunner is a 

presence of ATF personnel in diplomatic posts in Mexico. You have 

four in Mexico City. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Two in Monterrey. Any others? We have 

consulates, don’t we? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think that is it at this point. The two in 

Monterrey are actually new. That was something we did in, I believe, late 2007, early 2008. We did that obviously out of our direct 

appropriations. 

And you can imagine it is very expensive to put folks in a foreign 

country. But we thought it was the best way to continually develop 

our relationships with our counterparts in Mexico. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are providing Mexican officials with—

as we have discussed, accessed your eTrace weapons——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Tracing data. Is that information currently available to our consulates as well? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
188 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Nine of the consulate offices are equipped for 

e-Tracing. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And is that information of value to any 

other of your ATF operations around the world, or is this just sort 

of southwest border concentrated? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. In terms of tracing? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am sort of generally speaking about technology. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, the technology is—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You own the waterfront here. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And we are hugely proud of what you do. 

I just wondered in the overall scheme of things. You know, you’ve 

obviously got a presence in Baghdad. And you are doing some 

things with IEDs. 

I know you have ATF representatives doing a great job in Bogota. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I just wondered whether there is any value 

in information flow here. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. And in fact we are doing it. You know, out 

of Bogota, Colombia, we are doing trace requests for Central and 

South America. We recovered crime guns to see the source of those 

crime guns. We are doing it regularly in Canada as well, and also 

in Europe. You mentioned Baghdad. We are tracing weapons recovered in Iraq also. 

So the technology and the information that flows from tracing is 

being used worldwide. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I was reading the New York Times the 

other day. And I saw two pages in the advertisement section where 

the DEA is getting all sorts of money from asset forfeiture. I mean, 

they listed everything, houses and cars and things that had been 

confiscated. 

Where do you fit into the overall scheme of things? What do you 

get in terms of your fair share for all the work your people do when 

they put their shoulder to the wheel? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think there is a formula that is generated at 

least at the Department of Justice level and maybe beyond in 

terms of a piece of the asset forfeiture. I am not sure if it is referred to as a super surplus that they push back to the agencies. 

And you are obviously limited in how you can utilize those funds. 

You can’t hire personnel for them. You can hire with them. You 

can hire contract services. You can use some of that money to enhance training and professional development to allow for further 

asset forfeiture types of claims. 

We are recovering significant assets through the forfeiture provisions. Obviously with these combined weapons in drug cases where 

there are cash, cars, and properties, but also in the whole tobacco 

diversion piece where we do significant sophisticated investigations, they sometimes yield very significant asset forfeiture recoveries. They go into a general fund. And then eventually we get 

some of those funds back. It——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I was interested whether you are getting 

your fair share. And you specifically are slated to receive $4.5 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
189 

lion from the assets forfeiture funds to translate your eTrace database——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Into Spanish. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is that in the process of being done or——

Mr. SULLIVAN. I understand it is pretty close to being done. I am 

not sure if at this time it is here for the Congress to authorize. I 

think that is part of that super surplus piece that may require 

Congressional approval. 

It is $4.5 million. I don’t think that any objections have been 

raised to utilize the funds to develop the Spanish eTrace. So I 

think it is in the final stages of approval. But I would be happy 

to check on that and get back to you and let you know where it 

is. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

ATF ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Moving over to Iraq, we appropriated $4 

million in emergency supplemental in fiscal year 2007 to support 

your presence in Iraq. Can you describe what you have been able 

to do with those dollars? 

And first of all, you have a dangerous job. Then you add in obviously being in a war zone. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How are things developed there? And I assume you are partnering with should we say all the aforementioned. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. First and foremost, I am equally proud of the 

fact that ATF agents and others have volunteered for assignments 

in Iraq. And they typically rotate in for 90 days. 

They bring a certain expertise, you know, principally in the area 

of explosive devices and post-blast investigations. We have an 

MOU with the Department of Defense to train military personnel 

before they go into that theater to assist them in conducting a postblast investigation. 

You can imagine they have a very short window of time to collect 

evidence in a war zone as a result of an IED. We have as much 

time as we want domestically. So they go in there. They try to recover the critical components. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, before somebody contaminates it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Or somebody essentially decides that they are 

going to execute the people who are responding to an explosive device incident. So we train up the military. We train up the Iraqi 

police in explosive detection and post-blast investigation. We have 

done some work on explosive detection, principally with canines. 

We are also assisting in developing strategies to do criminal investigations with the Iraqi police in the military as well. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
190 

So we are doing all the things we are doing with our domestic 

partners. We are dealing with the military, the United States military. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And you are doing it in Afghanistan as 

well? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We are. Recently we were asked by the military 

to deploy resources to Afghanistan because of the great success we 

have had in this partnership with the military. We are also part 

of the group that is called LEXL, which is a group in Iraq and Afghanistan that is grabbing the explosive devices themselves, doing 

the forensic work there, and then sending it back here domestically 

to the TEPAC operation. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Been over there. 

Mr. SULLIVAN.[continuing]. At Quantico. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. This is where they sort of examine 

the——

Mr. SULLIVAN. The component parts. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And all the stuff. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Exactly. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. They are pretty amazing. It is an amazing 

process, mind boggling. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. What is amazing about it is that type of intelligence opens up significant investigative leads in terms of the 

types of components that are being developed, whether it’s a new 

technology, but also importantly who might be the source of these 

IEDs. 

So it is important in terms of what is happening in Iraq, but it 

translates into important information domestically as well and as 

part of our role in having responsibility for the United States Bomb 

Data Center. This information, once it is no longer considered classified, will be available for our state and local law enforcement 

partners through our U.S. Bomb Data Center, our Arsons, Bombing, and Explosives Data Center. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Remarkable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

GRADUATED SANCTIONS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know that you are interested in amending the 

law to give you greater options with regard to your investigation 

and sanctioning of licensed firearms dealers. We talked about that 

a little bit last year. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Could you tell us if there are any statutory or 

regulatory initiatives underway to give ATF greater flexibility and 

a gradation of sanction with regard to violations or alleged violations committed by firearms licensees? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not aware of any off the top of my head. And 

I will see if somebody might be able to whisper in my ear that 

there might be something. I know it was part of a more comprehensive bill last year to allow the sanction provisions, which would include suspension or fining for infractions we thought were less 

than those required for outright revocation. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
191 

But I am not aware of a bill being pursued right now by the Department. If you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just 

ask Mr. Ford. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Please. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I am told that last year’s crime bill has not 

been reintroduced. And it was included in last year’s crime bill by 

the Department of Justice. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you support having a gradation of sanctions? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, absolutely. I think it would be a very useful 

tool. I mean presently it is all or nothing. I mean we get—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. What does that mean? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I mean, the choices we have right now are 

to continue to allow whatever violations are occurring, or to revoke 

the license. 

Now I will say this, that most of the FFLs, the licensed dealers, 

when they know that they are doing something that is outside the 

regulations, such as not collecting all the information that is absolutely necessary, work to be in compliance. 

When I look at the breakdown of our inspections, about 40 percent of the licensed dealers that we inspect have no violations. 

That means that 60 percent have some level of violations. Not all 

60 percent warrant revocation. And we don’t revoke that 60 percent. We revoke somewhere around one to two percent of the licensed dealers that we inspect. 

That means that there are about 58 or 59 percent with whom we 

work very hard to get them into compliance. Now you might get a 

licensed dealer who just continues to ignore their obligations. 

So the only recourse you have as a regulatory agency is to either 

ignore it or to revoke. And it would be nice, if they weren’t willing 

to essentially work with you, to at least have a tool to, say, suspend 

them or fine them. And maybe that would get their attention to 

change their behavior. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you know how many firearm licensees there 

are across the country? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Depending on the category of license in terms of 

collectors and dealers, I think the total number is about 100,000. 

I think about 60 plus thousand are considered licensed dealers 

themselves. 

We inspected just over 10,000 of those licensed dealers last year. 

That is up substantially from two years ago. Two years ago we inspected about 5,000. Last year we inspected about 10,000. I think 

we are being much more efficient with regard to our inspection operations. We have done it with the same number of resources we 

had in fiscal year 2005 as we had in fiscal year 2007. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So that would suggest you are inspecting on a 

six-year cycle every firearms dealer in the country. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. About. I just want to make sure I am accurate 

with the information. I think——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you are not you can—— Mr. SULLIVAN. I want to correct it if I am inaccurate. I mentioned there are 100,000 that are considered collectors and dealers 

combined and about 60 plus thousand that are dealers alone. I am 

not sure if that 60,000 reflects that total population or just the 

dealers themselves. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
192 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

You know, the OIG looked at our inspection process a couple of 

years ago and suggested that we should be inspecting dealers every 

three years. That that is a good business practice. You have to 

make sure the dealers are in compliance. We were averaging about 

one inspection every 11 years based on the time table, the model, 

and the number of inspections that we were doing two years ago. 

I mentioned we were able to double. So it could be we have gone 

from 11 down to once every six years. So your numbers might be 

accurate in terms of where we are. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you continuing to pursue a change in the 

law to allow you to have a gradation of sanctions for firearms licensees violations? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Only to the extent that we have communicated to 

the Department of Justice that it is an important tool. I can’t sit 

here and tell you we advocated it strongly. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you do support it——

Mr. SULLIVAN. We do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Personally. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And it is a position of ATF that they would support——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

EXPLOSIVES RULEMAKING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you having a problem promulgating rules? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, a serious problem. And, I think the facts 

speak for themselves. It is taking us far too long to address these 

issues. And I believe this came up the last time we met. 

At that point in time, we either had one or two writers at ATF. 

We have doubled those resources. We have two right now. We have 

two in the pipeline. We are on the verge of hiring both of those, 

one person refused. Long story short——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry, one person what? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. One person refused the position. So we will have 

three compared to I think one that we had a year ago. But the 

process takes far too long. 

And I can’t sit here and suggest that it has been a priority on 

the part of ATF to invest the necessary resources. There is a commitment going forward clearly to make sure that they have sufficient resources to address this in a much shorter period of time. 

And my goal, absent some extraordinary circumstances, is to 

complete the process in terms of ATF’s involvement within the 

matter of two years. Some of these, obviously, are less technical, 

have much less impact, amd could be done in a shorter period of 

time, but on average it would be two years. That would be a substantial improvement over where we are at presently. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Last year when we finished our hearing with 

ATF, I felt confident that you were really going to address the rule 

making backlog issue. Why did I feel confident in that? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
193 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Because I think I expressed my own confidence in 

getting this done as well. And my frustration is how long it takes 

us to get qualified individuals recruited and hired at ATF. And it 

is an internal ATF challenge. I am not sure if——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. These are lawyers you are hiring, aren’t they? 

Do they process your rule making? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t believe that they are all lawyers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. See there is the problem. You need to hire lawyers. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, that point was actually——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are out there begging for jobs. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, that point was actually made to me in the 

last couple of days when we were looking at this issue that they 

need a lawyer as part of this process. And we are not going to go 

outside and hire a lawyer. We have a counsel office at ATF. And 

we made a commitment that we were going to take somebody from 

our counsel’s office. And their exclusive responsibilities are going to 

be in the rule making part of our business. And that is all they are 

going to have on their plate. 

So I was confident, Mr. Chairman. And I am embarrassed to tell 

you that we have not been successful in terms of getting this done 

in the last year. But there is a commitment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When you walked out of here did you just forget 

about it for 12 months? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. We actually advertised the positions. We are 

going to double the size of the resources we had. People shared 

with me that that would essentially resolve the problems, and it 

didn’t. I have nobody to fault by myself. I am the Director of ATF. 

And——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not trying to do that. All I am trying to 

do is reaffirm a commitment to work with you to seriously get it 

done. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is my fault as well, because I didn’t follow up 

with it and ask you how you were doing two months later. If you 

don’t mind, I would like to follow up and ask you two months from 

now or two weeks from now how you are doing with it. 

I want to know how we can help you or if we can specifically direct money. I think it is a really serious issue. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have got serious industries out there. I 

know pretty well that they want to cooperate with you and want 

to work with you. They just want to get the rules finalized. Once 

they get them finalized, they can work with them. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would welcome the inquiry two months from 

now, because I think it would make it clear, if it has not already 

been clearly communicated, that this is a priority internally and 

externally as well. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
194 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well let us know if you need additional resources specified for this function or dedicated to it from the Committee. 

But thank you for your candor. I do look forward to working with 

you on that. 

Mr. Fattah. 

NFA REGISTRATIONS

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This half a million on 

National Firearm Act Registrations, is that up or down, you know, 

how would you characterize that relative to your past performance? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Excuse me for one second. 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am going to have to—I apologize. I don’t know 

whether or not that number——

Mr. FATTAH. That is fine. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We will make sure we get back with a response 

to that question. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

REGULATION OF POTENTIALLY EXPLOSIVE COMMODITIES

Mr. FATTAH. On the explosive detection canine teams, there has 

been some concern. I also serve on—the Subcommittee on Homeland—Defense. The use—of items in the past we would not have 

thought about being utilized for explosion, some of them are readily 

available at your neighborhood store. 

Is that concern shared by ATF? I mean, I know you are doing 

what you can on the kind of normal stuff. But——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. Well, I think we share a concern about 

readily available components that could be utilized in some type of 

explosive device. 

Mr. FATTAH. Is there anything more that we can do through your 

agency in terms of that issue, or is that not easily done given the 

fact that these are easily purchased items? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well I think your point is well taken. It is a difficult thing to grapple with, because these are regular commodities 

that are available. And how do you regulate regular commodities 

independent of one another? 

Mr. FATTAH. Yeah. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do know that there is a study that hopefully is 

going to be published and available to Congress in which we participated. It is an old study. And I am even uncomfortable raising 

it at this time. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It really talks about the other components that 

are readily available and the potential impact to be utilized. But 

that might provide at least some direction——

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
195 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. From ATF’s perspective and some of 

the researchers’ perspective on a range of options that are available. 

FIREARMS ACOUSTIC DETECTION

Mr. FATTAH. I am from Philadelphia. But Mayor Menino in Boston has been—looking at this issue of—I think it is called Shot 

Stopper. But it is essentially a camera system that in some way 

identifies in some acoustic system—identifies where shots are fired 

and communicates that to police so that when there is a shot in 

a particular area, and a lot of different people tell the police it 

came from five different directions, then this technology helps the 

system identify exactly where when we deal with neighborhood 

crime where shots are being fired from and it helps direct the police. 

Is that something ATF is aware of? Do you have an opinion 

about it? Do you think other cities should look at it? Do you have 

any comment now or later on the record? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am familiar with it. And I actually had a demonstration. I can’t remember exactly which city it was. It wasn’t 

Boston. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was through our efforts in Project Safe Neighborhoods, where they actually acquired it through a vendor. I think 

there are several vendors that offer this type of technology. It is almost virtual, real-time identification. 

It is a fairly expensive technology to utilize, especially if you are 

going to keep it hard wired to certain locations, it becomes very expensive. But it is a very useful tool. 

In some instances you get false reports in terms of the location 

of the firing. In some instances, you don’t get reports at all. And 

the shots fired technology allows law enforcement to quickly respond. And as a result of that, ballistics evidence is recovered. Witnesses are identified. And cases potentially are opened and investigated, and suspects are successfully charged. 

So the technology I think has a great deal of promise. And I 

know ATF, at a number of locations around the country with state 

and local partners, has utilized that technology. And I know at 

least one location where through Project Safe Neighborhoods, they 

actually funded the acquisition of the equipment itself. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, I would like 

to return to this area of cross-border trafficking and some of the 

possible intersections with our homeland security concerns. 

SHARING AGGREGATE FIREARMS TRACING DATA

First just briefly to go back to this question of the Tiahrt Amendment and the effect it has on the sharing of gun trace data. I just 

want to check this impression with you. 

My understanding is that this data, the use of which is law-enforcement specific as you stressed, that state and local law enforcement offices of course involved in an investigation are—have access 

to this data. My understanding is though that the restrictions have 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
196 

had more to do with efforts to gain the bigger picture or efforts to 

establish patterns, trends in trafficking and in other— in other gun 

crimes. 

So I wonder what kind of aggregate data are available and to 

whom. Is that where these restrictions kick in? And is that of any 

concern to you? I am aware, of course, that this data could be misused or could be mischaracterized. 

But a kind of blanket prohibition, which is apparently what we 

have in place, may also shut off, for example, legitimate academic 

researchers or for that matter state and local law enforcement personnel who might want to be gaining this bigger picture. For example, on the pattern that we are talking about, cross border gun trafficking. 

So that is the concern I think some have raised. And I wonder 

if you would care to reflect on it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. I think there is a clear perception out there 

that it is a misunderstanding of the restrictions of the Tiahrt 

Amendment. The points that you made in terms of how important 

this aggregate tracing information could be to law enforcement——

Mr. PRICE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Are not lost on me. I think somewhere along the line we lost the public debate about whether or not 

this restriction prevented law enforcement from getting access to 

critical information that affected public safety in communities. 

Mr. PRICE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We lost the debate, but it is not because they can’t 

get access to the information. And it may be helpful at some point 

to share with the Committee the types of reports that we make 

available to local law enforcement. 

And I will give you one example, the State of New Jersey. And 

I use New Jersey, because Colonel Fuentes decided he was going 

to set up a fusion center. And as part of his fusion center, he wanted the capacity to do each trace in the State of New Jersey. He had 

statewide jurisdiction. That means state police in New Jersey can 

conduct an investigation about any place in New Jersey. 

We provide for every crime gun that is recovered in New Jersey, 

it is traced through the fusion center using eTrace. And he can generate as a result of his efforts, or we can generate on his behalf, 

a wide range of aggregate information, including the information 

that shows weapons being sourced from outside the State of New 

Jersey. 

So, for example, he will know where those guns are coming from, 

including which FFLs were the source of those guns. Now he also 

understands as a law enforcement agent that that in and of itself 

doesn’t necessarily imply that that FFL has done anything wrong. 

Mr. PRICE. Right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But if you have multiple sales coming from an 

FFL, it may at least make you curious in terms of what is happening there. If you are looking at multiple purchases with regard 

to an individual in that state and the guns are showing up in another state, then there could be an interest in opening up an investigation targeting that individual. 

Mr. PRICE. Certainly. That is the sort of inference I am talking 

about. Well I just speak for myself. I think that kind of assessment 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
197 

would be very useful. And I would be very grateful if you could furnish that to us, because as you say, there is a debate about this, 

which sometimes is pretty arcane. 

And so I think the kind of—the kind of gun trace data in law 

enforcement specific instances and in the aggregate, the way you 

utilize and share that data, and with whom, and what kind of restrictions apply to you, and whether there are any instances in 

which you think that it is undesirable or hinders you, I think that 

sort of assessment would be very, very useful. 

So I appreciate your clarification. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congressman, you mentioned researchers as well. 

You know, beyond that information we think is law enforcement 

sensitive. We have a lot of information we collect that we don’t believe is law enforcement sensitive. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, that would be—there are, of course, legitimate 

academic researchers, public policy analysts who may or may not 

feel that they are not getting the data they need. 

But there too, what kind of limits you observe, what kind of limits you understand the law to impose, would be—would be helpful 

I think to clarify where you draw the line and what—and then 

compare that with what some of the other users of this data and 

some of the analysts of this particular provision of the law have 

said. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. We publish annually on our website aggregate tracing information state by state. 

Mr. PRICE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So, for example, people in Massachusetts who are 

curious about crime guns recovered in Massachusetts can go on the 

ATF website and look at crime guns recovered in Massachusetts, 

the numbers which law enforcement agencies are tracing crime 

guns in Massachusetts, the type of weapons that are being recovered as crime guns, and the sources, the source states, of those 

crime guns. 

There was a period of time where that information was not being 

publicly shared with the non-law enforcement community. But it 

wasn’t because Tiahrt Amendment prevented us from doing it. 

Mr. PRICE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was almost a perfect storm. It was at a time 

when our budget was challenging. And we decided instead of 

spending the money for developing those types of reports on an annual basis, that we would put those monies someplace else. 

But, obviously, it became apparent to me that there was a great 

deal of public interest and a lot of misinformation out there in 

terms of what we could and couldn’t do under the Tiahrt Amendment. It was important to get the information to the public that 

had an interest in knowing what was going on with recovered 

crime guns as quickly as we could. And beyond that, making sure 

that we are pushing out aggregate— analytical reports to our law 

enforcement partners. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will look forward to your assessment 

of that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
198 

COORDINATION WITH DHS ALONG THE BORDER

Let me move on and ask. You testified, as I understood you earlier, that you were having some increased success in getting the 

Mexican authorities to deliver confiscated firearms. And I think 

you used the term six to seven thousand weapons traced with 

Mexican-supplied information. Over what period of time is that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That was last year. 

Mr. PRICE. Last year, that is what I thought. 

I would also be interested to learn what discussion you have had 

with other agencies. And this gets into the homeland security 

angle, other agencies regarding cooperation in addressing this 

cross-border gun trafficking. 

For example, I understand the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection focuses cargo inspections more on cargo entering the 

country, obviously, than the cargo leaving the country. 

Have you had any conversations with CBP about that regarding 

the need for enhanced inspection, in some cases, of outgoing cargo? 

What coordination exists between ATF and the FBI in terms of targeting organized crime rings involved in this activity? Are there 

other examples of successes or gaps in interagency coordination 

that you would want to cite? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Let me start with CBP. And Mr. Basham to his 

credit very early on called a meeting of all the federal law enforcement agencies that had assets on the southwest border to make 

sure that we were not unnecessarily duplicating effort. We have a 

great partnership with CBP. We are both using the El Paso Intelligence Center to point in intelligence and obtain intelligence reports. 

We are working very closely with CBP on strategic efforts for the 

outbound traffic, the traffic going to Mexico. There is a big difference between the traffic coming into the United States and the 

traffic going into Mexico. The traffic coming into the United States 

has been stopped. For the traffic going into Mexico, it is an exception for those vehicles to be stopped. 

So we are working with CBP to do targeted enforcement on the 

border itself based on the intelligence and investigative leads we 

have. We are using our explosive detection canine dogs in conjunction with CBP. 

ICE, obviously, has significant assets on the border as well, principally to address immigration-type violations. They have the best 

teams on the border. We have taken ATF agents and embedded 

them with the best teams on the border as well to ensure that we 

are not unnecessarily duplicating effort or conflicting with one another. 

We have a great partnership with DEA. Obviously, as I mentioned earlier, the weapons trafficking organizations are tied into 

the drug trafficking organizations and with the FBI in the work on 

violent crime. 

Obviously, we do a lot in the area of gangs and guns on the border. The FBI has some assets and resources as well. We partner 

with the FBI. 

So I think we are all trying to work as cooperatively as we possibly can on the border. That is not to say on occasion we don’t 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
199 

have a dust up or a misunderstanding on how some of these matters should be addressed. But all in all, I think there is a concerted 

effort to work together. 

Mr. PRICE. Any gaps you would direct us to? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I can’t think of any off the top of my head in 

interagency relationships. I want to get back just to Mexico for a 

second. 

It did take us a while to educate and inform Mexico on the value 

of tracing. But clearly they understand it. A couple of years ago I 

think we traced about 2,000 weapons out of Mexico. And last year 

we were up to 7,000. 

It is a little bit confusing in terms of who gets ownership of these 

weapons in Mexico from the local police, to the national police, to 

the military. And we are trying to work through some of those 

issues as well. We are working with Mexico to get imbedded officers or agents from Mexico that have the proper security clearance 

to work on the teams with ATF agents to make sure that there is 

an immediate sharing of investigative leads and intelligence information. 

We are taking the intelligence we learn from the EPIC, the El 

Paso Intelligence Center, in daily, giving briefing reports to Mexico 

as well. 

I will tell you, our relationship with Mexico, Mexico law enforcement and the Attorney General of Mexico, couldn’t be better. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Getting back to Mexico, staying on Mexico 

for a minute. There was a statement. I read the Department of 

Justice summaries on the that is—war that is going on in that border. The use of what they call the FN–57s, these Belgian weapons, 

the ‘‘cop killers.’’ I mean, obviously, from everything I have read, 

they have an infinite amount of money. 

But I was staggered by what was attributed to the Mexican ambassador. And I quote, it says here, he ‘‘Has said that as many as 

2,000 weapons enter Mexico from the U.S. each day.’’ Is that an accurate or is that an exaggeration? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well I can’t say it is an exaggeration. I can’t say 

it is accurate. I think the challenge that is we just don’t know. And, 

you know, until we know exactly how many crime guns are being 

recovered in Mexico, it may be very difficult for us to estimate the 

number of weapons that are being trafficked into Mexico. 

We do know that 7,000 does not reflect all the crime guns that 

are trafficked into Mexico. And it doesn’t reflect all the crime guns 

that are actually recovered in Mexico. We are moving in the right 

direction. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How would you characterize the Calderon 

campaign against, these cartels? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would say heroic, heroic. I think they are doing 

a phenomenal job at great cost. Human lives are being lost because 

of the extraordinary efforts of the Mexican government. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly that is my opinion. And lastly, 

whatever happened to the Merida Initiative? This was to provide 

Mexico with 500 million in equipment and training. But whatever 

happened to that? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
200 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I can’t speak—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It went off the radar screen or—— Mr. SULLIVAN. I can’t speak to that. I do know that we are training counterparts in Mexico. We are training in the area of postblast investigations. They have an interest in explosive detection 

canines. They are looking to set up a canine training center. We 

are training them on weapons tracing information as well. 

So at ATF without any direct funding in our budget, we are utilizing our expertise with our counterparts in Mexico. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And lastly, I want to thank you for setting 

up a new field division in New Jersey. And just in case the record 

shows that it is because I served on this Committee it did not happen as a result of that. It was in the works long before I got on 

this Committee. But I want to thank you for your efforts in the 

New York and New Jersey region and in particular for the new office. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, thank you for saying that. And that effort 

started before I arrived as well. There were a lot of people who 

worked very, very hard. We set up two additional field divisions in 

2008, in Denver, Colorado, which is a four-division state, and in 

New Jersey. 

Prior to that New Jersey was supported by the New York and 

Philadelphia field division offices. Clearly with a population of I 

think around nine million and some of the challenges, it was very 

apparent to me that a field division in New Jersey was critically 

important from a strategic perspective. 

And there is a cost associated with that. And that cost originally 

was planned out of that $37 million level service budget. And it 

was still a high enough priority from our perspective to make sure 

we got it done. We had great support, you know, from our colleagues in New Jersey. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Good. Well we thank you and recognize you 

and the people that stand behind you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. Mr. Director, we very much appreciate your good work in leading this fine organization. And we appreciate the good work of everybody who is in it, both those sitting 

here and those who are all over the place representing the best interests of the country, sometimes in very dangerous jobs. 

We want you to know we appreciate that. We understand how 

lean your budget is and how lean your request is given your responsibilities. We want to be as sympathetic as possible. 

You have got really good advocates. You have got Dennis Dauphin whose services considerably benefitted this subcommittee last 

year, and you have Scott Sammis here right now. So I know you 

are all positioned very well. We will see how it all turns out. Want 

to be responsive. 

Again, thank you for your testimony here today. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dennis played a 

role in preparing for this hearing. And I will tell you, he was a lot 

tougher than you were. And I thank you for that. Thank you for 

your courtesies. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t know what that means. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
201 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you for your courtesies, and your interest 

in ATF, and your support for our mission. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There will be some questions for the record. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(203) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008. 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE 

AGAINST WOMEN 

WITNESSES 

JEFFREY SEDGWICK, ACTING ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

CARL PEED, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 

CINDY DYER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 

OPENING REMARKS OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This hearing will come to order. Good morning, 

everyone. Thank you all for being here. We welcome our panel of 

three Department of Justice witnesses to the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, the first hearing 

this year on justice matters. 

Today we will examine the Administration’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request for the State and Local Law Enforcement Grant 

programs of the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and the Office on Violence Against 

Women. 

Two years ago, Americans were taken aback to learn that violent 

crime had spiked across the nation in 2005 and 2006 for the first 

time in more than a decade. The FBI’s recent preliminary uniformed crime report findings may indicate some good news for jurisdictions where the number of violent crimes reported has declined in the first half of 2007 as compared to the same period in 

2006. However, it is not all good news. Violent crime is still rising 

in many areas, including in many medium-sized cities and small 

towns. 

In the face of a shaky economy and tremendous state and local 

law enforcement and crime prevention needs, it is as important 

now as it ever has been to ensure that every federal dollar is spent 

wisely. 

The President’s budget slashes state and local law enforcement and crime prevention grant programs by more than $1.6 billion 

below the fiscal year 2008 funding level of $2.7 billion. The Administration proposed roughly $1.1 billion for four ill-defined consolidated grant programs. It is the same plan essentially 

that Congress rejected last year except that the funding level requested now is $400 million less than the President asked for then. 

Our first witness is Jeffrey Sedgwick, who was named Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs on January the 3rd, 2008. Dr. Sedgwick also continues to serve as Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics within OJP. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
204 

As head of OJP, Dr. Sedgwick is responsible for providing federal 

leadership to develop the nation’s capacity to prevent and control 

crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase 

knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. 

Carl Peed is Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. A career law enforcement officer, Mr. Peed is charged 

with ensuring that the COPS Program advances effective community policing practices to improve public safety across state, local, 

and tribal law enforcement agencies. 

Our final witness is Cindy Dyer, the new Director of the Office 

of Violence Against Women, confirmed to this post on December 

the 19th, 2007. Ms. Dyer is responsible for providing federal leadership to develop and support the capacity of state, local, tribal, and 

nonprofit entities in preventing and responding to violence against 

women. 

You had a lot of support on the floor of the House last year and 

in this Committee, I might say. 

We look forward to your testimony, all of you. Your written statement, I understand it is combined, will be made part of the record. 

And I now call on Mr. Frelinghuysen before we ask that you make 

your oral presentations. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join the chairman in welcoming you all this morning. 

Overall, the Chairman has said the budget request for state and 

local assistance programs represents a pretty dramatic reduction 

from current and historical levels. Not counting rescissions in 

emergency funding, the fiscal year 2009 request is a billion dollars, 

a reduction of 1.5 billion or 60 percent below the current level. 

Like last year, you are proposing to consolidate the remaining 

funding into four new unauthorized multipurpose grant programs. 

We look forward to hearing today about what you are proposing to 

cut and eliminate and why you think such dramatic reductions are 

appropriate. 

And, again, welcome. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Good morning, Representative Ruppersberger. 

Good morning, Dutch, and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
205 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 511 here 42792B.007
206 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 512 here 42792B.008
207 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 513 here 42792B.009
208 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 514 here 42792B.010
209 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 515 here 42792B.011
210 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 516 here 42792B.012
211 

OPENING REMARKS OF ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

My name is Jeff Sedgwick, and I am the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee regarding the Administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for OJP. 

OJP works in close partnership across the criminal justice spectrum, including state and local governments, tribes, national law 

enforcement organizations, victim advocates researchers, and many 

more. Together, we identify the most pressing challenges confronting the justice system. Together we provide leadership in developing the Nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge 

about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. 

We are and continue to be committed to providing our state, local 

and tribal criminal partners with the knowledge, tools, and abilities they need to make America’s communities safer for our citizens. But, we also recognize the need for spending restraint and 

that we must make tough choices. Resources are limited and we 

must adopt an approach that allows us to be adaptable and flexible. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for OJP is $1.4 

billion. The proposal outlined in the budget submission will allow 

OJP and its bureaus and program offices to more effectively target 

resources to the areas with the greatest needs and where they can 

do the most good. 

PROPOSED GRANT CONSOLIDATION

One of the most significant proposals in this year’s budget request is the consolidation of more than 70 existing programs into 

three distinct, multipurpose, and highly-competitive grant programs. These are the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership, the 

Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program, and the Child Safety 

and Juvenile Justice Program. 

Due in large part to the hard work of local law enforcement, the 

Nation’s crime rates are well below historical levels and lower than 

during the previous decade. Despite these positive trends, many 

challenges still exist. Some regions and communities continue to 

experience increases in violent crime. 

As Attorney General Mukasey recently said, the nature of crime 

varies not only from one city to another but even from one block 

to the next. So, it is at the block level that much of the work has 

to happen. 

The Department is following through on the Attorney General’s 

commitment. We are working with our state and local partners to 

identify problems and develop meaningful strategies to reduce and 

deter crime. 

Through the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative, we 

have provided funds to states and localities for violent crime task 

forces to tackle the areas of greatest need. These task forces bring 

together state and local law enforcement agencies to address specific violent crime problems with focused strategies, including intelligence-led policing. In fiscal year 2007, OJP awarded $75 million 

to 106 sites in 37 states through this program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
212 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget requests $200 million for 

the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative. Funding would 

continue to be used to help communities address high rates of violent crime by forming and developing multi-jurisdictional law enforcement partnerships to disrupt criminal gang, firearm, and drug 

activities. 

The President’s budget proposal also includes $200 million for 

the Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program. This initiative 

consolidates most of OJP’s state and local law enforcement assistance programs into a single flexible, competitive discretionary 

grant program. 

OJP will continue to assist communities in addressing a number 

of high-priority concerns such as reducing violent crime at local levels through the Project Safe Neighborhood initiatives, addressing 

criminal justice issues surrounding substance abuse through Drug 

Courts, and methamphetamine enforcement and lab cleanup. 

Through the new Byrne Program, we will also focus on promoting and enhancing law enforcement information sharing, improving the capacity of state and local law enforcement to deal with 

DNA evidence and analysis backlogs, addressing domestic trafficking in persons, improving and expanding prisoner reentry initiatives, and improving services to victims of crime. The President is also requesting $185 million for the Child Safety and Juvenile Justice Program. This initiative will allow OJP to 

assist state and local governments in addressing multiple child and 

juvenile justice needs, such as reducing child exploitation and 

abuse, including those facilitated by the internet, improving juvenile justice outcomes, and addressing school safety needs. 

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2009 budget request and the proposed grant programs I have discussed today will enable OJP to 

more effectively target assistance to areas with the greatest need 

and allow for adjustments in funding priorities in response to 

emerging trends in crime and justice issues. 

The new grant programs will also provide state, local, and tribal 

governments with increased flexibility and using grant funds to 

best meet the unique needs of their communities. 

We are confident that our proposed budget reflects these priorities and will strengthen our mission. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

today and I am happy to answer any questions. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DIRECTOR PEED

Mr. PEED. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Carl Peed. I am the Director of the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services or better known as COPS. 

I am very pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

As a 25-year veteran of law enforcement, I am proud to lead an 

organization whose mission is to support state and local law enforcement in their efforts to reduce crime through community policing. 

The Administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 includes $4 million for community policing development. The DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
213 

ment will use these funds to work closely with law enforcement executives and other leaders in the field to reduce crime by developing and implementing community policing strategies. 

These resources will enable DOJ to build upon and further leverage the resources that COPS has for law enforcement over the past 

13 years. 

Examples of how we use community policing development funds 

to support the field exists in two executive sessions that we have 

supported within the past month. One session addressed a stop 

snitching phenomenon and the other addressed campus public safety issues. 

The stop snitching phenomenon of the past years poses a significant challenge to law enforcement because it actively undermines 

the ability of police to prevent and solve crime and it encourages 

public distrust of police. 

Unfortunately, understanding the damage that this phenomenon 

is creating, the COPS Office awarded a grant to the Police Executive Research Forum to conduct this session which attracted law 

enforcement executives from California to Texas to Florida to up 

and down the east coast, including D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, 

some jurisdictions in New Jersey, and Boston. And we also had the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office from Baltimore there as well as faith-based 

organizations. 

The lessons learned during the session were combined to create 

a White Paper that will help law enforcement agencies and communities throughout the country respond to the stop snitching phenomenon. 

The executive session on campus safety was convened so that 

federal agencies and campus law enforcement executives can develop strategies that effectively address the public safety concerns 

of our Nation’s colleges and universities. 

As high-profile events such as Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois 

University, Delaware State, or even Pepperdine where you have 

wildfires, the need for coordinated efforts such as these is to develop national campus public safety standards and strengthen partnerships between federal agencies and campus law enforcement. 

This is critical. 

And I might just advise you that the Department of Justice has 

not been immune from these very tragic events. The Department 

of Justice lost an attorney on the University of South Carolina 

campus at the National Advocacy Center several years ago, as well 

as a former colleague of ours in the Department of Justice in the 

COPS Office was gunned down at the Appalachian Law School 

down in southwest Virginia. 

In all, COPS has invested more than $1.3 million in campus safety initiatives that have convened campus law enforcement executives to develop best practices and establish campus safety partnerships and provide training and technical assistance to campus law 

enforcement officials. 

Community policing strategies which include partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation have helped American law enforcement agencies reduce crime by engaging their communities and building partnerships to meet new and existing challenges. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
214 

I look forward to continuing to support the Nation’s law enforcement agencies by advancing community policing with the community policing development funds in the 2009 budget. 

So thank you very much for allowing me to be here and I look 

forward to answering questions. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER [presiding]. Ms. Dyer. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DIRECTOR DYER

Ms. DYER. I am honored to be here today with my colleagues to 

testify before the Subcommittee regarding the Administration’s 

proposed fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Office on Violence 

Against Women, OVW. 

My name is Cindy Dyer and I currently have the privilege of 

serving as the Director of OVW. The mission of OVW is to provide 

federal leadership to reduce violence against women and to administer justice for and strengthen services to all victims of domestic 

violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Since 1995, OVW has awarded over $3 billion in grants and cooperative agreements to enable communities to enforce protection orders, provide legal assistance, and other services to victims, provide 

intensive training to police officers, prosecutors and judges, and 

support local efforts to respond to violence against women. 

During this Administration, OVW has presided over an unprecedented expansion of the types of services funded and the level of 

funding awarded. 

Since the reauthorization of VAWA in 2000, our programs have 

enabled communities to increase their efforts to help some of the 

most vulnerable victims, including the elderly and those with disabilities and to provide supervised visitation centers for victims 

and their children. 

In addition, in the 2008 ‘‘Omnibus Appropriations Act,’’ Congress 

has appropriated funds for the Department to implement another 

six new grant programs which will enhance services for victims of 

sexual assault, young victims, children exposed to violence, and victims with culturally and linguistically specific needs. 

As OVW administers these programs, we are also working to address ongoing challenges in the field, such as expanding efforts to 

assist victims of sexual assault and better responding to the critical 

problem of violence against women in Indian Country. 

We know our funds are making a difference and are reaching victims. In the six-month reporting period from January to June of 

2006, OVW’s discretionary program grantees reported that they 

served more than 119,000 victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 

In calendar year 2006, subgrantees of our Stop Violence Against 

Women Formula Grant Program reported serving over half a million victims. 

Before coming to OVW, I served for 14 years as the chief prosecutor of the Family Violence Division of the Dallas County District 

Attorney’s Office. 

In addition, in that position, I managed several OVW grants, one 

directly to Dallas County from OVW’s Arrest Program, and three 

subgrants from the State of Texas from OVW’s Stop Violence 

Against Women Formula Grant Program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
215 

From this experience, I know how vitally important these funds 

are to local communities. With the Arrest Program grant to Dallas 

County, we were able to form an effective, coordinated community 

response involving the District Attorney’s Office, the local women’s 

shelter, the Dallas Police Department, and a nonprofit provider of 

civil legal services for victims. 

Because of this coordinated community response, which was 

made possible as a result of VAWA funds, I can personally tell you 

that the way domestic violence cases are managed in Dallas, Texas 

has improved dramatically. 

The fiscal year 2009 President’s budget requests $280 million for 

OVW, a significant reduction from the amounts sought in recent 

years. I know that this year’s budget recommends reductions to 

OVW grant programs that our sister agencies have been experiencing for the past several years. 

I can assure you that OVW will leverage its resources so that it 

can continue to support programs that keep victims safe and hold 

batterers accountable. 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify and I welcome any questions from the Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RUPPERSBERGER

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. I will start and then we will go 

back and forth. 

I said this last year and I will say it again this year, that I think 

the cuts or the budget requests from the President for Office of 

Justice, the COPS Program, and Office of Violence Against Women 

are unacceptable. 

We have a lot of priorities out there. We know it. We have issues 

that are out there with Iraq and Afghanistan and all the areas that 

we are dealing with, but we also have to remember home base. 

I also understand that you are here on behalf of the Administration and, if I was the President, I would want you to support my 

budget. But I am going to ask you these questions anyhow for the 

record. 

You know, the federal government plays a significant role. I was 

a prosecutor for close to ten years, and the Office of Domestic Violence might not be as funded as it is in a lot of other jurisdictions 

because you have murders, rapes and robberies, and you need to 

fund those special areas. This is where the federal monies really 

do help. And I think when the monies are there, and as you just 

pointed out, Ms. Dyer, that those monies have helped and have 

really made a difference. 

You know, we are shortchanging our local law enforcement. We 

have had a lot of successes recently. I am from Baltimore. I mean, 

just last week we had ATF and state and local agencies working 

together on a gun, and gang case. Last year we had a project request make it out of this Committee that to have a focus on gang 

violence from Philadelphia to North Carolina. I mean, this is where 

the federal government really needs to step in. 

I am also concerned about the President’s cuts. I think the grants 

go from funding levels from 2.6 billion to a little over one billion. 

That is totally unacceptable to continue what we need to do. We 

have issues in our streets also. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
216 

The other thing that concerns me, and then I will get to my questions, in addition to the reduced amount requested, we have concerns about consolidating all the grants into a few larger grant programs. 

Now, this is going to result in potential grantees competing 

against programs that are dissimilar. So you are pitting good intentions against each other. You know, we are going backwards in our 

communities instead of forwards. And as we know, security and 

safety is a high priority. 

All right. Attorney General Sedgwick. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sedgwick. You can call me Jeff. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, with a name like Ruppersberger, I 

have got to get it right. 

EFFECT ON OJP OF DECREASE IN FUNDING

How do you expect, and I kind of know where your answer is 

going to be, but I have got to do it for the record, how do you expect 

state and local law enforcement agencies to be as successful as they 

have been in the past with less than half of the resources available 

to them in 2008? It is going to be interesting to hear your answer 

to that one. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. It——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Fiscal year 2008, one billion reduced to .4 

billion, a difference of $601 million. Good luck. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. If the question——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Oh, yeah. Could you use the microphone 

too? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. If the question is will state and local law enforcement be able to do as much as they have in the past with appropriations or funding cuts to OJP, I think the answer is pretty 

obvious no, they are not going to be able to. 

However, I would call your attention—but, I mean, obviously we 

all know what the impact of shifting priorities is. The thing that 

I would point to, there are two things that I would point to here. 

One is that the budget for the Department of Justice reflects a 

conscious choice on the part of leadership in the Department to 

protect core functions of the Department of Justice that include, as 

you mentioned in Baltimore, work by ATF, DEA, FBI, and so on, 

are important in terms of affecting local law enforcement problems. 

For example, the ability of the federal government to protect borders and to prevent drugs from being brought into the country 

across, for example, the Mexican border has a direct impact on the 

state and local law enforcement. 

Similarly, the ability of the Department of Justice, through a 

core function of it like the Bureau of Prisons, to incarcerate persons 

for drug or gun or gang offenses that otherwise would fall on state 

and local budgets is an important support for local law enforcement. 

So I think part of what you are seeing here is a conscious decision on the part of Department leadership, which I support, that 

says the Department must do the core functions of the Department 

of Justice because those impact or cascade down to the state and 

local government. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
217 

And then the second part of it is, with the reduced funding that 

we have, is the Department making sure that its core functions are 

properly supported. Our obligation then is to take the amount of 

money that we are given and the Department prioritizes its funds 

and makes sure that those funds are spent well. And that is the 

whole logic behind seeking to combine programs into broader categories that are flexible and also competitive. 

One of the things that we know in the Department of Justice, 

and I was lucky enough to participate in the 18 city tour a little 

over a year ago where we went around and looked at and toured 

a variety of cities to ask questions about the increase in crime that 

was reported in the 2005 UCR. 

One of the things that we learned is needs differ from community 

to community. And their violent crime increase that was measured 

in 2005 was confined largely to murder and robbery, not to rape 

and assault. It varied by region of the country. It varied by city 

size. Even within cities, the crime problems could be identified to 

hot spots, particular blocks. 

And so we think, you know, with the kind of strained financial 

times that we are in, the appropriate response to that is to be able 

to target funds to where they will do the most good, recognizing we 

are not dealing with a national crime wave. We are dealing with 

hot spots that are distributed across the country in different sorts 

of ways. 

So that is the logic behind the budget. 

IMPACT OF DRUGS ON CRIME

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, good try. Do you feel that drugs have 

a major impact on crime in the country? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. What we are seeing is drugs, guns, and gangs. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And it seems to me that, and I can say this 

in the intelligence community also, that the issue of terrorism is 

really something we have to deal with. No question. 

But if you really want to look at what is probably the largest 

problem that we have as it relates to crime, it is drugs. Drugs 

throughout the world and the impact that it has on crime, on victims, and that type of thing. But we will move on with that. 

Mr. Peed, where were you in law enforcement? 

Mr. PEED. Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. What was your job? 

Mr. PEED. I served 25 years there, ten as the Sheriff of Fairfax 

County. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Did you take advantage of the COPS 

Program when you were—— Mr. PEED. Yes, sir. We had some fingerprint technology or the 

AFIS System is one of the things that we had. 

RISE IN JUVENILE CRIME

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. One of the things I have noticed, we have 

again another cut in the COPS Program. And I do not want to put 

you in a bad position, but one of the things that we also have to 

deal with now which has become very prevalent is juvenile crime. 

Would you agree that juvenile crime has started to escalate and 

that we are having some serious problems with respect to that? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
218 

Mr. PEED. I think that any time you have young people, I think 

you are going to have those issues. So as the population of young 

people increase, I think you are going to have those issues. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Are you aware of the fact that you are having a lot of issues as it relates to gang violence? Actually, we have 

juveniles recruited in middle school, and this has gotten to be a 

pretty serious issue. 

Mr. PEED. As Dr. Sedgwick said, it is guns, gangs, and drugs. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Which is unfortunate because child safety 

and juvenile justice grants in this budget is down by more than 

half. Right now fiscal year 2008, and it was, which is not a lot to 

begin with, $383 million, and right now we are down to 185 million. 

Where would you put that money? 

Mr. PEED. Are you talking about the OJP? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Since we are cutting it in half and you 

talked about priorities, to which jurisdiction are we going to cut 

half of this money that would go to juvenile crime in this country? 

If you cannot answer it, that is fine. 

Mr. PEED. I cannot answer. I think that would fall under the Office of Juvenile Justice. 

TARGETING OF FUNDING

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Just trying to prove a point. I know the position you are in, so I am trying to be nice. Just trying to make 

a point. 

One other thing. Ms. Dyer, how many grants do you expect your 

office to provide in fiscal year 2008? Do you have any——

Ms. DYER. I honestly do not know. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Has violence against women gone 

down significantly in the last year? 

Ms. DYER. No. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And, yet, we are getting a cut? Okay. No 

further questions. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So we understand, the reason we have 

these massive cuts, the rationale behind it is that we are trying to 

protect core programs. Is that what you said? 

Well, for many of us in Congress, the Office of Justice Programs, 

the office of Violence Against Women programs, and the COPS programs are pretty important. We regard that as the core and you 

are proposing a major consolidation and you are cutting basically 

60 percent of the budget for these programs. Would you agree? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You raised the issue of money being well 

spent. Is there any problem with the way the dollars have been 

spent in any of your programs? Has there been any audit that has 

pointed up the fact that some of these programs are not well managed, that there is some lack of accountability? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The question of whether or not money is well 

spent by a particular grantee is different from the question whether or not the existing structure allows us to target resources to the 

areas that have the greatest needs. It is slightly different. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
219 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But just targeting resources to those who 

have the greatest need, you do not feel that the Office of Justice 

Programs and the COPS programs and the Office of Violence 

Against Women program are not areas of the greatest need? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. Quite to the contrary. I believe that the Office of Justice Programs addresses areas of great need. And there 

are other needs that the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice 

Programs also addresses. 

So the question is really saying, are the needs that are addressed 

by the Office of Justice Programs greater in terms of their priority 

of importance than the needs that are addressed by the FBI, the 

Bureau of Prisons, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. 

Marshals, the DEA, ATF, and so on. Okay? 

I can vigorously advocate for the programs in the Office of Justice Programs. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please do. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. But I also understand that Department leadership has a broader range of responsibility than I do as Assistant 

Attorney General for Office of Justice Programs and they may see 

things differently than I do because, quite frankly, I do not really 

worry much about the Bureau of Prisons or the FBI or the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. I have my hands full with the programs within the Office of Justice Programs. 

FUNDING UNDER GRANT CONSOLIDATION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Indeed you do. It is not in your budget. Can 

you give us an idea of how much of a reduction we can expect in 

money for the Drug Courts, victims of human trafficking, grants, 

gang prevention, child abuse, prosecution, southwest border prosecution, or any of the other programs that have always had separate budgets? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. If the President’s budget is accepted, the proposal 

to consolidate 70 odd grant programs into a small number of broader, more flexible programs, no, I will not be able to tell you that 

because essentially those particular programs, how much is allocated to each of those needs will depend on the quality of the proposals and the prioritization of the proposals that are received 

under each of these three broad categories in OJP. 

So, quite frankly, I mean, this is a different way of thinking 

about the problem. You no longer will be able to say, okay, how 

much will go to, say, Drug Courts or human trafficking. We will 

not actually know that until we run the solicitations and get the 

proposals from state and local governments saying in my jurisdiction, this is the greatest need that we have and this is what we 

propose to do about it. 

So we will not know in advance how much will be allocated to 

each of those. The allocation will be based on the quality of the proposals that are received from State and local government as they 

identify what are the greatest needs in their jurisdiction. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So underlying your view that you are leaving open the possibility that under a newly-devised competitive 

process some of these programs could possibly be eliminated? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
220 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Funding for those particular purposes might not 

occur if state and local governments do not apply and say this is 

the most significant need in our jurisdiction. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not think there will be any problem 

with anybody. Everyone is eager to apply and these are still identifiable needs that are in the community. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. But it will depend on each state and local community saying this is the most significant need in our community. 

It is at least conceivable to me, unlikely, but it is conceivable to me 

that, for example, no jurisdiction might write an application and 

say the most important project in my particular or the most important need in my particular jurisdiction is a Drug Court. That is 

conceivable. All right? 

And if no one says this is the most pressing need in my jurisdiction to have a Drug Court——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But all in all, the Drug Courts have been 

enormously successful and the issue of human trafficking, if anything, may be not true in all congressional districts, is a huge 

issue. Gang prevention, is often associated with urban areas, but 

in reality, is out in suburbia big time. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I do not disagree with you saying each of these 

programs——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of the issues, of course, is the ability 

of some degree of stable funding. You really cannot fight on these 

problems unless law enforcement has some feeling that there is 

going to be financial stability. 

That is why whenever annually this budget comes up, the Administration proposes and we dispose, and I think we are probably 

inclined to do what we have done in the past. I think that is the 

way it should be. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [presiding]. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I just do not envy you right now. A couple of reasons. It 

sounds like you are supposed to perform a mission and you have 

an important mission, and you do not have enough money to do it; 

is that correct? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. If your question is, could I do more good with 

more money, absolutely. But there is not a single person in the Executive Branch who would answer that question the same way. 

ALLOCATION OF OVW FUNDS

Mr. HONDA. And so you approach eliminating programs under for 

example the ‘‘Violence Against Women Act,’’ some of the funding 

for which was put together to direct money to minority communities? And given that directive to eliminate programs plus what 

you call your core directive, how are you going about allocating the 

funds? 

Ms. DYER. The ‘‘Violence Against Women Act,’’ you are correct 

that currently there are several grant programs within the ‘‘Violence Against Women Act’’ that our office administers. All of those 

grant programs will remain. They will remain as eligible purpose 

areas within the new broader, competitive program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
221 

And so they are still there. Communities can still request grant 

funding focusing on those eligible purposes areas. So nothing that 

is currently available for funding will not be available under the 

new competitive program. 

Mr. HONDA. Say that last part again. 

Ms. DYER. None of the grant programs, for example, those that 

specifically address culturally and linguistically specific populations, there is a grant program just for that area. That grant program will remain in the new competitive grant as an eligible purpose area. Communities can still request a grant with that specification. 

Mr. HONDA. How much money is in their pot? 

Ms. DYER. There is not a specific amount of money per grant program as there is now. 

Mr. HONDA. How much money is in that collective pot? 

Ms. DYER. Two hundred and eighty million dollars. 

Mr. HONDA. I think it is ten percent set aside. Was there not a 

specific percentage that was supposed to be set aside for that? 

Ms. DYER. Currently under the current grant program, there is 

a specific amount of money in, for example, the culturally and linguistically specific grant program. I do not know how much money 

it is. There is not a specific set aside——

OVW TIMELINE FOR GRANT DISBURSEMENT

Mr. HONDA. What I hear from the community is that they are 

not able to access it, access any of those funds. And they are having difficulty, I guess, getting any kind of response. What is going 

on there? 

Ms. DYER. Tell me which community are you referring to that is 

not able to access the funds. 

Mr. HONDA. In general, the minority community who are applying for those funds are not getting any responses. So what is being 

told of these folks who are applying for these grants? 

Ms. DYER. Well, every grantee that submits an application, the 

Office on Violence Against Women does not determine who is 

awarded the grant funds. It is done by a peer review team of experts within the field of domestic violence and sexual assault. They 

get all the applications for funding and they rank them based on 

need and based on their proposal and the likelihood of success. 

Mr. HONDA. So you are telling me that when they apply for the 

grants, the applications are accepted and there is a process that 

you are following and they have a timeline that they are given so 

that they have time certain that they can count on? 

Ms. DYER. There is a scoring process that——

Mr. HONDA. There is no time definite by which time they can be 

told, you know, whether their grant is going to be awarded or not? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. There is? 

Ms. DYER. Yes, there is. Everybody is notified of whether or not 

their grant application was awarded or not after the peer review 

process has occurred. 

Mr. HONDA. And when does that start or has that started? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
222 

Ms. DYER. Each grant currently is posted. Generally speaking, 

they are going to go online January, February. Some of them will 

go online even earlier than that. 

And grantees like me when I was down in Dallas will write our 

application and submit it and then as soon as the budget is finalized by Congress and we know how much money, OVW knows how 

much money they have to give out in grants, then they fund those 

that scored the highest. And the notices go out that your grant application was accepted or was denied. And those notices go out in 

my experience as a grantee in around August. 

Mr. HONDA. So last year’s grants have been allocated and this 

year’s are being—— Ms. DYER. Yeah. Right now there are still applications being sifted and——

Mr. HONDA. They will know by August whether they have been 

granted? 

Ms. DYER. Well, I just became the Director in January. My experience as a grantee was that we got notice of whether or not we 

got our grant in about August. 

Mr. HONDA. In spite of the fact that we are not sure whether we 

are going to have a budget or not? 

Ms. DYER. Well, that is one of the reasons that I think the notices were not sent out to the grantees earlier because the Office 

on Violence Against Women or other grant-making offices cannot 

make definite determinations about which grants are going to be 

funded until they know how much money they have to give out. 

Mr. HONDA. But could you not operate based upon an assumption that at the minimum we look at the President’s budget? 

Ms. DYER. Well, no. We do not make promises about grants going 

out until we know how much money we have to give. 

Mr. HONDA. So, actually, nothing happens then? 

Ms. DYER. I am sorry? 

Mr. HONDA. Nothing happens. I mean, you ran a program. 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. And you have to meet deadlines. You have to meet 

payroll. You have to meet programs. If you do not know any of 

those information, how do you run a program? 

Ms. DYER. Well, you do not start the grant until you find out 

whether or not your application was funded. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, you have to submit it before——

Ms. DYER. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. Right? 

Ms. DYER. Yeah. You submit it. 

Mr. HONDA. I assume they are all submitting them now and they 

have to wait until August, right? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. You know, they will find out whether or not their 

grant was accepted usually in the summer. We found out in about 

August. 

Mr. HONDA. What is the fiscal year that those programs run on? 

Ms. DYER. Well, some programs run on calendar year and some 

run on a fiscal year. My program in Dallas ran on a fiscal year 

starting in October. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Do you understand where I am going with 

this? You ran a program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
223 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. I am sure you must have wrung your hands. 

Ms. DYER. Oh, sure. I wish I would know much earlier, but generally the granting agencies, they could not tell us whether our 

grant was going to be funded until they knew how much money 

they had to give out. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. It just seems like with the experiences all of 

you have in the field that there is some sense that or a process that 

you can address some of the concerns that they have out in the 

field in terms of meeting their deadlines and at least give some 

sense of minimum funding. And then if there is more, then you add 

to that. But it sounds like nothing is occurring right now until you 

find out whether you have a budget or not. 

Did we have a budget last year? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. And when the budget was announced, that is 

when the grant notices, that is when I found out, for example, in 

Dallas that we had gotten a grant application. 

Mr. HONDA. I forgot. When was that? Do you remember the date 

that was announced? 

Ms. DYER. No, sir. I do not know. I was in Dallas at the time. 

I really do not know when the budget was announced last year, no. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Fattah. 

Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

GRANT CONSOLIDATION PROPOSAL

So let me just see if I understand. You want to consolidate 70 

existing grant programs. 

I guess my first question is that given that there are just a few 

months left in this Administration, why would you think it useful 

to spend a lot of energy in this consolidation process versus just 

trying to fairly administer the programs as they exist now? We are 

rearranging the deck chairs in the last few months of a two-term 

Administration. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I think the impetus behind this proposal is based 

on what we learned looking quite closely at crime trends in the 

United States. 

You all may remember that when the first uptick happened in 

2005 that there were reports from various organizations that, you 

know, this is a gathering storm, this is, you know, a new crime 

wave. 

I mean, one of the advantages of working in the Office of Justice 

Programs is it contains both the Bureau of Justice Statistics and 

the National Institute of Justice. And we operate very much on a 

knowledge-to-practice model. 

So we have access in the Office of Justice Programs to the people 

who have devoted their entire lives to benchmarking crime trends 

in the United States and looking at key indicators of crime and 

criminal justice across the board. 

And so one of the things that we did when this uptick occurred 

in 2005 which came as a shock because we had grown used to approximately 12 consecutive years of crime decreases, so this all 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
224 

came as a shock, and we went out and said, okay, let us first of 

all look at the crime data, UCR data from the FBI based on administrative records, let us look at the data from the National Crime 

Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that talks directly to victims, and let us see if we cannot understand, let us drill down into this and see if we cannot pick up indicators of what is going on out there, and if we can understand, is 

this a reversal of a long-term trend that has lasted for more than 

a decade? 

That is to say are we launched upon an increasing trend now 

that is going to go out for several years? Is this just a minor blip? 

Mr. FATTAH. My question is a simple one and it is not a trick 

question. It is just that you have only a few months left. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. FATTAH. And this Administration is going to be exiting and 

a new Administration is going to be coming in. These existing programs have been authorized by the Congress, you know, in the 

women against abuse area, and very specific focused efforts. 

And so I am trying to figure out why you would spend your energy, and I am sure there is a good reason, but in trying to kind 

of rearrange the structure of things now. That is the kind of work 

normally done at the beginning of an Administration. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, the crime increased actually in 2005, in the 

second term of this Administration, and basically we are recommending this based on what we learned from that experience. 

We continue to think that for this Administration and for Administrations to come in the future, so long as the crime pattern in the 

United States continues the way it is now, where you have, you 

know, some regions experiencing increases and not others, some 

city sizes experiencing increases and not others, some blocks in a 

particular city increasing, you know, experiencing increased violent 

crime and not others, a flexible, broad-based competitive process 

that allows state and local governments to come to us and say in 

my jurisdiction, this is the most important problem, I want to ask 

for funds for this particular problem, is a smarter way to approach 

things rather than to present an array of 70 odd programs and say 

to local jurisdictions irrespective of what your problem is, the only 

way you can get money is to come ask for money within one of 

these categories——

APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING

Mr. FATTAH. Let me ask you a different question before my time 

runs out. For the Committee, which ones do you receive too few applications versus the resources that are available? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Not off the top of my head. 

Mr. FATTAH. And there were not any programs against domestic 

violence? Were there programs where money went languishing because there were no applications for them? 

Ms. DYER. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Are you aware of any? 

Mr. PEED. No, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Throughout the array of 70 programs? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Actually, I can think of one example. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
225 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay? The Bureau of Justice Statistics administers a program helping state and local governments build criminal history records of stalking and domestic violence. For the past 

several years, we have had money available in that particular 

grant program and we have not had a sufficient number of requests for that money to be able to give it away. 

So we have been carrying over a couple of million dollars every 

year in the Bureau of Justice Statistics because state and local governments are not submitting proposals for that particular purpose 

even though we have money available. 

Mr. FATTAH. And is there any understanding about why? Is it 

something about the design of the program? Is the money too limited? Is the need not great enough? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I would have to go back and look at and talk to 

the unit head that administers that particular program. I know he 

has been very aggressive at trying to market this. 

In fact, we have even, when states submit requests for criminal 

history improvement projects and we have not enough money left 

in that category to fund them, we suggested that they rewrite their 

proposals for this other pot of money. And we still have not been 

able to give it away. 

Mr. FATTAH. One last question on the COPS Program in particular. The 12-year decline seemed to correlate with the advent of 

the federal government assisting cities and local communities 

through the COPS Program with putting 100,000 additional police 

officers on the street. 

BENEFITS OF MORE COPS ON THE STREETS

And then the Administration decided to go in a different direction that somehow left COPS for better, I guess. In the analysis 

that has been done looking at the uptick, did we look at whether 

there was a correlation with the decline in officers on the street? 

I know in my own city there was a definite downturn when we 

had the help of the COPS Program. And when that help moved 

away, we had an uptick. So if you would comment, that would be 

helpful. 

Mr. PEED. We all know that crime is a very complex issue. And, 

of course, along with the advent of the creation of the COPS Office 

in 1993, also there were a lot of other things that happened at the 

same time, the truth in sentencing, three strikes and you are out, 

you know, no parole, those kind of initiatives which led to higher 

incarceration rates. 

With regard to an evaluation, there have been 12 studies that I 

know of the COPS Office, including two think tanks in Washington, 

universities such as Yale, Nebraska, University of Maryland, as 

well as the GAO. So there is at least 12 studies I know out there. 

And some come up with different responses in terms of their, you 

know, having an impact on crime. 

So the GAO came up and said for every dollar spent, there has 

been some correlation. I have forgotten the exact number, but if 

you are interested, I can get it to you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
226 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. FATTAH. If you would supply that to the Chairman. 

I think my time has run out, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

The President’s budget slashes state and local law enforcement 

and crime prevention grant programs by more than $1.6 billion 

below the fiscal year 2008 funding level of $2.7 billion. 

Mr. Sedgwick, in your testimony, you state that your agency will, 

‘‘Provide leadership in developing the nation’s capacity to prevent 

and control crime,’’ and, ‘‘Improve the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems.’’

EFFECT OF FUNDING DECREASE ON OJP/COPS

And I am skeptical about how effectively that can be done with 

a proposed cut of 66 percent below the current year funding level 

for OJP and the COPS Program when there are a number of studies, which I want to talk with you a little bit about, who looking 

over the hill say that we need additional resources in these areas. 

Could you respond to that? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Will we be able to do less with the fiscal year 

2009 budget than we are going to be able to do with the fiscal year 

2008 budget? Sure. Yes. 

Can we still demonstrate leadership? Can we still target those 

monies? Can we still leverage fewer dollars, work smarter with the 

money we have? Sure, we can. And that is basically the structure 

of this budget request. 

What we are asking for, and, actually, we had an experience with 

this in fiscal year 2007 with the continuing resolution, where we 

were able to run several very competitive solicitations that targeted 

money to areas of demonstrated need. We think that experience 

was a success. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But——

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. I agree with that, that it was a success. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think you all did a responsible job under those 

circumstances. But there is a matter of scale here, is there not? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure, there is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reaching every community; is there not? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, yes, there is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which, otherwise, you are really just developing 

a series of pilot projects for which state and local folks do not have 

enough money to implement. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me give you a chance to respond. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, you know, it can be phrased that way and 

I certainly understand——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that accurate or inaccurate? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, the way I would phrase it is to say, look, 

what is the federal leadership role? Is it to assume responsibility 

for state and local law enforcement or is it to leverage federal dollars to fund promising best practices and——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
227 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. Then put a spotlight on those and 

say to other jurisdictions if you have a gang problem, you should 

look at this model. 

DRUG COURTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. But let us be fair here. Given the request 

that the President has in 2009 or given the amount of money that 

the Congress came forward with in the 2008 Omnibus, we are not 

taking over state and local law enforcement. 

You allude to the notion that with any one of these budgets we 

are taking over state and local law enforcement, that is not at 

issue. The level at which we are going to try to fund these programs will not take over state and local law enforcement. It will 

actually just support some prototype programs to ramp them up. 

And Drug Courts is an excellent example, I think. You were talking 

about that program a little earlier, how wonderfully effective some 

of the statistics suggest that program has been. Well, under this 

budget request, drug court programs would receive precious little 

support across the nation than there is now. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, I am not sure it is fair to say that there 

would be precious little support for Drug Courts because, like I 

said, if state and local governments are writing grant applications 

or proposals and saying a Drug Court responds to the most pressing law enforcement need in my jurisdiction——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you know, I am glad we are talking about 

Drug Courts because I heard you say that in response to a couple 

other questions. I do not know a community in the country that 

that is not a problem. 

Now, it may be some community that the judges are not temperamentally inclined to and committed to the time and effort that 

it takes to do a Drug Court Program. There may be lots of those. 

But I think there are very few communities where, some alternative approach to treating the problem of drugs and recidivism 

and the crime that is associated with it is not needed. 

So I think that is really good. I like us talking about that because I think that makes a really good case. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. May I——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Please. 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. Because I think this is an important 

issue. I think it is also important to say, and we heard this certainly when we were out talking to the 18 cities that we toured, 

in many cities, they would talk about how problems of staffing and, 

you know, time in U.S. Attorneys’ offices, bounced cases that had 

been handled by the U.S. Attorney——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not following that. Say that again. 

RANGE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDING PRIORITIES

Mr. SEDGWICK. In many cities that we visited, we heard that 

cases that had been handled by U.S. Attorneys, for example, gun 

cases, are no longer being handled by U.S. Attorneys’ offices because of resource problems. Shortages in U.S. Attorneys’ offices 

then bounced those cases back into State courts where in many 

cases, gun laws were less stringent, penalties were less stringent. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
228 

Word went out on the street and guns came back. The feds are no 

longer prosecuting gun cases. Guns came back. 

We heard of cases where because of limitations in the capacity 

in the Federal Bureau of Prisons individuals were not going to federal prison anymore. They were winding up now being prosecuted 

and incarcerated at the State level imposing costs on state and 

local government. 

So a piece of this whole proposal that is in front of you, if you 

look just at OJP’s budget, what you see are dramatic cutbacks. But 

if you then step back for a second and say, well, wait a second, part 

of the reason why there is less money in OJP is because there is 

more money going to U.S. Attorneys, there is more money going to 

U.S. Marshals, there is more money going to the FBI, there is more 

money going to the DEA, the ATF, and so on, so that just as an 

example, right now there is about one and a half billion dollars 

being spent by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate persons for crimes that would otherwise wind up being incarcerated in 

the state prisons. That is a direct benefit to state and local government that should be added on top of what is in my mind in the 

budget we are looking at. So—— Mr. Mollohan. 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. Part of this is a question of are state 

and local governments better served by giving money directly to 

state and local government at the risk of starving core functions of 

the Department of Justice, whether it is U.S. Attorneys, Bureau of 

Prisons, the FBI, the DEA, or is shifting money to those core functions alleviating pressures that would otherwise fall on——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. See, we are having a different debate here, however. This is the debate that you get from OMB and I do not know 

what, your pass back is from them. You ought to be advocating as 

we would be inclined to advocate for more dollars. 

This is the OMB argument you are giving us. You have got a 

smaller pie, so, you know, do not expect to spend the money unless 

the Congress gives it to you in ways that you did last year. 

But because you are advocating for fewer resources does not 

make it right and it does not mean that the federal government 

should not be involved in these programs more as a matter of fact. 

And the argument you are making suggests from my standpoint 

that we ought to be working ahead of these problems with some 

preventive and remedial programs with additional resources. 

I know you have advocated for these program changes. Your 

predecessor did last year. Your testimony reflects it and supports 

it. I want to give you every chance to justify your recommendation. 

I think there is precious little support for it, if any, on this Subcommittee, so I am not sure we need to spend a whole lot of time 

on that issue. 

So I would like to yield at this time, to Mr. Schiff who has just 

joined us. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DNA INITIATIVE

Mr. Sedgwick, I want to ask you a couple questions about our 

DNA efforts. First, as a former prosecutor, I have been a strong 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
229 

proponent of our expanded use of DNA. I think it is one of the most 

powerful tools that we have. 

The President some years ago touted the DNA initiative as one 

of his hallmark criminal justice measures. He originally proposed 

over $230 million in federal funding for the initiative in 2004 and 

called for continuing this level of funding for five years. 

Both last year and this year, however, the President has not requested any funds for the DNA initiative. The program instead appears to be rolled into the Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program, and the President has only asked for $200 million for the entire program. It appears that he has either zeroed out the DNA initiative or made a dramatic reduction in the amount of resources by 

forcing it to compete with everything else in the Byrne Grant Program. 

How much of the $200 million for this one grant program do you 

believe should be devoted to DNA backlog elimination and how did 

you arrive at that number? 

I also wanted to see if you have any updated estimates on the 

national backlog. I know when it was last done in 2003, the numbers were very substantial. I think it was then estimated between 

500,000 and a million convicted offender samples that were owed 

but not yet collected. 

TIMELINESS OF DNA SAMPLE ANALYSIS

Finally, one of the issues that I am researching right now is that 

a lot of states and cities that are having trouble getting their samples analyzed in a timely way are using private labs at great expense. 

There was a requirement, however, by the FBI, that crime labs 

perform in-house technical reviews of a hundred percent of database samples from contract labs. We are trying to find out whether 

this is still necessary or wise. 

In a 2005 memo from the NIJ Director to the Deputy AG, the 

memo confirmed that the burden of these requirements has increased the backlog of convicted offender samples, costing millions 

of dollars, and forced crime labs to remove staff from analyzing 

rape kits and other forensic samples. 

I wonder if you could comment on whether we might eliminate 

or revise those requirements to assist local communities in getting 

timely analysis of DNA. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. So you had three questions. One on funding and one on the size of the backlog and one on, kind of, states 

turning in frustration to private labs because of its inability to——

Mr. SCHIFF. Right, and whether we should, like in Los Angeles, 

as I understand it, if you use a private lab, you cannot upload into 

the system. However, the Sheriff’s Department in L.A. uses private 

labs for its overflow that are uploaded into the system. 

So if you are a city that works with the county, you can go to 

the same lab that the county uses for its overflow and it gets 

uploaded in the system, but you cannot upload your samples in the 

system. That does not make a lot of sense. 

If you could comment on those requirements and whether we 

ought to consider revising or eliminating them. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
230 

One thought I had was we could license these labs at an expense 

that the labs themselves would pay so that the FBI or DOJ would 

certify that a lab uses the correct practices and then allow those 

labs to upload into the system. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Let me take your questions in the order that you 

posed them. 

First of all, the funding question is, you are entirely correct. The 

DNA program gets folded into the Byrne Public Safety category 

under the President’s proposed budget. 

What level of funding will go to DNA projects and particularly 

the elimination of the backlog would depend on how many jurisdictions apply for funding under that particular category and say this 

is the project that we want to fund. This is our highest priority. 

It is at the state and local level. Okay? 

So I cannot tell you how much money would be devoted to DNA 

in any particular year. It would depend on state and local jurisdictions identifying that as their need and asking for it, requesting it. 

In terms of the size of the backlog, with your agreement, can I 

get back to you on that because I want to give you accurate figures? 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. SCHIFF. That would be great. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I would like to talk to the Director of NIJ and 

see what our backlog looks like. 

On your third question, the issue of kind of the problem of using 

private labs and whether or not the findings from a private lab can 

be uploaded into the system, as you were describing that, I am 

thinking, well, I do know and, you know, we have talked about this 

problem of only recognized law enforcement agencies with ROI 

numbers are able to upload DNA results into the database which 

would explain, you know, why the Sheriff’s Office can do it, but the 

lab cannot directly do it. 

But I am puzzled by the argument or by the, and I take what 

you are——

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, it——

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. Mentioning to be true, I am a little 

perplexed why it would be that the Sheriff’s Office can upload results from a private lab, but the LAPD cannot, because my understanding of the restriction on who actually can enter things into 

the database is that you have to have an ROI, that is you have to 

be a recognized law enforcement agency. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, we will follow-up with you on it. I just sat 

down with the City of Glendale, they are working on developing 

their own regional DNA lab, but they work through the county of 

Los Angeles. When they cannot get samples back quick enough 

from the county, they to considerable expense to themselves, contract with a private lab. It is the same private lab that the county 

uses for its overflow. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
231 

Mr. SCHIFF. When the county uses that as the overflow lab, they 

can still upload their samples. They will not allow the samples that 

Glendale contracts with the same lab to be uploaded by them or 

by the City of Glendale because they were analyzed by a private 

lab. 

Even though it is a law enforcement agency that would be 

uploading them, not the lab itself, because they were analyzed by 

a private lab, not at the county lab, they are not permitted to do 

it. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. That sounds very strange to me. So I would be 

happy to work with you and figure out what is going on there and, 

you know, if there is an appropriate tweak in the legislation that 

would eliminate that problem. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do you understand the issue and I do not know if 

this is a separate issue, of the crime labs being required to perform 

in-house technical reviews of a hundred percent of the database 

samples from the contract labs? Do you know what is involved with 

that? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. But I can look into that as well. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. All right. Well, I will follow-up with you on 

both of those. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Be happy to work with you on that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I want to thank the Chairman for his strong support 

of the DNA Program and his restoration of funds last year to the 

full level of the House authorization. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SCAAP PROGRAM

Mr. Sedgwick, can we talk a little bit about the SCAAP Program? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Once again, you propose to eliminate all 

the money. I think we put in 410 million last year. In your budget 

materials, you say the finding of ‘‘results not demonstrated.’’

Can you comment about that? Does the Administration have a 

basic objection to the program or its execution? I mean, we are 

going to have it. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So if there are some basic objections, what 

would you do to perhaps modify it and change it to be somewhat 

more in line with the Administration’s views? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I think at this point, the Administration’s proposal not to seek funding for the SCAAP Program is based, first 

of all, as you correctly note, on an OMB finding that results were 

not demonstrated from the program. So there is a question of the 

recipients of the money being able to demonstrate results from that 

money, that is that——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What are your views of the results not 

demonstrated? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
232 

Mr. SEDGWICK. At this point, I have no reason to disagree with 

the assessment that was done by OMB. I think part of the problem 

here is that the program currently is structured as essentially a 

revenue sharing program. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Which reflects the reality? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. Well, here is part of the problem with a 

revenue sharing program from our point of view. This is separate 

from the issue of how broadly funds are distributed. 

If a program is competitive, all right, and recipients need to show 

results, which is typically an expectation when you have a competitive grant program, okay, you need to say up front what you are 

going to do with the money, what results you anticipate, and then 

it is the function of our grant monitors and our program assessment office to make sure that grantees receiving money do, in fact, 

achieve the results and do spend the money for the purposes they 

said they were going to spend it for. 

Revenue sharing programs travel down a rather different trajectory. You can look at it as, okay, this is almost like a Block Grant. 

I get this money and I do not really——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So that the Administration knowing we are 

going to restore this money, are you coming up with some sort of 

realistic way other than the manner you have described? In other 

words, if we are going to give the money, what would you suggest 

are the possible modifications? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I would——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am going to wade into the whole issue of 

best practices in a few minutes, but——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. If you know Congress feels 

that this program is important, what would the Administration 

suggest to modify it other than just annually go out there to try 

to scrap it? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I think if it were changed from a revenue sharing 

model to a competitive discretionary award process, that would enhance the quality of the proposals that we get and it would also 

enhance our confidence that the grantees were achieving the results that we wanted to see and you wanted to see when you initiated the program. I think that would be number one. 

The other purpose is, as I understand it, the SCAAP Program 

was originally designed with the intent, the legislative intent of the 

program was to defer correction related expenses that were incurred by state and local governments as a result of incarcerating 

illegal aliens. 

As the program is currently designed, any law enforcement purpose is sufficient justification for use of the SCAAP funds, not corrections. So, again, this may be a matter of taking, you know, the 

legislation authorizing the SCAAP Program and tightening the eligibility to make it clear that these funds are only available for incarcerating illegal aliens, not any law enforcement purpose. 

So I think, you know, if it is the will of the Congress to continue 

the SCAAP Program, then I would suggest that, first of all, it be 

very clear that this is a competitive process and the legitimate use 

of the funds that are appropriated under SCAAP must be confined 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
233 

to a narrower range of activities, particularly incarceration expenses for illegal aliens. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Fair enough. On the issue of best practices, 

last year, we had a substantial discussion with your predecessor. 

A lot of money has gone out of the door, billions of dollars for state 

and local law enforcement. We really never developed a single national nationwide repository of information about what works. 

What have you been working on in this area? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Certainly within the OJP, one of the divisions of 

labor, I earlier mentioned in answering an earlier question, that 

OJP works a knowledge to practice model. So we take very seriously the notion of best practices as well as key indicators of benchmarks. 

Kind of the dividing line between benchmarks and best practices 

which sometimes can be kind of hazy is best practices are what 

NIJ does through its research agenda that identifies best practices. 

For benchmarks, that is primarily what the BJS does. Now, both 

BJS and NIJ have very aggressive dissemination programs. We are 

working on and we right now make available and disseminate 

through the National Criminal Justice Research Service or the Reference Service, NCJRS, access to all of the research that is done 

by the National Institute of Justice, as well as all of the statistical 

studies that are produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in addition to research reports that come out within the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, BJA, and so on. 

So we do currently have a central clearinghouse. We are working 

very aggressively to make sure that they reach out, market more 

effectively to our stakeholder groups. That has been a consistent 

theme of my tenure as Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

and I am pushing that to OJP as well. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Does your budget request include funds? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What sort of funds specifically? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The specific for NCJRS, we would have to get 

back to you with how much we are spending on that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume we are spending more as a result 

of your attention to this——

Mr. SEDGWICK. We will be making——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Issue? 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. Sure that there is adequate funding——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We had substantial discussion about this 

last year. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. And like I said, the notion of reaching out, 

being more aware of our stakeholders and what our stakeholder information needs are and how they can best be met, not simply in 

terms of the means of dissemination, but also, you know, the content of dissemination. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
234 

RISS PROGRAM

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of the needs of sharing information is 

your RISS Program. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. You are proposing a 15 percent 

reduction. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, RISS is, you know——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, I understand that, yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. RISS is really designed to be a law enforcement 

information sharing. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. So in terms of a kind of a broader dissemination 

of best practices, I doubt many of our stakeholder groups would 

think of going to RISS. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, I realize that. But why is RISS funding reduced? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, RISS is folded into one of the other larger 

programs, I believe. Let me check that. Oh, actually, you are right. 

RISS is a separate——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is not only a separate, but in addition, 

you are about to roll out an index, a national data exchange. What 

is the difference between the——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Between RISS and index? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Index is a national information exchange system 

administered through the FBI. RISS is a regional information sharing system that operates on a regional basis and has been funded 

and run primarily through BJA. 

So they are slightly different in the sense of whether or not both 

in terms of who administers it and who the line item would show 

up, in whose account the line item would show up. But they are 

also different in the sense of being a national index versus a regional. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How are both of those systems different 

than what is available off the shelf commercially that police and 

law enforcement can access? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. As I understand it in both the case of 

index and RISS, these are law enforcement information sharing. 

We would probably call them law enforcement intelligence, okay, 

which is rather different from what a best practice is. 

Best practice is okay if you want to address this particular problem in your jurisdiction, what is likely to be the most effective 

strategy for doing that. Okay? 

Our stakeholders looking for best practices would gravitate to 

one of three places. They would either be headed toward the Bureau of Justice Statistics——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of the issues of best practices, obviously they have the best information——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. And intelligence. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
235 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. I absolutely agree with you. But they 

would also gravitate to the web site of the National Institute of 

Justice or if they wanted a central clearinghouse that had all of the 

research reports and all of the program reports that grew out of 

any OJP funded program, they would be gravitating toward 

NCJRS. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the local law enforcement people be 

fed into Index? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is state and local? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. My understanding is that the Index Program 

is being built very much as a replacement to the old Miber system. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will it cost them? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. What? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will it cost them? Will there be costs to 

local law enforcement for their participation? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. That is a question that is best directed to the 

FBI——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. And Director Bush, Assistant Director Bush. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SCAAP PROGRAM

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. Sedgwick, You have described a very different program than 

I understand SCAAP to be. And so, first of all, I would like to ask 

you do you know just sitting right there without referencing the 

statute what the criteria for SCAAP reimbursement is? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. No, I do not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So in your testimony before, you described 

the reimbursement and the purposes of SCAAP, as far more than 

a correctional reimbursement program. You described it as almost 

a, I think you did use the words an entitlement or——

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. I said it was——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Revenue sharing. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. It is a revenue sharing program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. But not necessarily or exclusively tied to 

corrections—expense reimbursement? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Correct. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The way that program has been administered to 

this point, and I believe the program is administered conformable 

to the statute, is that it has allowed reimbursement to go out to 

jurisdictions for law enforcement purposes that go beyond narrow 

correctional. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reimbursement? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reimbursement. Well, it is my understanding 

that actually states and locals submit for reimbursement under 

SCAAP, only for correctional purposes. 

And really my question is, are you someone who can definitively 

answer this question and testify to that point? And if not, maybe 

there is somebody behind you that can. It is fine if you cannot. No 

witness can answer all questions. So are you? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
236 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Can you answer the question? 

Can you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you as a witness here capable of telling the 

Committee what is the criteria based upon which the federal government reimburses state and locals under the SCAAP Program? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I can tell you that prior to fiscal year—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. I am asking if you are the person who 

can definitively testify on this point, because I just do not want to 

spend time on it if you are not—— Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Because we can submit it. We can 

get it for the record. I just think you are—— Mr. SEDGWICK. If you would prefer, I would be happy to get back 

to you with answers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is not my preference. It is your level of comfort and whether you can do it or not. Of course, I want to know. 

I want to know what is the criteria upon which the Department of 

Justice reimburses state and locals for under the SCAAP Program. 

And it is a big program. It is an important program. There is a 

huge demand for it. 

If you think we are not going to fund SCAAP, believe me, I can 

tell you we are going to because we experienced a little revolt on 

the floor of the House of Representatives last year, so——

Mr. SEDGWICK. If you want very detailed—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just want—— Mr. SEDGWICK. If you want a very detailed—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Let us get it for the record. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We can get it for the record. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Fair enough. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I can tell you that prior to fiscal year 2006, there 

was no requirement for recipients to use SCAAP funding to address 

law enforcement or correctional issues. Beginning with fiscal year 

2006, Section 1196 of the ‘‘Violence Against Women and the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act’’ requires that SCAAP 

funds must be used for correction purposes. That is a relatively recent——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. All right. Well, so the 2006, the 2007——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Beyond that——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no, no. 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. I can get you all the detail you would 

like. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are saying that indeed under SCAAP, the 

federal government can now, regardless of what happened pre-fiscal year 2006, that now can only reimburse for correctional related 

expenses? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So your test—— Mr. SEDGWICK. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So it is not revenue sharing? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
237 

Mr. SEDGWICK. It is going towards direct costs. It means it is 

going toward direct costs. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, it is at least part sharing. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Revenue sharing has a whole different implication. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. 

Has the Administration recommended under this request elimination of the SCAAP Program? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that is a really big hole that we are going 

to have to fill. It goes along with a number of other big holes. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE

Also, you are eliminating funding for the Southwest Border Prosecutors Initiative; are you not? This is a huge issue, illegal immigration and the federal government addressing illegal immigration. 

And it creates huge strains upon state and local law enforcement 

and corrections people. 

Is the Administration taking the position that securing the border and apprehending and processing criminal aliens is not in part 

at least a federal responsibility? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. Actually, quite to the contrary. I am glad you 

brought that up because——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, thank you. I am——

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. It is actually a wonderful opening to, you 

know, reinforce a point that I made earlier. The Southwest Border 

Protection Initiative is defunded in this particular budget. 

If you will look at the larger Department of Justice Budget, you 

will see there is a Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative that 

has been added. It, though, is funded through and operated by——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do we have a ‘‘not invented here’’ problem? I 

mean——

Mr. SEDGWICK. The what? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The one border initiative is a congressional initiative and the other is an Administration initiative and it does the 

same thing or——

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. Actually, it shifts the focus. The new enforcement initiative is actually a joint cooperative project of the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys, ICE, and a variety of other federal 

agencies. 

So essentially what has happened is rather than funding border 

enforcement through grants to state and local government, that 

money is now being shifted to federal officials to take greater responsibility, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. We will look at that distinction carefully. 

SCAAP PROGRAM

Let me just come to a little closure on the SCAAP Program. Now 

that you understand and we understand that SCAAP is dedicated 

to reimbursement for correctional expenses incurred by state and 

local jurisdictions because of the criminal alien burden that they 

have had to assume, do you take the same position with regard to 

SCAAP, that it should be eliminated? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
238 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I think the case for continuing SCAAP would be 

stronger if we are able to demonstrate results from SCAAP. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What results? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, we have an existing part evaluation——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean, they are incarcerating people. I mean, 

this is a reimbursement program. It is not a remedial program. 

This is a straight out, you are incurring expenses because the federal government is failing its responsibility along the border to control illegal immigration. Therefore, we recognize that is a burden 

you are assuming because it is a federal failure. We are going to 

reimburse you to that extent. You cannot get around that logic, 

right? That is great. What a victory. Wonderful. All right. 

Well, there are a lot of people. One of them is probably sitting 

right over—all right. 

VIOLENT CRIME

Violent crime trends, we have, as you pointed out, a mixed result 

with regard to the violent crime statistics. We have a decrease in 

some number of violent crimes and then we have an increase in a 

subset of crimes related to medium-sized cities and small towns of 

less than 25,000. I really just want to get that on the record. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. You are completely correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is going on there; do you know? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. That is a really good question and it is something 

that we spend a lot of time in the Department of Justice working 

on. Whether or not what we are looking at is differential effects of 

kind of professionalization of law enforcement because one of 

the——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. Say that again. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Differentials in the professionalization of law enforcement. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Differentials in the——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yeah. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What does that mean? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. One of the things that we are looking at is the 

larger cities have been more quick to adopt policing and some of 

the new techniques. COMPSTAT and so on, you know, are more 

solidly entrenched in larger cities——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So some of the strategies and technologies are 

more implemented in the larger jurisdictions? Is that your testimony? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. That is a hypothesis. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that one being looked at? I mean, is that one 

you subscribe to? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And so——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Not that I subscribe to. Is it one that we are looking at? Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. One that might have validity? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I would tell you right now that this is a topic of 

great interest to the Department and great interest to folks in, you 

know, the kind of research and statistics parts of the Department 

of Justice because many of the trends that we are seeing break 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
239 

with past trends. That is to say you are not seeing the same things 

that we have seen in the past. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So we are doing a good job at law enforcement 

in these jurisdictions that you just described, typically larger, more 

sophisticated in the sense of having better equipment, technology, 

and maybe strategies, and perhaps that is pushing crime over to 

the smaller jurisdictions? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. It may be a displacement effect. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Displacement, yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. That is another hypothesis that is out there. 

There are speculation and hypotheses about the kind of social controls in small towns versus large cities. I would have to tell you at 

this point we have not reached any conclusions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is looking at that? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is certainly looking at that. The National Institute of Justice is certainly looking 

at that. In fact, I can tell you right now that there is a joint initiative between the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, in both agencies, to significantly increase the emphasis that they are putting on law enforcement, precisely because 

we are aware of the fact that our knowledge base in law enforcement is not what it should be——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you anticipate reaching any conclusions before we mark up this bill or before the end of the fiscal year? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The end of the fiscal year? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We ought to be sensitive to that and to the extent you can advise the Committee and update the Committee, that 

would be very helpful as we mark up our bill. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Certainly what we are seeing. 

IS THERE A CRIME WAVE AND WHERE DOES IT EXIST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Peed, can you comment on the crime wave 

and where it exists, where it does not exist, and your thoughts 

about it. 

Mr. PEED. I think as Dr. Sedgwick said, it is not across the country in its entirety. It is in certain communities across the country, 

not just in certain communities, but certain neighborhoods within 

communities. 

An example is, you know——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Now, what is the ‘‘it’’ you are describing? 

Mr. PEED. The it? Crime patterns, crime transfer within certain 

communities, violence in particular. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And crime increases? 

Mr. PEED. And crime increases in certain communities, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Fair to call it a crime wave in certain communities? 

Mr. PEED. Yes, indeed. It is not necessarily in your larger metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City, but it 

is sometimes those more, as you were saying earlier, some of those 

more mid-sized cities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I had the Mayor of LA come up here with his 

Chief of Police, made some very compelling arguments in a meeting 

with him about the crime wave in LA. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
240 

Mr. PEED. They just had a resurgence in violence that they could 

not explain and they primarily attribute it to the gangs there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So LA is an anomaly in this trend? 

Mr. PEED. It is a very recent phenomenon just in the last two 

months or so, three months. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So LA has had an uptick in violent crime? 

Mr. PEED. Yes, LA did which under Chief Bratton, he had had 

successes and declines for about five consecutive years and all of 

a sudden, he saw this trend within about a two-month period of 

time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you working with them? 

Mr. PEED. With LA? We work with all the jurisdictions across 

the country on——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know you do, but are you working with LA? 

Mr. PEED. We are working with them on some issues, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What issues are you working in LA? 

Mr. PEED. Internal Affairs, ethics in law enforcement. Internal 

Affairs is one of the issues. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How about their gang problem? 

Mr. PEED. We have worked with their Mayor out there. We held 

a Gang Conference out there with their Mayor and we produced a 

gang tool kit. We produced a gang reference card for parents, one 

of our most popular documents, so we are working on that issue. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I do want to follow-up on the Chairman’s questions on the 

SCAAP Program. But before we leave the subject of DNA, which 

I raised earlier, I just want to make one comment in terms of the 

budget for DNA analysis. 

I understand the point you were making, Mr. Sedgwick, about, 

I guess, how much of the funds ultimately go to law enforcement 

for DNA will depend on how much they prioritize it among the requests. But by forcing the departments to compete or have the priorities for overtime, compete with communications equipment, compete with backlogged DNA, they are in a lose-lose situation. 

And I think we have seen unfortunately a number of times the 

Administration wants to cut something, it consolidates it in a single program and the cut is invisible. You cannot say how much is 

DNA being cut. You could tell it has been cut because it was being 

funded more than all of the Byrne Grants put together, but it does 

not have the same accountability because you cannot say that, in 

fact, it is being cut 50 percent or 75 percent until after the fact. 

And I just hate to put our departments in the position of having 

to try to prioritize whether they have interoperable communications equipment or whether they can timely analyze rape kits. 

And I do not know, Ms. Dyre, if you have a sense of where we 

are in terms of the backlog of rape kits. When there were last some 

published figures a few years ago, the backlog was 169,000 rape 

cases. Do you have any sense of where we are with that now? 

Ms. DYER. No. I understand your question, but I do not know the 

answer to it. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
241 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. Well, we will follow-up with you on that as 

well as on the issue of the hundred percent technical analysis of 

the private labs. 

In terms of SCAAP, last year, I was very concerned about some 

severe delays in the SCAAP reimbursement process. As you may 

know, it took 16 months from the application deadline for reimbursements before states and localities received the 2006 funds. 

That meant that costs that were incurred during the 12-month period ending in June of 2005 were not reimbursed to states and localities by the federal government until August of 2007. 

When we inquired about this delay, I heard, you know, directly 

from people at OJP and DHS very conflicting explanations, each 

blaming the other for the mess, one saying that they were waiting 

for data, I think OJP saying they were waiting for data from DHS, 

DHS telling us they sent the data, then OJP telling us that, well, 

oh, actually, yes, we did get the data, it turns out after all, but it 

was not the data we really needed, DHS then telling us that, in 

fact, the data that they said that they needed is data they do not 

need. And the long and the short of it is it took an eternity to get 

reimbursed. 

Now, the following fiscal year happily, the 2007 reimbursements 

almost went out before the 2006 ones. They went out in December 

of 2007. It only took five months. And I wanted to ask in a hopeful 

way, was the 2006 issue a one-time occurrence? Do we have it 

down? Can we rely on a quick turnaround? 

As the Chairman says, there will be enormous pressure to restore the SCAAP Program. The question is, how much of it can we 

expect that the communication between OJP and DHS has now improved so that you know what you need from them, they know 

what they need to provide you? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. It has improved dramatically. I happen to 

know the circumstances in 2006 quite well because one of my staff 

members in BJS is responsible for cleaning and analyzing the data 

to turn over to BJA to run the formula to distribute the funds. So 

I am intimately aware of the circumstances that produced the bill 

in 2006. I think it is safe to say, I would be very surprised if those 

circumstances were occurring. You can say a one-time horror show. 

We do not need to go into the details up here. It was quite an exercise. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I am glad that that has been corrected. I am 

going to hold you to it, as you might imagine. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT

One other area I wanted to raise with you all is an issue of great 

importance to my constituents and many others around the country 

and that is the issue of intellectual property enforcement. 

And I was in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for six years. I know, you 

know, if you get a lot of competing priorities, it is hard to prioritize 

intellectual property when you have got violent crime and you have 

got gang issues and you have got drugs. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
242 

One of the things that we have been exploring is trying to get 

the local law enforcement authorities involved to try to help. There 

are certain aspects of the IP enforcement they can do. 

And we worked on some language last year to try to establish or 

incentivize a grant program where the federal government could 

incentivize localities to investigate and prosecute IP. 

And I wanted to ask what your thoughts are with that? Is that 

something that we can pursue? Is that viable? How are you keeping up with the increasing proliferation of piracy cases and what 

more can we do about it? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I have to say at this point, that has not arrived 

in the Office of Justice Programs as a priority issue. It is a good 

example of new challenges that arise periodically, whether it be 

identity theft, human trafficking, and/or cyber crime. Intellectual 

property theft, I think, is an excellent example. 

We have, at this point, I have to confess, not addressed that 

issue at all. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I would like to work with you and Commerce 

to see what we can do to step that up to make sure it is very much 

on your plate. 

You know, we are constantly coercing our trading partners to 

crack down on IP theft. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And it is becoming more difficult to do that when 

they can point at the IP theft going on in our own country. 

I had a meeting recently with some parliamentarians in Mexico 

who were talking about how, yes, there are a lot of pirated DVDs 

being sold in Mexico, but they are actually imported in California 

from China and brought across the border. And if you can stop 

them from getting into the U.S., we can stop them from getting 

into Mexico. 

So we will follow-up with you, but——

Mr. SEDGWICK. We would be happy to work with you on that. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. We would like to try to step up those 

efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Ms. Dyer——

Ms. DYER. Yes, sir. 

OVW RECENT STATISTICS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. How are you? When I meet 

with my local prosecutors, they tell me the reports of rising numbers of domestic violence cases. Could you talk a little bit about 

what you see out there, the statistics? I know it is an issue of better reporting. How would you characterize your analysis of some of 

the pretty startling and disturbing statistics? 

Ms. DYER. With regard to the——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Obviously, with the backdrop being your 

budget. 

Ms. DYER. I understand the context. I am aware of the increasing 

numbers. People often ask me, both when I was a prosecutor and 

now that I am up in DC, is there more crime? Is there more reportVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
243 

ing? I think that there is a little bit of both. There is a number of 

things going on. 

Number one, I do think that there is a piece of this that there 

is more violence in our society overall. It is more reported, and I 

do think that in some respects that can actually increase the 

amount of violence. But I don’t think that that is the sole reason 

for the increase in reports. 

I think that a lot of the reason for the increase in reporting is 

actually for a good thing. And that is because there is more talk 

about it. It is more acceptable to talk about it, and there are more 

resources out there for victims. 

We encourage victims to report. And now we say you should report and help will come. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The police have to—at least in New Jersey. 

I am not sure other jurisdictions. The police have to report and 

don’t physicians? 

Ms. DYER. That varies by state. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It does? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. Texas, for example, does not have a mandatory 

reporting for doctors. And that is actually—many states do and 

many states do not. In all states, it is encouraged for physicians 

and police officers to arrest or report. And I do think that because 

of the increase in services that are available, because help is available, more victims do reach out and accept it. And that is a very 

good thing. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You currently run a discretionary program 

to encourage state, local, and tribal governments and courts to 

treat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as a serious violation. 

Do you have statistics on this specific program? 

Ms. DYER. The discretionary grant? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On the number of arrests and prosecutions? 

Ms. DYER. The——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And what happens, given your budget’s scenario to this program and to the STOP Grant Program? 

Ms. DYER. Well, what we have is in each of those programs, 

every grantee has to turn in a progress report every six months. 

And those progress reports are collected, and stored, and analyzed 

by the Muskie School in Maine. I gave some of those numbers in 

my brief opening. 

So, yes, we do have accessible to us the number of victims who 

are served and the number of arrests that are made, the number 

of prosecutions, and number of convictions that we get. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you have any general comments in regard to those statistics? What do those statistics show? 

Ms. DYER. The statistics show? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What you said earlier. 

Ms. DYER. That OVW is definitely benefitting communities. A lot 

of victims are receiving services, and a lot of defendants are being 

arrested and prosecuted. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your largest program is your STOP Grant 

Program? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
244 

GRANT CONSOLIDATION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are proposing to eliminate it in your 

budget. 

Ms. DYER. It is consolidated with the other discretionary grant 

programs. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well if you eliminate it, what do you plan 

to replace it with? 

Ms. DYER. Well, it is not eliminated in that states could not 

apply for a large sum of money. What is eliminated is the formula 

that automatically sends a certain amount of money to the states. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The formula, correct me if I am wrong, 25 

percent goes to law enforcement, 25 percent to prosecutors, 5 percent to courts, and 30 percent to victim services. 

Ms. DYER. Yes. But——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is there another formula? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would you comment on that formula, and 

what happens? What would you replace it with? Assuming that the 

formula that I described does have some merit, I assume people 

made a judgment call. 

Ms. DYER. The formula that I am referring to was the formula 

that determines how much money each state receives. That they 

are then able to turn around and give out in sub-grants. 

The formula that you are talking about is the amount of money 

that when those states are turning around and giving them out in 

sub-grants, that they have to focus the money towards. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So if we cut this—cut your budget——

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. The formula that gives money 

out to the states, the present formula——

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. For each of the battered women’s shelters, I mean, they are crying the blues right now. 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So your——

Ms. DYER. Yes. This would prevent——it is true. Under the consolidated, flexible program, that the President’s budget requests, 

there would not be a definite number going out to the states. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Not only not a definite number, but a much 

lower number, dollar number. 

Ms. DYER. A lower dollar number due to the reduction in the 

overall budget. I would anticipate that most states, Texas, California, and most states, are going to apply to OVW, because that 

formula program becomes a——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. They will be applying, but they will be 

waiting in line with other——

Ms. DYER. That is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is? 

Ms. DYER. That is correct. It would be competitive, and they 

would be competing against other. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Right. It is pretty difficult to run a program 

and have some degree of stability in that type of environment. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
245 

Ms. DYER. That is correct. There would not be that formula percentage that they currently have. 

RESTRAINING ORDERS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The last question, and since you have devoted a good portion of your career, would you comment on the 

whole issue of restraining orders? You know, to me at times, I am 

not a lawyer, it seems that they don’t work. 

And would you comment on the whole issue of people who 

abuse—husbands who abuse, men who abuse, fleeing to other jurisdictions? And our inability to find out where they are. 

Ms. DYER. I——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And prosecute them. What are you doing in 

that area? And what is the Department of Justice doing? We have 

a lot of constituents. 

Ms. DYER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And it makes me explosively angry. I just 

wondered if you would comment. 

Ms. DYER. Yes, sir. With regard——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just on the general issue of restraining orders——

Ms. DYER. Okay. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Not restraining. 

Ms. DYER. I——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And are there statistics that people—that 

the Department of Justice collects relative to situations like this? 

Ms. DYER. With regard to the issue of protective orders or restraining orders, we usually call them protective orders, and 

whether or not they are effective, they are effective for most victims. They are absolutely not effective for all victims, and they are 

not bullet-proof vests. 

For most victims who have abusers who have something to lose, 

an abuser who has a job, an abuser who has, you know, a house 

or some sort of, you know, rent, it is very effective for him, because 

that abuser does not want to get picked up, and go to jail, and risk 

losing his job and risk not being able to pay his mortgage or his 

rent. So for those victims, restraining orders are very, very effective. 

We did a study in Dallas, not a OVW study, a study in Dallas. 

And 85 percent of victims who obtained a protective order through 

the DA’s Office said that their lives were markedly improved. And 

that they were safer once they got it. So that is good, but it is not 

100 percent. 

For victims whose abusers are just complete losers, who have no 

job, no house, or who have terrible criminal records to begin with, 

protective orders frequently are not very effective, because these 

people do not have anything great to lose by being arrested and put 

in jail. They get low-bid bologna and warm Kool-Aid. It is not that 

bad for them. 

For these people who have terrible previous criminal records, 

they say, ‘‘Look, I got a misdemeanor violation of protective order. 

I am improving.’’ I am getting—you know, so for those people, 

those victims are not. And that is why every victim who comes in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
246 

to get a protective order, we say, ‘‘Good for you. This is going to 

help you, but you need to do other things to keep you safe as well.’’

The other thing I will say is that protective orders are very good 

at stopping harassment, calls, misdemeanor assaults. They are not 

good—they are not very good at stopping murders, because I 

haven’t had a defendant yet say, well, I would kill you dead if it 

weren’t for that violation of a protective order I could get on my 

record. I am willing to commit felony murder, but I am not going 

to do it, because I don’t want to get a violation of a protective 

order. 

Well, that doesn’t make any—as you can see, it is very effective 

at stopping stalking, misdemeanor assaults, harassment. It is not 

that effective at stopping murder. And that is why those victims 

need to get a protective order, but also go to shelters. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The ability to pursue people, you know, 

into——

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Other jurisdictions. 

Ms. DYER. Very good——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just very briefly. My time is up. 

Ms. DYER. I can talk faster. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please, go right ahead. 

Ms. DYER. Yes. That is a big problem, because right now communities are supposed to put all of their protective orders on NCIC. 

Many communities have access to NCIC, but they just simply cannot agree as to who is the one to do it. And I don’t have the staff. 

And I don’t have the time. And I don’t want to. And many communities do not put their protective orders on NCIC as they should. 

Now some communities have a very good reason for not putting 

their protective orders on NCIC. Those in tribal communities that 

don’t have access to it. They have a good reason. 

NATIONAL PROTECTIVE ORDER REGISTRY

Now one thing that we have considered is, you know, should we 

have some sort of a national protective order registry that would 

be more Internet based, as opposed to NCIC based. And that would 

be more easily accessible by the police officer at 2:00 in the morning who is responding to the scene of a domestic violence case. I 

think that there is great interest in that. 

I personally have a great interest in that, because that is a very 

big problem, not only in places like this where people live in Virginia, work in Maryland, and go to school in DC. That is a huge 

problem. But even in Texas. I live in Dallas, but I work in Tarrant 

County. And even those two things don’t often communicate. And 

so there is a huge problem with that. And I think that we should 

look into the possibility of a national registry that is more internet 

based. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. Sedgwick, are you familiar with the think tank, Third Way? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
247 

REPORT—IMPENDING CRIME WAVE

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you familiar with their report ‘‘The Impending Crime Wave: Four Dangerous New Trends and How to Stop 

Them’’? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. I have it sitting on my desk. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well good. And the report cites as evidence of 

this new crime wave looming, surging youth population more vulnerable to the internet age, large number of ex-offenders being returned to the communities. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Pardon? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is there a new crime wave coming? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Will crime rates churn up again some time in the 

future? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no, no. I am asking more specifically. You 

deal with these statistics. You look at these reports. You know, you 

are the expert. Do you anticipate a new crime wave? Are these 

analyses and conclusions valid? To what extent are they valid or 

not valid? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We would—the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

which I also direct, we don’t make predictions. In part because the 

track record for making predictions in criminal justice is pretty 

poor to be blunt with you. 

I will tell you that, one of the issues that if I were to say of the 

things that we look at and we see in the data in the Bureau of Justice Statistics that give us pause, I would probably point to three 

things that are issues that we have called to the attention of Department leadership. And said these things need to be monitored 

very carefully. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. With regard to future crime? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Future crime rates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

OJP STUDIES ON CRIME RATE AND RECIDIVISM

Mr. SEDGWICK. One is there is 2.2 million persons in confinement 

in the United States, incarcerated. Okay? Ninety five percent of 

them will be released and will return to their communities. Okay? 

We know a fair amount about the recidivism rate for persons who 

have been incarcerated. And it is uncomfortably high. 

We don’t know as much about what works in terms of rehabilitative services as we would like to know. This has been one of the 

toughest topics in criminal justice to solve. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are going to enumerate these, aren’t you? 

And you have them in your head, so you won’t forget them. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. I 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I asked you——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. With regard to the recidivism issue——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Pardon? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Are you all looking at that? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. In fact, one of the things that we just 

did in the Bureau of Justice Statistics is reorganized the way we 

are structured to put greater emphasis on three topics. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
248 

One is law enforcement, one is adjudication, and one is recidivism and reentry. So this is a major emphasis for us, because we 

know that, you know, we have a huge number of persons coming 

back to communities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is looking—specifically what office or what 

individuals are looking at this in the department? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is certainly 

looking at it. The National Institute of Justice is certainly looking 

at it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is looking at to determine if we are going 

to have such a resurgence based upon—— Mr. SEDGWICK. No. This——

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Recidivism. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I thought you were asking about what agencies 

within the Department of Justice are looking at this problem of recidivism and reentry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I did. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What you told me I thought sounded like a statistical analysis. And I was going to ask you is there somebody 

looking at it from a programmatic perspective? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Not only the National Institute of Justice but 

also the National Institute of Corrections. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are looking at that programmatically? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. Now this is an important issue for the Department. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. And we want you to share your concerns 

with us. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And your knowledge about it. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But my question is is somebody looking at it in 

the sense of what should we do about it programmatically? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Oh, absolutely. What——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is looking at that part of it? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, what should we do about it? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. I am saying who is looking at that issue 

programmatically in the Department of Justice? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, you mean what offices are looking at it? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah, exactly. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Where would we go to say——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I mean you say—you say you are looking at 

it. I mean, statistically you are saying boy we are looking at this. 

You know, 95 percent are going to be out in so many years. And 

we have a certain recidivism rate. That suggest that we are going 

to have a bump increase in crime. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Certainly. We will be——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So that is the statistical analysis. And 

that is the warning. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So my question is okay, we are looking at that. 

And we are warning—— Mr. SEDGWICK. So the next question is what works to offset those 

pressures. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
249 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And who is looking at—— Mr. SEDGWICK. The National Institute of Justice. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay? And also the National Institute of Corrections. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. You threw me off here. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Do you want me to finish my other two points 

that we were—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. I want to explore that. And I want you to 

remember your other two points. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is why I asked you if you would remember 

that, because I won’t. And if you give them to me. And I can’t write 

down. 

But I think it is really important. And it is wonderful that you 

all have that expertise over there. So what should we do with that? 

What preventive programs are out there? Are we looking at it from 

a preventive standpoint? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well who tells us that? 

But who comes up and tells us? We ought to be looking over the 

hill here. And I don’t want to ask it that way. I just want to know 

who is looking at it? And what should we be doing about it? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am just looking for the advice. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. All I am saying is, if you hold hearings on the 

topic, we will come. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. If you were to hold a hearing and say we want 

to know what you all are thinking about in terms of—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Fair enough. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We will come. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And we should do that. Okay. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. But—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have any thoughts on, short of our holding a specific hearing on that? And I think that is a really good 

suggestion. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The other option is——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is a huge issue. 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. We could always have your staff contact the Office of Communications, the Office of Public——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well we will do——

Mr. SEDGWICK. And say these are things that we are interested 

in. Can you send people up to talk to us about them? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we will do that too. And maybe you are not 

prepared to talk about it specifically here. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. About recidivism? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. And the programs that you all are looking 

at to address the potential recidivism or the recidivism that your 

statistics suggest we are going to be looking at. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. If you want to talk about recidivism, I would 

much prefer to send up to you——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
250 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, fair enough. 

Mr. SEDGWICK a table——

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. To understand folks from the National Institute of Justice and the National Institute of——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well you have told us—you told us where 

to go. Fair enough. Okay, the other two——

Mr. SEDGWICK. I hope I didn’t tell you where to go. 

Mr. PEED. Can I take the question? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah, please Mr. Peed. 

COPS ON RECIDIVISM ISSUE

Mr. PEED. Recognizing that about—the recidivism rate is, of 

course——

Mr. PEED. Recognizing that recidivism, of course, is over 60 percent, what we did was work with the IACP. In prior years, the probation—it was—it basically said this was a probation/parole problem or somebody else’s problem. 

Chiefs did not necessarily see it as their issue. We thought that 

chiefs should take it as their issue, because if there is additional 

crime in their communities as a result of reentry, the 600,000 or 

so people coming back that they should be aware of it. And should 

be taking some response, have a response to that. 

So the IACP has been able to convince all of their 18,000 agencies out there, at least they are trying to convince them, that reentry is an issue that all chiefs across the country, chiefs and sheriffs, should be aware of. 

Secondly, the Urban Institute has done some research on this. 

And the Urban Institute did some work to try to look at targeting 

where offenders return to, if they return to like the hot spots. If 

they return to the same communities they came from. 

So the Urban Institute has done some work. And the Police 

Foundation did the same thing. The Police Foundation did some research looking and trying to convince law enforcement organization 

across the country that they needed to map, crime map, where offenders were returning. So that they could see if crime statistics 

are starting to go up in those communities. They had some areas 

where—if crime starts to occur, they would say is it because of all 

the people heading back into that community. 

So that is just a thought. Just to take a little pressure off Dr. 

Sedgwick. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. I don’t want to put any pressure on Dr. 

Sedgwick. What I am hearing with that testimony is that we are 

putting the local police—we are saying you better be on high alert, 

because there are going to be a lot of folks. But that is still policing. That to me is not really addressing the——

Mr. SEDGWICK. The root causes? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
251 

ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The root causes of the problem. Are we looking 

at root causes? 

Mr. PEED. Actually, the——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is candid. Well, we will forget you. We are 

back to Mr. Sedgwick. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I should also mention that OJP also participates, 

many of our agencies. For example, BJA funds a fair amount of 

programming in prisoner relocating. So there are a number of different OJP agencies that are involved in this particular issue quite 

deeply. 

But also OJP participates in the Administration’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative, which is a collaborative effort between the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the Department of Justice, 

to address exactly this problem, because quite frankly what we 

know about successful reentry and the elimination of recidivism 

leads to the kind of pushing back of the time to failure. So that 

people stay in the community longer before they go back to crime 

if in fact they do. 

It requires some pretty simple things, you know, literacy, a job, 

housing, healthcare. I mean one of the things that was shocking to 

us when we were looking at prison populations was the very high 

levels of mental health problems among persons incarcerated in the 

United States. 

So, you know, if you think about all of the kind of factors that 

go into enhancing the likelihood that a released inmate will come 

back to the community successfully and stay clean as opposed to 

go back to the old habits that got them incarcerated in the first 

place, this is really a multi-disciplinary kind of across the department effort that is currently under way. 

And we would be happy to kind of share——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, and maybe we want more specifically. But 

just to get on the record, there is a new national study released 

last month by the Pew Center. It found for the first time in U.S. 

history more than one in ninety-nine adults is currently in jail, 

which is more than 2.3 million people. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Boy, is that sobering. That is in and of itself, a 

statement of failure—as a society. 

The report said that, ‘‘Fifty states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from $11 billion 20 years earlier. Furthermore, the recidivism rate remains basically unchanged. About 95 

percent of all incarcerated individuals will eventually leave prison. 

And the Bureau of Justice Statistics,’’ which you are close to, ‘‘estimates that two-thirds of all released prisoners will commit new offenses within three years.’’

Is that statistic accurate? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes, that is true. That particular statistic you see 

across research projects. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well doesn’t that just drive you to say, there is 

something systemic going on here? And we are not addressing it? 

And we are warning police chiefs that there is going to be this 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
252 

wave. But we are really not addressing it. And we have programs 

in this Committee that address this. 

But the President’s budget request zeros out funding for existing 

offender reentry, for drug courts, for state drug treatment program 

grants. That is not a good thing, is it? 

GRANT CONSOLIDATION

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, again, you are saying it zeros out funding 

for programs. Programs are being consolidated. So your ability to 

tie a certain amount of money to a set program under the President’s proposed budget, right? It breaks that—but that is different 

from saying it zeros out, right? 

It is still possible for state and local agencies to apply for funds 

for reentry programs. So it is not that no money will go to reentry 

anymore. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. But it is substantially less in that consolidation. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There are substantially less funds available for 

those programs. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I can’t dispute that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. And you don’t like that. You want more 

funds. I know you do. I know you do. I am not testifying for you. 

I am going to give you a chance to answer that. Should we have 

more resources in these remedial areas? This is your one chance to 

testify in the United States Congress what you really believe about 

this. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, you know, as I said, my charge is to—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Support the President’s budget. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know. But I am asking—— Mr. SEDGWICK. I am part of the Administration. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me ask you—— Mr. SEDGWICK. But also I will go back to an answer I gave you 

previously, Chairman Mollohan. And I appreciate what you are 

asking. 

Could I do more good with more money? Absolutely. Can I with 

confidence say I can do more good with those additional funds than 

any other office of the Department of Justice? No, I can’t say that, 

because I don’t sit in that chair. 

The leadership has to make——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to accept your first answer as satisfying my question, because I think you went as far as you feel comfortable going. And you clearly said that we need more money. And 

I think those are things we do want on the record here. Not as I 

got you, but we really want it on the record. It is, you know, a 

problem here. 

Let me go through some things here. Juvenile justice and missing children’s programs, lot of support for that up here. The budget 

proposes to eliminate existing missing children and juvenile justice 

programs and replace them with a new $185 million consolidated 

program. Here is another case of consolidation and cutting funds. 

Congress appropriated $434 million for these programs, $50 million for missing children and $384 million for juvenile justice proVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
253 

grams, including Secure Our Schools, Victims of Child Abuse Act 

Programs, Title V Gang, and Alcohol Prevention Programs, and the 

new Competitive Youth Mentoring Grants Program. Your budget represents a $240 million cut in addition to the consolidation. What will not be funded if Congress were to approve the 

President’s proposal, as I just summarized? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. What will not be funded is any existing program 

for which the state and local government does not submit an application and say this is our highest need. If nobody asks for something. You know, look, the whole idea of this approach, and you are 

exactly right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, then—— Mr. SEDGWICK. This is applied consistently across—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you are not going to be able to fund everything that is requested. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We want to. 

UNFUNDED PROGRAMS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Obviously, you are not going to fund things that 

aren’t requested. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We won’t fund things that aren’t requested. And 

we won’t be able to fund everything that is requested. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. So we will have to make tough decisions. And 

that is what we get paid for, in this format people apply. They say 

this is our need. They demonstrate. They document the need. They 

demonstrate an awareness of what best practices are and address 

that need. And are willing to adopt those best practices. 

And based on the quality of their analysis of the problems they 

have and their ability and willingness to adopt best practices to address that, we will fund the proposals until our money runs out. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me ask you about 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

BEST PRACTICES SERVING GRANTEES

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Communicating best practices. How 

does OJP, your bureau’s offices, coordinate to serve grantees? For 

example, if I were the mayor of a town and I had a growing gang 

problem, how would I get advice? Would I have to go hunting 

around for the programs? Is there a one-stop office clearinghouse 

that would give me advice and give me direction? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. There are actually links on the OJP website. And 

to each of our programmatic office websites—that steer people to 

grants and to the way in which to apply for those grants. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that was plural, right? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There are different—well——

Mr. SEDGWICK. There are——

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Last year we talked a little bit 

about one-stop shopping and one-stop assistance. So someone 

wouldn’t have to go through and guess. Is there such a thing? Are 

you developing a one-stop shop? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. There is grants.gov. Okay, which is a one-stop 

shop for all federal grants. Which is a searchable database that alVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
254 

lows you to go in and enter keywords. And you get back from the 

search engine all of the federal grant programs that are out there 

that address that particular problem, irrespective of what department those programs are housed in. 

I think equally important for grantees is not simply to know that 

there is a grant program out there that has an open period for submission. But also to know that there are staff in the appropriate 

office that are prepared to pick up the phone and, you know, answer a question, counsel an applicant on how best to put together 

a proposal, prepare to discuss funding priorities and so on, and to 

share insight into what have constituted successful applications in 

past cycles. 

One of the things that we are really proud of in OJP is the willingness of our staff to deal with stakeholders and applicants in a 

spirit of, we want to help you get this money. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is there this one-stop shop clearinghouse resource? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, there is—like I said, there is grants.gov, 

which is one stop for the entire federal government and a searchable database. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But there is not for Office of Justice Programs? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. To the best of my knowledge——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you think that would be helpful? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I am not sure whether—what the value added of 

having one for OJP when there is already one that is searchable 

for the entire federal government. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t know the answer to that. But——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yeah. I mean, it——

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Your answer is you don’t have it. I 

would think it would be a higher level of expertise, an expertise in 

depth to be able to refer people. But you don’t have it so. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We certainly have links to grants in each of the 

program offices that do make grants. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that is the question actually I wanted to 

ask of Ms. Dyer and Mr. Peed. 

COORDINATION BETWEEN OJP, COPS, AND OVW

How do the Office on Violence Against Women and COPS Office 

coordinate with one another and OJP? What steps are being taken 

to ensure better collaboration across the agencies and with grantees? Are you all looking at that? 

Ms. DYER. Well, we have biweekly meetings with the Associates 

Office where not only does Jeff come on behalf of OJP, but each of 

the directors of his individual components are there too, so NIJ, 

SMART, Carl is there. So every two weeks we get together. 

Additionally, in the Office on Violence Against Women, we have 

another federal interagency counsel that—where we get together 

with other people, even outside of the Department of Justice, who 

deal with violence against women issues, most notably Health and 

Human Services. We end up partnering with them on several 

things. 

And so we do try to get together to make sure that we are aware 

of what the other agencies are doing. And that we can work collaboratively. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
255 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mm-hmm. Mr. Peed, do you want to respond to 

that? 

Mr. PEED. Yes. We do meet every two weeks. And as a matter 

of fact, we have got a meeting this afternoon after we conclude this 

meeting. 

But I think we know—at least I know about our—we work very 

close with all our partners over in the Office of Justice Program. 

It is not unusual for me to call up Domingo and partner on an 

issue or NIJ. We are partnering with NIJ now on a potentially 

DNA initiative that wants to shift—you talk about in terms of the 

policy issues that—the privatization of labs. So we want to look at 

it from a research policy, best practices approach. 

And we have a resource information center, a RIC that we call 

it, where people can go to that site and order products all the time. 

So they can go there and look and see what products are available. 

And order products that will address their issue that is most concern to them. 

We also, at least in——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Isn’t that a one-stop shop resource? 

Mr. PEED. I think for our office it is. Yes. For all our guidelines, 

all our products like the ones I brought here today, they can order 

any of those products. Go into that resource information center. 

But I also reach across government agencies. We reach over to 

the Department of Homeland Security and work well with DHS. 

We had a great project last year working with the Office of Information out of the White House and the Department of Homeland 

Security on an intelligence summit with IACP. So we were able to 

bring together about 130 people from state and local government, 

federal government, working across agencies. 

So I think it is basically a lot of good relationships. You know, 

I don’t hesitate to call Dr. Sedgwick or anyone over in BJA or NIJ 

or OJP to sit down and talk about an issue. It has been, from my 

perspective, it has been very successful. They have been good partners. 

COPS COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Following up, I am all for good relationships. Where do we stand relative to interoperability issues? What 

are we putting out on the street that realistically can communicate 

with a neighboring town or city? What are you doing? 

Mr. PEED. With our appropriations, we have had grant solicitations by major statistical areas of the country, the MSAs. We have 

provided grants for people who are willing to work with multi-disciplinary groups, as well as multi-jurisdictional groups, to bring 

about interoperability for those regions. 

To date, we have invested probably about $250 million in interoperable solutions. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So would your—with this budget scenario, 

what you have been doing would be less under this budget scenario, considerably less. 

Mr. PEED. Well, the Department of Homeland Security has 

picked up on many of those initiatives as far as interoperability. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
256 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just for the aforementioned National Institute of Corrections is funded under the Bureau of Prisons; is that 

right? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. For $22 million. Isn’t it proposed to be 

eliminated under the President’s budget? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. It is actually proposed for the programs of the 

National Institute of Corrections to be moved into OJP. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So this is another one of these issues here 

where everybody has to go out there and compete? So the National 

Institute of Corrections would have to be out there competing with 

another similar institute, which you head up? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. No. Well——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Ask that question again. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, the National Institute of Corrections, 

the money for it is going to be zeroed out under your budget. Is 

it proposed to be eliminated? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The functions of the National Institute—as I understand it, the National Institute of Corrections is being moved 

from the Bureau of Prisons into the Office of Justice Programs. 

And its functions absorbed by other agencies within OJP that currently do very similar work. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So what does that tell us? So the view is 

that there is another statistic gathering? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Or research. There are other groups——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Groups that could absorb what they are 

doing, which is a nice way of saying they are being eliminated? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well it is saying that their functions are being 

absorbed into other agencies that are doing similar work. So there 

is a consolidation. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think I like my take on it. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. 

SEXUAL PREDATORS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Back to Mr. Peed. Our fiscal year 2008 

funding bill included money for a new program that related to arresting, prosecuting, and managing sexual predators. Where do we 

stand on that program? And where is this program going to go 

under this budget scenario? 

Mr. PEED. Congress authorized $15.6 million to start this new 

program. And it is basically three parts. One part was to transfer 

funds, $850,000 over to the Sex Offender Register. The other part 

was to transfer $4.1 million to support the Adam Walsh Act. Those 

two funds would go to the Office of Justice Programs. 

The other, remaining fund, $10.6, in our authorizing statute, it 

asked us to develop a program to address those issues that you just 

said, to address, prosecute sex offenders. 

And in doing so, Congress asked us to do two things. One was 

to meet and coordinate with the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children. We have already completed that. We have alVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
257 

ready met with them to talk about the program. And they are very 

excited about it. 

The second thing was they asked us to do was to work with U.S. 

Attorneys. We have already made some contacts with a number of 

U.S. Attorneys on that issue. 

And so we will be developing, as soon as our spending is approved, grants for state and local law enforcement, to address that 

issue. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What will happen to your spending plans 

under the scenario we have been discussing here? 

Mr. PEED. I don’t know. And maybe we will get something—I 

don’t think it will address it in its entirety. It may address—there 

may be a small percentage of it that might having some bearing 

on small part of it. I don’t know. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not sure that answers my question. 

Mr. PEED. Oh. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Given the budget scenario here. 

Mr. PEED. I think it pretty much remains intact. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It does? 

Mr. PEED. I think so. There might be some rescission or 

some——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am looking towards this fiscal year. 

Mr. PEED. In 2009? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, that time frame. 

Mr. PEED. We would be managing the 2008 grants during the 

2009 time frames. So I don’t think there is any funding in that particular program for 2009. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So there is no money in there? 

Mr. PEED. Not that I am aware of. 

RESCISSIONS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On the area of rescissions, our fiscal year 

Appropriations Bill handed you a pretty large rescission of your 

prior year balances. Between OJP and COPS, over $185 million 

was rescinded. In the past, these recisions were intended to scoop 

up money that was left unspent. And be obligated after grants to 

terminate it. 

I understand that you have only deobligated about $10 million in 

the first quarter of this year. Do you anticipate being able to recover enough funds from the old grants to meet these rescission 

targets? And if you are unable to find the money in the old grants, 

how will you meet the rescissions that were enacted into law? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Okay. If you are talking about the rescission for 

fiscal year 2008, we did——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We currently have sufficient carryover balances 

to meet the $87.5 million rescission that we have in OJP. 

How we will meet the $100 million rescission for fiscal year 2009, 

I can’t really tell you until we get later into the fiscal year. But at 

this point, yes, we do have sufficient carryover balances to meet the 

fiscal year 2008 rescission. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But we could then potentially have much 

deeper cuts here. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. In? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
258 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Going forward here with these rescissions. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well right now the only two rescissions I know 

of are fiscal year 2008. And that is $87.5 million that we do currently have the funds to cover. For fiscal year 2009, the $100 million proposed rescission, we don’t really—we are going to have to 

continue to evaluate our available balances during the rest of this 

fiscal year before we make a final decision. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well is it your intention that you would use 

these rescissions to reduce the appropriated levels for state and 

local programs if Congress adds to your request? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, add to our request for fiscal year——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If you don’t have enough money from the 

terminated grants——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Would you possibly take that 

sort of action? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. We might have to. I mean, quite frankly to meet 

a rescission——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, in the interest of full disclosure, this 

is obviously part of our——

Mr. SEDGWICK. We really only have two places to go. One is unobligated carryover funds. And the other is the obligations. And one 

of the things that I think people should know is that we have made 

dramatic progress in eliminating the backlog of unclosed out 

grants. 

So historically, meeting rescission was not particularly challenging, because we had a lot of unclosed out grants that we could 

close out, deobligate the funds, and meet rescission amounts out of 

those close outs. 

Due to some very hard work within OJP to come current on 

grants and to do a better job of managing grants, particularly in 

light of the Inspector General’s report that kind of grant monitoring was one of the top ten management challenges for the Department of Justice, we took that very seriously. We have closed 

out about 16,000 grants out of our backlog. 

That means that, the amount of money that is going to be there 

in deobligation, going out into the future, is going to be less than 

the standard. So this is for us a serious management challenge 

that we do worry about. 

You know, the rescission amounts keep staying at a high level. 

And deobligations fall off as we eliminate our backlogs. And more 

closely monitor our existing grants to make sure that grantees are 

spending the money at an appropriate rate so that they spend everything they ask for and achieve the goals that they ask for during the period of the grant. We are not going to have any 

deobligations. And we won’t have a lot to carry over. And that will 

cause some problems. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So it is important to have this matter out 

on the table. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Oh, yeah. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And we appreciate the clarification. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
259 

OJP MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Sedgwick, with the exception of the $12.7 

million request for crime victims fund management and administration, the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget does not present direct costs for management and administration for OJP programs. 

And we need to understand those requirements to determine 

proper funding levels. And I want to ask you if you would commit 

to working with the staff in a very transparent way so we can work 

through these issues. And so that we can understand these numbers. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. We are more than happy to work with you 

to the best of our ability to clarify those issues. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Please tell us about the progress in the 

schedule for awarding Congressionally directed Byrne and juvenile 

justice grants. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. For this fiscal year? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, for 2008. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. Right now what we are waiting for in terms 

of processing grants, we obviously can’t process any grant until we 

get a spend plan approved. 

So we are in many cases for very many of the competitive grant 

programs, solicitations have already been issued. Grant proposals 

have been received. We are simply waiting to see whether or not 

the spend plan that we have proposed is accepted. At which point 

we can begin processing grants. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The spending plan as you have submitted here? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. I believe it came up last week. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And the COPS program as well? Byrne juvenile 

justice grants, and COPS program. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED FUNDS

Mr. PEED. The COPS programs, again, when the spending plan 

is approved, we will—we have about—if you are referring to the directed—the congressionally Directed Fund? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is precisely what I am talking about. 

Mr. PEED. You have 683 Congressionally directed funds. We have 

$205 million in technology and $61 million in methamphetamine. 

And so we have already reached out to the sponsors of those 

grants. As soon as the spending plan—the spending plan is approved, we will be reaching out to the grantees. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you are not waiting for the—for approval of 

the spend plan in order to reach out to the grantees in these other 

programs, are you, Mr. Sedgwick? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Not at all. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are reaching out to them? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Oh, yeah. 

Mr. PEED. Same as here. We have already reached out to grantees too. 

COMMUNITY POLICING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah, okay. Mr. Peed, community policing, you 

have had vast experience. Just for the record, tell us what community policing means. What is it? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
260 

Mr. PEED. Community policing, if you ask different people across 

the country, you would come up with different terms. We have narrowed our definition. I think it is what we refer to as the umbrella 

of community policing, because there are lots of good tactics and 

strategies out there that fall under the definition of community policing. 

Our definition basically includes three things. The basic is partnerships, partnering with your community members, or other 

stakeholders within your community, problem solving skills, working on problem solving, identifying the problem of working with 

your community to solve it, and organization transformation, which 

means you hire the right people, you train them correctly, you 

would employ them correctly. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The local law enforcement agency does all of 

this? 

Mr. PEED. Right. And you empower those people to make decisions at the lowest level possible. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do we know it works? 

Mr. PEED. We have—again, getting back, we have had 12 evaluations. And some have suggested that it may. And some have come 

up with mixed results. But there is also one by GAO—by the GAO. 

But I think if you talk to the professionals in the field, they like 

many of the strategies that they use. Whether it is working in task 

forces, whether working with partners, whether working with hot 

spots. 

So I think if you talk to professionals in the field, if they can 

identify what works for them. And sometimes it may be a little bit 

different. But it also usually has some component of that problem 

solving and partnerships. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well you have a unique perspective. You have 

been to state and local level. 

Mr. PEED. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right? Where was that? 

Mr. PEED. In Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you have been the Director of the COPS 

program. 

Mr. PEED. I have been there for six and a half years. 

COPS PERSPECTIVE ON COMMUNITY POLICING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I was going to ask how long you were there, six 

and a half years. So that is really great experience. What is your 

perspective? 

Mr. PEED. Oh, I think the community policing does work at the 

local level. Again, getting back to I think any community that partners with any law enforcement organization that partners with 

their community, they have got to have their community support 

in many cases to go and solve problems. 

I like the definition that Dean Esserman out of Providence uses. 

And basically when he is trying to solve issues in that community, 

he wants to go and meet with that community rather than do a 

sweep or some other things. You know, where he is going to go and 

do an enforcement effort without going to the community and identifying the problem and helping that community agree and solve 

that issue for them. So I think it works. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
261 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not to make a long answer out of it, but if you 

were to, for the record, state some lessons learned from your experience, total experience, regarding community policing, what would 

be some of those lessons learned? 

Mr. PEED. I think public hearings in the communities of interest. 

And I would share with you one of our examples is back following 

the Rodney King incident in L.A., I worked with our Circuit Court 

Judge and our prosecutors to go into minority communities to hold 

public hearings on that particular incident so that they wouldn’t 

lose trust in their law enforcement organization. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sounds like engaging the community. 

Mr. PEED. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Genuinely engaging the community. What are 

some of the significant unmet needs of state and local law enforcement? 

Mr. PEED. After a 25 year history or career in law enforcement, 

I can always tell you that you won’t find many law enforcement organizations in the country that don’t say they need more resources. 

So they always will tell you they need more resources, whether it 

is technology, or——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You know, I am really not asking what they 

would tell me. I mean, we will probably have some of them in here 

telling us. 

I am respecting your background. And I want to know what 

you—how you personally and professionally answer that question. 

Sort of as an expert witness. 

Mr. PEED. Okay. I have been an expert witness before. And it is 

difficult. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well you are right here too. And this is easy so. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT UNMET NEEDS

Mr. PEED. Yes. So you are asking me what I think the needs are 

of law enforcement? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mm-hmm. I am asking you what you think are 

the most significant unmet needs, however you define that. 

Mr. PEED. One is employable personnel. According to the standards that have been set by the majority of law enforcement organizations in this country, they are having difficulty finding the people 

that they feel that they need to hire. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Training, socialization, cultural, attitude? 

Mr. PEED. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All those? 

Mr. PEED. All those. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Really? We are having trouble filling law enforcement at the state and local level with those kinds of people. 

Mr. PEED. As a matter of fact, one of the questions that when 

I have asked—on a new LIMA study is to look at the issues of how 

many vacancies there are in the country and their ability to fill positions. It takes sometimes ten months to hire a position. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does that suggest that there is a need in our 

community educational institutions? 

Mr. PEED. I think——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
262 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me just finish asking. I mean, I know you 

are ahead of me. But for criminal justice programs particularly in 

the personnel training area? 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS IN HIGH SCHOOLS

Mr. PEED. I believe that criminal justice programs in high school 

would be very, very——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. High school? 

Mr. PEED. In high school. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Wow. 

Mr. PEED. Because many times those kids are going to get in 

trouble before they turn 21. And you have got to get to them earlier 

on before they turn 21. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have got to let them know if you want to 

work in law enforcement, you need not to get in trouble. Is that a 

course, or just the police going in and saying, hey look? Or maybe 

colleges that have such programs going in and say if you are interested in getting into our criminal justice program, it is not only 

how smart you are and how dedicated, it is what your record looks 

like. 

Mr. PEED. I think——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is a really good suggestion. 

Mr. PEED [continuing]. The high schools, the Cadets, the Explorer Scouts, all of those programs, I think, are helpful for law enforcement. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And what is another significant need for state 

and local law enforcement? 

Mr. PEED. Besides hiring? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mm-hmm. Besides the right personnel, as I understood you just testified. 

Mr. PEED. Let me think about it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure, yes. This is your opportunity to tell us. 

Mr. PEED. I think turnover is another issue for law enforcement. 

I think there is more turnover in law enforcement than the law enforcement groups would like. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the solution to that? 

SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

Mr. PEED. Again getting back to hiring and training the right 

people. Maybe it is just our era of what this particular group that 

we are hiring. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Say that again. 

Mr. PEED. This era. The generation Xers, the generation Yers. 

Those kind of folks that change jobs every four years or so. So I 

think that is a challenge for law enforcement. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, how do you address that is what I am asking? 

Mr. PEED. Again, getting back to hiring, and training, and maybe 

even looking at salary and benefits across the country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Maybe? 

Mr. PEED. Maybe. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is in question in your mind? 

Mr. PEED. Some jurisdictions are better than others. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
263 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And do jurisdictions that pay more—pay higher 

salaries, do they have less of a problem with turnover? 

Mr. PEED. I am sure that——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is it that straightforward? 

Mr. PEED. Probably. And they probably will jump from a lower 

paying jurisdiction to a higher paying jurisdiction. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. I have seen that when our federal jobs come 

into our area. There is a pretty discernable move to go work there, 

federal prisons or federal institutions. 

Any other significant unmet needs? 

Mr. PEED. Not that I know of. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just for the record, I really would like you to respond to that. And then what is the appropriate federal role? Your 

opinion, if you can give it to us. 

Mr. PEED. Getting back to the poll, I think for small amounts of 

discretionary spending, we can have a huge impact on the field. 

And so in our situation, we have got—in the 2009 budget, $4 million. And I don’t look lightly on that $4 million, because I think we 

can do a tremendous job with that $4 million. We can work with 

the IACP, and the Major City Chiefs, and the Major County Sheriffs, and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

Organizations. We can work with them on significant projects that 

will impact the field. So that is an area I would like——

COPS HIRING GRANTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to have a number of questions for 

you for the record, methamphetamine, technology, training. But 

two questions I would like to ask you. In 2008, we reinstituted the 

COPS hiring grants program. How will the 2008 hiring grants be 

dispersed? 

Mr. PEED. We intend to follow our requirements of making it a 

national program. We intend to follow the population split of 

150,000 above and 150,000 below so that 50 percent of them. So 

we will be going out to small and rural areas. So every state will 

have an opportunity to apply. Small and rural would be able to 

apply. 

TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. And I have some other questions associated with that question I would appreciate you answering for the 

record. I have to ask the question about tribal law enforcement, 

which is something I think we need to pay more attention to their 

needs. Tribal governments have some of the highest needs of any 

law enforcement agencies. 

And please tell us how existing OJP and COPS programs meet 

the unique needs of these police forces? 

Mr. PEED. In the—on the——

Mr. PEED. In our 2008 budget, we have $15 million for tribal. 

And we expect to make grants directly to our law enforcement—

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you sure about that? 

Mr. PEED. Fifteen million dollars in—maybe 14.7 or 14.8. 

But——

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
264 

FY 2008 TRIBAL FUNDING FOR THE COPS OFFICE

In FY 2008, the COPS Office was appropriated $15.040 million to assist with 

Tribal law enforcement efforts. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If that is not accurate, then correct it for the 

record, please. 

Mr. PEED. Right. And so we will be making grants to tribal law 

enforcement organizations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is your request. 

Mr. PEED. In 2008. In 2008 that is our appropriation. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is your appropriation. What is your request? 

Mr. PEED. For 2009? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. PEED. We will be merged into the broader core programs. 

And they will be able to apply the tribes for grants. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, okay. Dr. Sedgwick. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have an answer to that question? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Tribal? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Tribal—— Mr. SEDGWICK. On tribal grants? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. A couple of things that we tried to get in OJP to 

address the demonstrable needs in tribal country. One is—and actually these are kind of parent organization. We have a Tribal Justice Advisory Group. It has now met twice. That advises us and 

consults with us on outstanding need in tribal country. And also 

concerns that they have about difficulties applying for funding 

through OJP programs. 

Paired with that is a Justice Program Council on Native American Affairs that is made up of representatives of each of the OJP 

program offices, where we meet and discuss on a regular basis the 

concerns that have been raised by the Tribal Advisory Group. 

We are very pleased that we have just instituted a tribal grants 

policy that is applicable to all of the program offices in OJP. So we 

are actually moving pretty aggressively on the direction of meeting 

the needs in tribal country. 

Again, within the structure of the fiscal year 2009 budget, you 

do not see set-asides for tribal. However, given our awareness of 

the needs in tribal country, within any one of these broad funding 

categories, proposals received from tribal country, would be entertained very seriously, because of our recognition that in many cases 

they are lagging far behind non-tribal. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, they sure are. And we are not doing 

enough. And I know you agree with that. But just for the record, 

your request would not only consolidate these programs, they 

would also cut the funding that would be available for them. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. They cut the overall funding. That is true. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Whether or not that would mean a real decrease 

in funding——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In any particular program remains to be seen. 

But what is true is it will—it will result in a decrease somewhere. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
265 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Significantly. Yes, thank you. 

Ms. Dyer, regarding violence against women programs on the 

House floor last year. I don’t know that we had any area of the bill 

where there were more amendments seeking to increase the funding. 

But there is a lot of support, because there is a lot of demand 

and need out there. My issue is how we impact, with the resources 

we have, how we actually impact every single community in America, because I don’t think we do. 

I am out there holding office hours. And I remember office hours 

I held in Preston County, West Virginia, which is a rural county. 

I met with a group, a non-profit group that was attempting to establish a home. And some of the stories they told just really emphasized—gave back up to the statistics. 

For when I get back, I would like for you to think about this 

question: 

How do we with the federal resources we have impact violence 

against women in all jurisdictions, in all areas of the country? 

And I am going to go vote. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While you are writing down the Chairman’s request, let me just 

put my oar in the water too. Do you connect to the Veterans Administration? 

COORDINATION WITH DOD, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AND OVW

Ms. DYER. With the what? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense, relative to the whole issue of soldiers coming 

home? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you have a connectivity? 

Ms. DYER. Yes, we do. In fact—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. These issues? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Where is it at? How does that exist? 

Ms. DYER. Specifically with the Department of Defense, we work 

with—we actually met with them recently. And one of my friends 

from when I was a prosecutor, who worked at APRI, is in charge 

of their sexual assault unit. Her name is Teresa Scalzo. 

And we have an ongoing relationship. We have even talked about 

doing some specific trainings, what we call ‘‘institutes.’’ That would 

be specifically toward military bases, victims of domestic violence 

whose husbands have returned from overseas. And so we do have 

a contact there. And we do have a good connection there. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The statistics have obviously those that—

because they are serving abroad, have—their marriage is totally 

broken or pretty staggering—added obviously issues that they 

bring back with them. 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You know from the battle field. I know the 

VA has set up in some veterans hospitals some units to deal with 

those that have been victims of sexual violence. 

But on the larger issue of spouse battering, wife battering, you 

are connected to both the VA and the Department of Defense? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
266 

Ms. DYER. I know of our connection to the Department of Defense. I have met with them. I know the names of the people there. 

I do not know about the VA. And I am not aware. I would be happy 

to look into it. But I do not know if we have a contact there, or 

if we meet with them. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It would be worthy of your consideration. 

There is supposed to be ‘‘a seamlessness’’ between active duty and 

then there are Guard and Reserve who obviously go back to being 

citizen soldiers. 

I think there are some huge problems there. Not that you don’t 

have enough on your plate, but maybe you would add another. 

JAG GRANTS AND IMPACT OF CUT

We have not discussed something which is pretty important to 

all of us, the Members of Congress, the JAG grants. The fiscal year 

2008 Omnibus Bill cut the JAG grants by $340 million, not a process that didn’t involve a lot of pain. They basically cut the program 

by two thirds. 

By any definition, JAG is the flagship grant program that supports probably the broadest range of criminal justice activities and 

distributes funds based on population, crime statistics. 

We have gone over the crime statistics issue. Every member of 

Congress has heard from a broad coalition of groups seeking to restore this funding. 

What do you see, Mr. Sedgwick, particularly as the impact of the 

cut, particularly on the work of multi-jurisdictional operations related to drugs and gang task forces? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. In fiscal year 2009? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. This fiscal year? Obviously, you know, the reduction in the appropriated amounts for the JAG Program is going to 

have a significant impact. Interestingly enough, it is a little difficult to say where the burden is going to fall. 

The JAG cutback, in part because I know Domingo Herraiz who 

heads our office of the Bureau of Justice Assistance has been looking at how Justice Assistance grants that are typically given over 

to state assistance agencies or to state planning agencies are then 

in turn distributed to local government. 

And I know he has been concerned that the money that is distributed through Justice Assistance, in many cases, is going to 

places other than local law enforcement. In some cases, it is going 

to victims assistance centers that are also eligible for funding 

through the Office for Victims of Crime. And in some cases, to 

other actors in the criminal justice community. 

But I think the——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There are, in fact, a lot of purpose areas for 

which this money is spent. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. There are indeed. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And there may be some victims centers, 

and that may be good. But there is, obviously, ongoing——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Work that is being done relative to drug operations 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. No, I——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
267 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Gangs. I mean, what is your 

take on what it all means? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And more importantly, if you aren’t going 

to fund it in your budget, what is going to replace what we have 

now? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, in fiscal year 2008—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SEDGWICK [continuing]. We can only spend what we were appropriated. So, you know—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, going forward. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, going forward, you know, our recommendation is if we are now in an environment of—you know, if we are 

in tightened circumstances with less money to spend, our position 

is the country is best served by a flexible approach that allows us 

to target the reduced areas of greatest need. 

I think our concern is that——

OJP PRIORITIES

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So which of the purpose areas would you 

classify as the greatest need? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Well, this kind of gets back to a question that 

Chairman Mollohan answered or asked me. And I answered onethird of it. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, let us maybe hear the other twothirds. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. The record will—within the other two—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. He will be happy to have the response, 

even in his absence. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Here are the other two-thirds—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I mean, the things that I will be looking at very 

clearly as priorities would be prison reentry. We would certainly be 

looking at gangs, drugs, and guns, and the intersection of all those 

three things. 

One of the two things that we picked up that significantly concerned us when we started looking at the violent crime picture in 

some detail in 2005 was an earlier onset of violence of juveniles. 

I mean it used to be the case that you could typically—if you 

mapped out the typical criminal career, what you would see is juveniles would start at a fairly young age, typically in the property 

crimes. And wouldn’t graduate into or cross over into committing 

their first violent crime until much later in their teen years. 

JUVENILE CRIME

One of the things that we picked up in our 18-city tour was in 

jurisdictions that were having violent crime increases, they spoke 

over and over again about an earlier onset of violent crime and the 

inability of the unpreparedness of state juvenile justice systems to 

deal with violent felons. In one case in particular in Norfolk, they 

were taking about a juvenile in Norfolk who at age 11 had already 

committed two homicides. 

They simply said at that point, the difficulty that they are facing 

in Norfolk is the state juvenile justice system is simply not preVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
268 

pared to deal with an 11 year old who has committed two murders, 

understandably. 

That is certainly something that, you know, kind of raised our 

eyebrows both, because we could see it in the statistics as well as 

in anecdotes. 

The other thing, quite frankly, is the greater willingness of the 

increased propensity to use a firearm in the course of a violent 

crime. Even in communities where there were fewer violent crimes, 

people were seeing a greater percentage of violent crimes involved 

the use of a firearm, which, of course, means a greater potential 

for a fatality. You know, for a really damaging outcome. 

So, you know, if I were to kind of say priority areas that are——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You you are going to be replacing the old 

JAG program with something new, which falls under the consolidated umbrella. You are suggesting that those would be several of 

the areas, which you would put——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. At the top of your list. 

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. One of the new, kind of broad categories in 

the fiscal year 2009 budget, is a $200 million commitment to a violent crime partnership initiative or an anti-violent crime partnership initiative, which is really an expansion of something that we 

have run in fiscal year 2007. 

We had $75 million to distribute. I referred to this in my opening 

statement to create partnerships, to leverage federal dollars, to use 

federal dollars to leverage state and local dollars, create partnerships across jurisdictions to address communities that had significant violent crime problems. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Have you taken a look at some of the proposals of the State Attorney Generals that have put forward as 

their priority list? And are they similar to—are they similar to 

yours? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I actually have not had an opportunity to look at 

their priorities. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would suspect that very few State Attorney Generals haven’t reached out to the Members of Congress over 

the last——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Few months. I mean, every 

conceivable law enforcement organization——

Mr. SEDGWICK. Sure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Has. And I hope that some of 

their recommendations will fall into your inbox. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I am sure they will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will get them into my inbox. 

Ms. DYER. Excuse me, may I take a quick break? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Absolutely, let us take a ten-minute break. 

Ms. DYER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I apologize. 

[Recess.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
269 

ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Ms. DYER. I think that the best way to do it is in two different 

ways. One you would directly, and number two you would do it indirectly. We do it directly by providing grants to communities. And 

it is important to get into what I call the cracks and crevices of the 

community. That is where we are actually giving money to shelters 

and giving money to prosecutor’s offices and various agencies. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. But that doesn’t get us to all. 

Ms. DYER. Well, that is why I kind of have my thought broken 

down into the direct help in the form of those grants. Indirectly, 

we can help victims by increasing training to officers. Also, we can 

train the trainer, where the trainer can then go out and train further within their communities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who are the trainers? 

Ms. DYER. We will have experts in the field, from different service providers like the Justice Project, the Prosecutors Research Institute, and the National District Attorneys Association. They will 

then do the training and train the trainers training. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that happening? 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For example, in West Virginia or some other 

state, how does it get down to the county level? 

Ms. DYER. Well——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And is it? 

Ms. DYER [continuing]. I will give you a personal example. I was 

a trainer for the American Prosecutors Research Institute. They do 

a very small program where they would bring in 50 prosecutors at 

a time from around the country. They would really give these guys 

lots of information, PowerPoints. Then those people could then go 

back out into their communities and be trained within their county 

or within the neighboring county. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are talking about state and local prosecutors? 

Ms. DYER. Yes, I am. Because the vast majority of domestic violence crimes are prosecuted by state and local prosecutors not the 

federal prosecutors. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. And that is a natural perspective for you 

to have, given your background. What about the service to the victim part of it, the resources to the victim and the expertise in the 

programs available at the local level for the victim in addition to 

the punishment of the offender? 

Ms. DYER. Those are crucial. In fact, for nine years, one night a 

week I met and worked as a volunteer at my local women’s shelter. 

For nine years I was there. When the victims would call in I would 

tell them, this is the room you will be in. This is the color of the 

comforter. The soup is going to be good, because I made it myself. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where was that? 

Ms. DYER. Genesis Women’s Shelter at Dallas, Texas. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you know where west Dallas is? 

Ms. DYER. People also say, ‘‘Do you know where west Dallas is?’’

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I spent a summer there one year. 

Ms. DYER. And so we—that is the crucial part. You can’t just depend on law enforcement. You can’t go it alone. And you have to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
270 

fund. You have to do a dual thing where you have to fund. I am 

a proponent of, to some extent, funding the pilot programs. These 

really best practices to allow places like Brooklyn or Chicago to 

have a good program for victims. And that is good. But we also 

need to make sure that down in Texas has some service for victims. 

I am not proponent of putting all of the money that we ever get, 

whether it is 280 or 400 million into just the certain programs. We 

need to do just some core services too. 

RURAL GRANTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, rural America has this problem in spades. 

I can only imagine that in some ways these women are more distant to the help. 

Ms. DYER. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Maybe that is not right. But I know they are distant from the help. I mean, they are isolated. They are in the country literally. 

Ms. DYER. They don’t have as many access to——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you focusing on that population? 

Ms. DYER. Absolutely. One of our current grant programs and in 

the new President’s request, it would remain a purpose area is specifically the rural program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Just take that grant program, that is a 

new proposed program? 

Ms. DYER. No. It is one that you have been funding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. What is the name of it? 

Ms. DYER. The Rural Program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, sorry. Okay. How much money is in that? 

I can tell you. 

Ms. DYER. Forty million dollars in 2008. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Forty million four hundred and twenty 

thousand dollars, right? Yeah. Okay. So that program is available 

for rural——

Ms. DYER. That one is just available for rural. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Ms. DYER. Of course, many rural places to apply for other grants. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the demand on that program? 

Ms. DYER. It is very competitive. That particular grant program 

is very competitive. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So there are a lot of applications you turn down? 

Ms. DYER. Yes, for rural areas. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And there are so many more that don’t even 

apply to them. We have got to develop a strategy to actually get 

to—I don’t know how you get the people that aren’t even applying, 

which is most people, most areas, most jurisdictions. How do we 

get to them? 

Ms. DYER. We have been trying to do a good job. We take advantage of any opportunities to speak. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know, but that——

Ms. DYER. I was out at midnight the other night. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you would do a terrific job. But I will tell 

you, I don’t know how you do that. The programmatics, maybe you 

get a——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
271 

Ms. DYER. Well we try to—we do as much as we can. Let people 

know that, you know, the program is out there. As a community, 

it is very important. My coworker, Becky, and she is our coordinator. She is out in the country all the time, you know, saying 

there are programs. 

The other thing that we are doing is we are doing a thing with 

the Ad Council. It is kind of a public service announcement. The 

idea is it is going to be directed really towards teenage violence, because, number one, teens are more likely to be abused than adults 

are. Our daughters are more in danger than we are. 

And, number two, so that we can get to them before it becomes 

a situation where they have children with this person, and they are 

married to this person, and they are really stuck trying to get out. 

So that is one thing that we are doing. 

I know from working at the shelter, I am telling you, whenever 

Oprah did a program on domestic violence or, whatever it was, if 

there was a CBS special or a Hallmark, or whatever, our calls 

would be up. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, that is a way to get to it. 

Well, I have a number of questions here, which I am going to 

submit for the record. And many of them are directed for you. 

We are very appreciative of the appearance of the witnesses 

today. I thought it was a really good hearing from our standpoint. 

And we do appreciate the good work you do. 

You are all doing great work with not enough resources. So we 

look forward to working with you in the future. And if you would 

be responsive to the staff this week. 

Ms. DYER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would appreciate it. Thank you for everything. 

Ms. DYER. Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
272 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 42792B.013
273 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 42792B.014
274 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 42792B.015
275 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 674 42792B.016

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(277) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008.

BUREAU OF PRISONS; U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE; OFFICE 

OF THE FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE 

WITNESSES 

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS 

JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE 

STACIA A. HYLTON, FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE 

OPENING REMARKS BY CONGRESSMAN MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Good afternoon 

to everyone. We welcome a panel of three Department of Justice 

witnesses to this hearing on the fiscal year 2009 budget request for 

the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshal Service, and the Office of 

the Federal Detention Trustee. We will begin with testimony from 

Mr. Harley G. Lappin, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and 

proceed then to other agencies in sequence. 

Mr. Lappin, first of all I want to begin by expressing my personal 

and the Subcommittee’s condolences to you upon the passing of 

your dad. That is a very difficult thing. And it is a great testament 

to you and to him that you are here fulfilling your responsibilities 

in this circumstance. My dad died when we were considering a bill, 

a very important bill. I believe it was a Steel Loan Guarantee Bill 

on the floor, and I was carrying it, Senator Byrd had carried it on 

the Senate side. And we were doing it that night. And I know, I 

know your feeling about that and how it really is an honor to your 

father that you fulfill those responsibilities under those circumstances. So especially welcome to the hearing today. 

Mr. Director, lately it is hard to open the newspaper without seeing a news article or a commentary on recent studies on the explosive growth of prisoners incarcerated in federal, state, and local 

prisons and jails over the last twenty years. As in the states, the 

Bureau of Prisons is faced with rising inmate populations and rising fixed costs and aging infrastructure. We look forward to working with you to address these challenges and we want to compliment you and your staff on the tremendous job you are doing in 

the face of scarce resources. And we want you to know that we look 

forward to your testimony to see where those places are that you 

need special help and timely, and so that we can be responsive. 

Your written statement will be made a part of the record. We 

look forward to your oral testimony. And before calling upon you 

to deliver that I would like to call upon our fine Ranking Member 

Mr. Frelinghuysen for any comments that he might have. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No comments other than to echo the sentiments and sympathy of the Chairman, and thank you for your good 

work and all those who stand behind you each and every day doing 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
278 

some very tough work on behalf of our nation. Often unrecognized, 

underappreciated, and that not only goes to you but to those who 

follow behind you to testify today. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Lappin. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you both for your sympathy for my Father, 

I appreciate that very much, and certainly for the fine comments 

recognizing the wonderful staff who work in the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons who do a great job each and every day. But good afternoon 

to both of you and the other members who I am sure will arrive 

over the course of time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN

Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Frelinghuysen and other 

members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you 

today to discuss the President’s 2009 Budget Request for the Bureau of Prisons. Let me first begin by thanking you for your support of the Bureau of Prisons. We particularly appreciate the new 

construction resources provided in the 2008 Omnibus Bill, which 

allow us to move ahead with three much needed new prisons. I 

look forward to continuing our work with you and the Subcommittee. 

Last year, in reference to your article that you mentioned, the inmate population in the Bureau of Prisons increased by 7,400 inmates. We expect a net growth of 5,000 to 7,000 inmates per year 

over the next several years. Our current population is over 201,000 

inmates. The Bureau facilities are operating at 37 percent above 

rated capacity system-wide. 

Our highest priorities continue to be filling staff positions that 

have direct contact with inmates and bringing on new beds to reduce crowding to assure that federal inmates continue to serve 

their sentences in safe, secure, and humane environments. In 2007, 

the Bureau of Prison’s inmate to staff ratio was 4.92 inmates to one 

employee. The average of the five largest state systems was 3.33 

inmates to one employee, based on the latest comprehensive data 

available from the states. 

During the past three years we have implemented a number of 

initiatives to streamline operations and reduce costs. These actions 

involved permanent changes to BOP operations and reduced costs 

about $270 million over the three-year period. We eliminated over 

2300 positions, closed four federal prison camps, restructured medical care levels, and consolidated inmate designation and sentence 

computation functions as well as human resource functions at a 

central location in Texas. In addition to these permanent actions, 

we have reduced travel, equipment, vehicles, and training expenditures. These reductions average more than $100 million per year 

and continue in 2008. Unfortunately, the rising cost of healthcare 

remains a serious issue, comparable to what is occurring in the private sector despite our efforts to contain costs. 

Almost all federal inmates will be released back into the community. We have released an average of 50,000 inmates per year back 

to U.S. communities over the past few years, a number that continues to increase as the inmate population continues to grow. Our 

goal is to ensure that prior to their release, these inmates receive 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
279 

needed job skill training, work experience, education, counseling, 

and other assistance. Federal Prison Industries, one of our most 

important correctional programs, provides inmates with job skill 

training and work experience thereby reducing recidivism and 

avoiding undesirable idleness during the inmate’s incarceration. 

We expect Section 827 of the recently enacted Defense Authorization Bill to result in a decline in sales for the FPI program and potentially result in the loss of up to 6,300 jobs. The 2009 Budget Request is $5.436 billion for operations in our Salaries & Expenses (S&E) budget, and $95.8 million for our Buildings & Facilities (B&F) budget. For S&E, a total of $67 million in 

program increases is requested to contract for new private beds for 

low security criminal aliens, and to provide a marginal cost adjustment for some additional inmates. The increases are offset by a 

proposal to eliminate $28 million in funding for the National Institute of Corrections and other expenses. 

For B&F, this budget continues base level funding for new con- struction at $25.2 million and a Modernization and Repair program 

at $70 million. One-third of our 114 institutions are over fifty years 

old and present significant modernization and repair costs that we 

must prioritize and address each year. 

Mr. Chairman, our goal is to continue to run safe and secure 

prisons. This requires adequate front line staffing in our prisons 

and adding prison beds to reduce overcrowding. We believe the 

2009 request will better help the Bureau to meet these requirements. The inmate population will continue to increase and so will 

our challenges to provide for their safe, secure, and cost effective 

incarceration. 

Let me thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Subcommittee, for your continued support. I look forward to working with you and the Committee on the significant challenges facing the BOP and our Budget Request. Thank you. 

[Written statement of Harley G. Lappin, Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
280 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 808 here 42792C.001
281 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 809 here 42792C.002
282 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 810 here 42792C.003
283 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 811 here 42792C.004
284 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 812 here 42792C.005
285 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 813 here 42792C.006
286 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 814 here 42792C.007
287 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 815 here 42792C.008
288 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 816 here 42792C.009
289 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 817 here 42792C.010
290 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 818 here 42792C.011
291 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 819 here 42792C.012
292 

FY 2008 NEEDS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Lappin. Mr. Lappin, this hearing is about the Bureau of Prisons’ fiscal 2009 request, however, 

you have some immediate needs for this year, for 2008, and I 

would like to talk with you a little bit about that. I would like for 

you to tell us about that situation. How immediate is the Bureau 

of Prisons’ need and is the $240 million reprogramming that the 

Department has sent up here sufficient to solve your current problems? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We appreciate your recognition of the challenge we 

face, and it is significant. We currently, as you have learned from 

the reprogramming request, have a need for an additional $240 

million to carry out our responsibilities for the rest of this fiscal 

year. If you look at how this could happen and why it happened, 

you will find a variety of issues. If you look at the increase from 

2007 to 2008, at the end of the day it was about $55 million which 

wouldn’t cover the pay increase. Again, there are lots of priorities 

in the government and many needs. Decisions were made based on 

those priorities, but at the end of the day we feel as though we are 

going to need an additional $240 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What are the biggest cost drivers? Can you talk 

about that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Staff and salaries, salaries and expenses. I mean 

nearly 70 percent of our expenses are for salaries and benefits for 

employees. The $240 million would cover the number of employees 

we currently have employed, the overtime associated with their responsibilities, some of the operational costs, especially medical, and 

a few others. It is my opinion that $240 million will get us very 

close. We will do our best to live within the $240 million that is 

added to the budget. 

We will monitor closely and we are working very closely with the 

Department of Justice staff. They are listening very well to our 

concerns and issues, and have recognized the need for the reprogramming request. We are taking other initiatives in the Bureau to reduce costs. We have reduced overtime funding. We have 

reduced equipment funding and vehicle funding. We have delayed 

a couple of programs. We have reduced the relocations associated 

with staff transfers. We have reduced some training. We have then 

assumed some other salary savings through staff vacancies. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me back up a little bit. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

STAFFING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Talk to us in more detail about the staff situation. More inmates, less staff? I know from my visiting with employees in West Virginia on several occasions, just hearing them 

anecdotally talk about it. They talk about being on call every week, 

twice a week for overtime. They are tired, and they also have been 

associating that with incidents that, in their minds, are associated 

with the overtime and the understaffing. But if you would, in your 

opening remarks you talked a little bit about ratios. And I did not 

get all that, but the feds are four-point-something to one employee? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
293 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, right now. And again, let me just say that I 

continue to believe that we are running a safe, secure prison system, and not without its challenges. And it is because of those 

great folks out there in the field, each and every day, sacrificing, 

by working additional overtime, by coming in when there is a need 

to come in when we have concerns, disruptions, so on and so forth. 

They just do a great job and we continue to fare well. But there 

is a limit. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let us look at the numbers first. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our ratio right now is 4.92 inmates to every employee. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And what was it last year or the year before? Do 

you know? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Oh, last year we were at about 4.91. The year before, 4.87. In 1997 we were at 3.57. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That was in when? 1997? 

Mr. LAPPIN. In 1997 we were at 3.57 inmates per employee. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There must be some ratio that the correctional 

experts identified, the textbook ratio. What is the textbook ratio? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I am not sure. There is not really a ratio. We 

have been asked, ‘‘Help us define a ratio.’’ And why it is so difficult 

is it depends on the designs of your institutions and what posts you 

consider absolutely necessary. Because the vast majority of correctional organizations, the majority of our staff are run on rosters. 

You identify what work you want done, you tie to that a number 

of assignments posts, and based on the number of posts it drives 

the number of employees. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And modern corrections, new facilities, you 

ought to be able to do them more efficiently? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, new institutions you can manage safely—more 

efficiently. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you would expect this number to, I do not 

know whether you talk about this increase or decrease, but you 

would expect the ratio to involve fewer employees? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Without a doubt, some of the increase has resulted 

from newer design facilities that are more efficient and more effective in watching more inmates with fewer people. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. So in the modern prison system, or the 

mixed prison system that you operate, can you tell us what the correct ratio should be? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I really cannot. We were working on an evaluation 

of how to come up with the number for us, and it might vary from 

system to system. I do not want it to get any larger. I can tell you 

that. I think we are at our limit. I would like to see that level come 

down, and that is why——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Whoa, whoa, what level come down? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I would like to see the ratio come down. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The ratio come down? 

Mr. LAPPIN. From 4.92 to a number less than that. That is, I 

want to add more staff. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well we have to put dollars to need here, 

and so we need, I would love to have a little more guidance than 

that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
294 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will certainly provide that. Again, we are working on an evaluation as to how we come to a number. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Because while it is anecdotal for my constituents to come in and say, you know, ‘‘This is too much,’’ and 

they are not whiners, really, that suggests to me that it is too 

much. And they can talk about it in the terms they can talk about 

it, but to be able to translate that into a budget, for you, and into 

appropriations for us, it needs to be a little more tangible. And if 

we had help on that that would give us backup and you as well. 

The states are operating at 3.33. Did I get that right? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, what we do, we look at the five largest states, 

California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Michigan. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that a relevant, are you making a comparison 

here? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well we are just trying to help put it in perspective, 

how we compare to other similar systems. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, but I want to know what to do with these 

numbers. Am I to look at this and say, ‘‘Well, 4.91 employees, okay 

we are operating a modern prison system, or a mixed prison system, it is not all modern, in federal, and the states are 3.33 on an 

average.’’ Am I supposed to look at that and say, ‘‘Gee, we ought 

to get to 3.33?’’

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me answer that. I do not think we need to get 

to 3.33. In fact, I think we can operate at a level higher than the 

3.57 in 1997, because we have had a lot of newer prisons over the 

course of that time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So let me kind of help put it in perspective. For us 

to get to 3.57, where we were ten years ago, we would have to add 

9,000 employees. I do not think there is a need to do that. But you 

are correct, you need some guidance. Where do we fall on this 

range? And we will continue to provide to you that information as 

we conduct this evaluation to see if we can come up with some 

more accurate assessment of where we think we need to be. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And without a doubt, I am concerned at this ratio. 

I still think we are doing a great job, but certainly on the backs 

of the great employees we have. There is a limit. And that is why 

one of our priorities is to continue to fund those positions at the 

local level for direct, for staff having direct contact with inmates to 

try to bring that ratio down. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, well for the record, I think you are doing 

a great job. And I think the members of this Subcommittee think 

you are doing a great job, and there needs to be some advocacy for 

appropriate funding. Mr. Frelinghuysen? 

INMATE POPULATION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We know you are doing a difficult job. You 

have given us some of the staggering figures in terms of the inVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
295 

crease in the federal inmate population. Could you just talk for a 

couple of minutes about some other characteristics of that population? Age, different characteristics that make up the overall mix 

in terms of ethnic background, race, what are some of the figures 

that are out there? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Age, race, ethnicity is pretty much similar. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And have they shifted? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Those have not shifted significantly. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. They are? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me give you an idea. About 56 percent of the 

federal inmate population is white, 40 percent is black, 1.7 percent 

Asian, 1.8 percent Indian. Of that it is 31 percent Hispanic, so a 

combination of some folks who are African American, black, Hispanic. Age has really not fluctuated much. You know, we are 

around a thirty-five average age. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thirty-five years of age? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think that is what it is. It is pretty close to that. 

What has changed, though, the characteristics that have changed 

are—let me back up to types of offenses. We continue to see the 

majority of the offenders coming in for drug related offenses. About 

52 percent to 53 percent of the offenses are drug related. And then 

followed by weapons at about 14 percent. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That drug related figure is a pretty——

Mr. LAPPIN. I am sorry? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That drug related is a pretty——

Mr. LAPPIN. 53.9 percent drug related. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And that is, let us say ten years ago that 

might have been considerably lower, or? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, that was probably in the middle of the whole 

War on Drugs. That is when we were ramping up, getting a lot of 

folks. But you know, if you go back fifteen years, it is much larger. 

We have seen a significant increase in weapons. Offenders coming 

into us with weapons violations, that is up to 14 percent followed 

by immigration. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What percentage, for instance, would be involved in——

Mr. LAPPIN. For weapons? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, in let us say Bloods, Crips, and MS–

13? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am going to jump to that in just a second. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I just want to mention one other, one huge increase 

in the number of sex offenders. In fact, we today have about 14,000 

sex offenders in prison. So that has really been an emphasis of the 

Department of Justice, besides drugs, firearms, sex offenses. And 

then of course, immigration has been for some years with INS 

originally, now BICE, so on and so forth, border patrol. 

The inmates themselves we are seeing, we continue to see a 

younger, more aggressive, more violent, more gang oriented offender coming to the Bureau of Prisons. Which couples with our 

need, I think, to look closely at this ratio of staff to inmates. More 

inmates, fewer staff, more aggressive inmates, you know, that does 

not, more——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
296 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That could translate into a potential disaster. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, I mean I think there are some challenges there. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Without a doubt, we recognize that. So we are seeing 

those types of offenders. Without a doubt, gangs are quite a challenge. Between disruptive group members and security threat 

group members, which we categorize the gangs into, it is quite a 

challenge at most all locations, if not all. This is complicated somewhat by the emergence of the Hispanic gangs, especially from the 

Mexican nationals where they play by different rules and can be 

very disruptive. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So in the prison system, and I have read 

about it, there is a unity of purpose when you are in there with 

somebody who is part of your gang. 

Mr. LAPPIN. There is. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So what we try to do is thin them out, control them 

by size, by structure, by control. But what we have seen emerge 

over the last few years, unlike I think fifteen, twenty years ago, is 

the emergence within institutions of these little cliques. You know, 

a group of folks from Baltimore or a group of people from Little 

Rock, who if they are not associated with other gangs might just 

join together. And those fall more into the security threat groups 

on occasion, just run of the mill, makeshift associations that can 

tend to be a challenge. 

Without a doubt gangs are one of our bigger challenges. We are 

currently reevaluating the management of gangs in our institutions. We believe that we have got to do a better job of balancing 

those gangs among the 114 institutions. In doing so it is going to 

disrupt a long and steadfast philosophy of trying to put all the offenders as close to home as possible. To do that, to balance them, 

it is going to result in some offenders being further from home than 

they were before. And so we had to compromise there a little bit. 

First and foremost, we have got to run safe prisons. 

BUDGET SITUATION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your budget situation, obviously, has been 

somewhat complicated. While you have a pending reprograming 

seeking $240 million we shorted you about $100 million somewhere 

along the line. So it is a good reason we have a reprogramming. 

I live in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. I must say 

I hear quite a lot of ads on the local radio station, 1010, for the 

New York Department of Corrections. So, obviously, you are in the 

job field out there. There are, should we say, competitors. As tough 

as the work is, maybe that is a sign that other institutions are 

competing for good people to take impossible jobs. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is. I think in the long term for the Bureau of Prisons, you know, when I look, when people ask me, ‘‘Director, what 

is one of your greatest concerns for the Bureau in five, ten, fifteen 

years?’’ I think it is our continued ability to hire, recruit, and retain qualified folks. Because there is going to be more competition 

for those folks. But we still do very well in most locations. It is very 

much a challenge in the higher cost areas, New York, Brooklyn, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
297 

San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago. We have more turnover there 

than elsewhere. Fortunately, the system as a whole is kind of misleading; because as a whole we have relatively low turnover. But 

if you separate out those high cost of living areas, you will find 

that those areas, greater turnover, more of a challenge to continue 

to keep the rolls filled. California is a huge challenge. Competing 

with much higher wages in the State Department of Corrections in 

California and the issues they are facing there, we are struggling 

there filling just the base positions at certain locations. That is one 

reason why we increased their pay a little bit, just to try to recruit 

and retain more staff. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for that overview. It has been 

valuable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Aderholt. 

PRISON CHAPEL LIBRARY

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you for being here today. I know that in 

your job you get a lot of questions and a lot of complaints and 

many things, as I know in my job I do from time to time. But I 

want to just take a minute and express my appreciation to you for 

your leadership on the Prison Chapel Library Project. That was, I 

understand an issue, and I know that you stepped in and resolved 

that issue very quickly and very effectively. I know several people 

that were greatly concerned about that, and I believe that you handled that in an excellent manner. So let me just say the word is 

getting around that you had done an excellent job in that. In that 

instance I know of, and I am sure in many other instances, but I 

did want to point out that it has been an issue that was a very big 

concern to a lot of people. So thank you for your work on that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, sir. We apologize that it happened in the 

first place. There were competing priorities. But I wanted to ensure 

the public and the Department, that we had appropriate materials 

in those libraries. And over the course of seventy-seven years some 

of those libraries have grown to great size. And through the course 

of those years maybe not quite as much oversight as we would like. 

I am pleased that the folks that had concerns approached the Department of Justice, approached the Bureau of Prisons, raised 

those issues. We sat down with them and resolved the issue. I 

think to everyone’s satisfaction. I appreciate you recognizing that. 

INQUIRY FROM A CONSTITUENT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, thank you again. It did not go unnoticed, 

so thank you for that. As you can imagine, as a member of Congress, I get contacted from time to time from constituents that have 

all types of concerns. Sometimes it is concerns that I can help them 

with and sometimes there are concerns that are completely out of 

my hands. But sometimes they feel like their Congressman is the 

person that they elected to reach out to federal agencies, in particular, and to be an advocate for them. And I do think that is a 

large part of the job that we have here in Congress, that we are 

an advocate for a lot of people that sometimes do not know where 

to go for answers and questions. 

I received an email, well actually a phone call and then I asked 

her to follow up with an email. It is regarding a situation with a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
298 

prisoner that, and I will just read it briefly to you and I just want 

to ask your response, and maybe how would be the best way we 

could respond to her and what the policy is in this case. It says, 

‘‘Per our conversation yesterday, my husband is due to be released 

to Alabama on June 20, 2008. His caseworker has informed me 

that his time will be rounded up nine days and he will not be in 

Alabama until June 29, 2008. This is a new rule that the caseworker in Manchester, Kentucky has started since she became the 

new caseworker. We are asking that you help us get my husband 

back to Alabama on June 20th, not the 29th. He will have served 

his perfect time on the 20th.’’ She just called me very demoralized. 

He had been there a year at the time of our conversation. Of 

course, nine days does not sound like a whole lot to me or you but, 

I know this particular family has a ten year old daughter, and it 

has been sort of an easy case in the beginning but that is beside 

the point. But in a situation like that, do the individual prisons 

have the discretion to release him at a different date? Or what 

could you tell me about that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. First of all, we appreciate your involvement. And we 

welcome you to call us, send us emails, and let us assist you with 

responding to your constituents. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, Tom Kane knows that I call from time to 

time. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Is that right? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes, so—— Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we ought to bring Tom up here. Seriously, the 

caseworker locally does not have the authority to make that adjustment. That work is done by our sentence computation staff who 

have the background, the experience, the expertise, to adjust a sentence computation and to determine the day the individual should 

get out. If you give me the email with the person’s name, we will 

go right to the sentence computation center, ask them what if any 

changes were made and why, as related to applicable law. It could 

be that somebody miscalculated, made an error on some some good 

time or some jail time. But if you give it to us we will get back to 

you——

Mr. ADERHOLT. That would be great. And like I said, you know, 

sometimes they may have been given wrong information as well. 

But again, like I say, nine days does not seem like a whole lot to 

me or you but for someone who has been away from their family 

and they have served the appropriate time, that can be very demoralizing. And they just have some questions about the system, and 

they feel the unfairness. And we understand when a sentence is 

handed down and they have to serve the appropriate time. But beyond that we, I thought it was only fair to check into that. So after 

today I will get you the contact information on this. And if you 

could please help me try to find out some information, my constituent would be very happy. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will give you my card, or you could send it to Tom 

Kane. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, either one of you. So—— Mr. LAPPIN. Because you are right. Nine days is nine days. We 

want them out on the day the law says they should be released 

from prison. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
299 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our goal is to have 100 percent of them released on 

that day. We would be more than happy to look into it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, I appreciate that. That is all I have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Rogers. 

RATED CAPACITY/OVERCROWDING

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, welcome 

to you and to all your staff. I have been told that you are 37 percent overcrowded. Is that an accurate figure? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are 37 percent over rated capacity. 

Mr. ROGERS. Over what? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Over rated capacity. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you mind if I call that overcrowded? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Okay. 

Mr. ROGERS. What would be your target? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 15 to 17 percent. That is our target. 

Mr. ROGERS. Over your rated capacity? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And so, let me kind of put it in perspective. What 

does that mean? What does 17 percent mean over rated capacity? 

That means that every cell in the entire Bureau of Prisons has two 

inmates in it, and we believe in that goal. It may be a long term 

goal, there is no way we are going to get there overnight, but our 

goal would be that we get to the point where cells that were built 

of a certain size, which is a standard size—you have got a couple 

new prisons in Kentucky, they are a standard size—for a cell of 

that size it is appropriate for two inmates to be housed in those 

cells long term. At 17 percent, every cell in the Bureau of Prisons 

would have two inmates in those cells. 

Now realize there are some inmates that cannot be housed with 

anyone. So for those that require single cells, it is going to push 

into other cells three inmates. We are okay with that. There are 

certain inmates that we could temporarily house in that manner. 

Our target is 17 percent. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if you are 37 percent over now and you want 

to be at 17 percent, that is a 20 percent difference. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is not insignificant. That is a huge, huge undertaking, correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, it is. And we have faced this over a number 

of years. And believe me, the Congress, the Administration; let us 

go back a bit. In 1980, 26,000 were inmates in the federal prison 

system. Today, 201,000 inmates. The Administration and the Congress have provided for us very well through the majority of those 

years. Provided funding, provided positions, as the prison system 

grew. And so we have been very fortunate. But then again the population continues to grow. And without a doubt, we have to continue to decide, how are we going to absorb those additional inmates? Do we continue to build prisons? Are there other ways to 

offset some of that growth? And so, you are right, it would be a 

long term plan. But again, that is our target. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
300 

STAFFING

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that spans the time I have been in Congress. 

And I have been on this Subcommittee I think twenty-three or four 

years of that time, and I have watched the population grow. And 

have watched directors over the years wrestle with that problem as 

inmate population kept growing and growing. And it is not getting 

any better. You say your inmate to staff ratio is 4.92, that is the 

highest ever, is it not? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, you know, at least in my tenure we know what 

it is back to 1997. We were at 3.57 in 1997, we are 4.92. So my 

guess is this is probably the highest ratio we have had in modern 

history. 

Mr. ROGERS. And how many employees short of the minimum 

number required for safe operations are you? 

Mr. LAPPIN. How many, what is the minimum number for safe 

operation? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, how short are you of people? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, it kind of relates to the question that the 

Chairman asked a few minutes ago. Yes, what is the right ratio? 

And again, we are working on what the right ratio is. Our target 

this year is to have about, 35,400 employees employed, or the compensation and overtime to the equivalent of about 35,400 employees. So if we do not have full-time positions, we are probably going 

to extend the equivalent of what is not filled in overtime to accomplish the work. Because we are really at the point where if someone does not come to work, we must fill that post with someone. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want you to make it simple for me. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Okay. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have the minimum number of employees for 

safe operations? Do you have enough employees for safe operations? 

Mr. LAPPIN. This year the number we have identified is 35,400. 

Mr. ROGERS. For safe operations? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is the number we want, yes. I mean, we do not 

have that number right now. Let me explain. We do not have that 

number right now. We are about 1,200 shy of that. However, we 

compensate for that through overtime, so technically, we have got 

that many employees. Therefore, we believe we continue to run 

safe and secure operations. We do not want to see that ratio increase any more. And that is why we have drawn, or targeted, that 

number of employees. If you know the equivalent in overtime——

Mr. ROGERS. If you do not have overtime, if you disregard overtime, and you are paying people straight pay, how many people 

short of safe operations would you be? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, we do have the overtime so we continue to 

run. 

Mr. ROGERS. If you did not have it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think we are staffed at about 34,100. Is that about 

right? 

Mr. ROGERS. I will ask you a real simple question. I want a simple answer. With no overtime, if you did not pay overtime, and you 

are paying people straight pay——

Mr. LAPPIN. 1,200. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
301 

Mr. ROGERS. Short? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. For safe operations? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I would not say for safe. We make adjustments 

internally. Certainly I can take more risks, for example, at minimums and lows. So what we will do is we will run shorter at minimums and lows where the inmates are less risky and we will staff 

up at medium and highs to make sure that those institutions run 

and have the adequate number of people they need. So we have 

that flexibility. But if you ask what is the number, the minimum 

number we want this year? I am 1,200 short of that number. 

STUN/LETHAL FENCES

Mr. ROGERS. Well staffing or budget shortfalls have led several 

prisons, including McCreary County, Kentucky, the newest one in 

my area, to install what they call stun fences in lieu of managed 

central surveillance towers. Some people believe that tower surveillance is preferable with eyes on—— Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

Mr. ROGERS. And I assume you agree with that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I believe the stun lethal is the direction we should 

go. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is what? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Is the direction we should go. Let me just say, let 

me give you an example of why I think that. One, stun lethal or 

lethal fences have been in operation in corrections for twenty, 

twenty-five years. There was resistance in the Bureau to moving in 

that direction. But when we looked at our cost savings initiatives, 

we went and assessed those locations, looked at the operations that 

occurred there for fifteen, twenty years, and realized they could 

provide the same level of security at those locations without manning the towers. Many of the staff in towers that are operated cannot see inmates because many of the rec yards are internal now. 

So the staff in towers cannot see into the rec yards because the 

buildings are in their way. Unlike the old prisons where the rec 

yard was more open to the public, or more open to the fence. 

So, you know, we could have a long debate, and I am sure there 

will be many discussions. We believe that if the funding is available it would be wise of us to. Again, technology changes all the 

time. And this is a technology advancement that we think has 

merit, that we think we will continue to run safe and secure prisons and not jeopardize the community. And so we are firmly behind 

the stun lethal fences, whether we have the funding or not because 

we think it is a more efficient way to operate the prisons. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I will 

defer to a later time. 

ACTIVATION OF FCI POLLOCK

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There will be other rounds. For those who may 

not have voted, there are forty-five seconds on this vote. Mr. 

Lappin, if, again, we have a $240 million reprogramming request. 

If additional funding is provided at the Department’s request level, 

will the new medium security prison FCI Pollock in Louisiana be 

activated in the year 2008? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
302 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are currently activating Pollock. It will not have 

inmates in 2008. But we are currently planning on ramping up, 

slowly, the staffing for Pollock. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So the answer is, even if you do not get this reprogramming, even if you do not get this infusion of $240 

million, Pollock will be activated? 

Mr. LAPPIN. If we do not get the $240 million we will do the most 

we can at Pollock to begin the activation. I will not deny that activation will be slowed significantly if we do not get the $240 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, I am going to step back then. What is activation in your definition so that we can operate off the same understanding? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Once we begin an activation it takes us about six to 

eight months, depending on some variables, to get to the point 

where we begin accepting inmates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, and what is the moment of activation? 

When you start accepting inmates? Or when you start getting administrative people in the prison——

Mr. LAPPIN. Well we begin to, I guess that is a good point. When 

we begin hiring people in my mind is when the activation begins. 

Opening the prison with inmates is when you begin taking inmates. So that period between activation and bringing on inmates 

is about six months in most cases. If we get into a community 

where we are struggling hiring locally, then sometimes it is extended somewhat. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well I am trying to tie this to your request, or the Department’s request, for reprogramming of $240 million which you have received. And I am trying to understand, if additional funding is provided at the requested level, will Pollock be 

activated in fiscal year 2008 or will it be activated anyway, and 

what do you mean by that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. If we get the additional funding, obviously that activation will go much faster. By the end of fiscal year 2008 my guess 

is we could be very close to fully staffed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And if you do not get it what—— Mr. LAPPIN. Then we can begin to bring inmates in soon thereafter. If we do not get it, it is going to slow down the staffing. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you will still staff it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will still staff it as high as we can given the other limitations. Again, obviously if we do not get the $240 million 

we are going to be struggling to continue other operations. It will 

slow, I am not going to ramp up as fast a prison we are not 

using—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, let me ask you this. If you are on the 

brink, and I know you are so that is not the debate here, if you 

are on the brink of operating a safe prison system or not operating 

a safe prison system, or on the margins of that, if you activate a 

new prison which will result in, I do not know, another thousand, 

1,200, 1,500 employees? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 1,500? I am sorry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am talking about—— Mr. LAPPIN. 1,500 inmates, about 300 employees. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. 300 employees? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 300 employees. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
303 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, so if right now you are on the edge with 

regard to funding S&E, how can you activate a prison without this 

infusion and bring on 300 employees more? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are correct. I mean, it is a very good point and 

that is why I say we would slow that activation. We would not hire 

as many. If we do not get the funding without a doubt it is going 

to be later in the year, or next fiscal year, before we actually begin 

to bring on inmates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I feel like I am trying to help you here, but—— Mr. LAPPIN. I know you are—— Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. I feel like I am having a hard time 

doing it. It is probably my—— Mr. LAPPIN. No, you are absolutely correct. We are in a financial 

dilemma. We are cautiously moving forward. We are being very 

careful in what we spend. We are not aggressively pushing Pollock 

given the fact we are in this dilemma. If our sense is we are going 

to get the funding then we will certainly speed that up. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

FUNDING/REPROGRAMMING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I do not think I have to do anymore on 

that. I think I understand. I have some information from the employees, the employee representatives, that if you were not to receive this additional money, $240 million, $280 million, $300 million, that you would have to actually cut correctional staff in 2008. 

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I have two choices there. If we did not get the 

additional funding, obviously, if we do not get additional funding 

there is no way we could save that amount of money in operations. 

So given that, for us to live within the mark that we currently 

have, we would have to eliminate staff. That is one choice. The 

other choice is to go deficient. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I’m sorry? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The other choice is to go deficient. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, go deficient. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Deficient. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are up against it here. The fiscal year 

2009 request of $5.436 billion for salaries and expenses represents 

an increase of 7.6 percent over the current year. Given the current 

year’s shortfall, is this request adequate to meet basic BOP requirements in fiscal year 2009? 

Mr. LAPPIN. As I expressed earlier, the increase from 2007 to 

2008 was about $55 million. So clearly, this is a much larger increase from 2008 to 2009, which is going to serve us extremely 

well. And hopefully we can get that or close to that mark. However, 

it will continue to be a challenge for us. I think it will serve us 

well. I think we will be in a better situation, certainly, in a much 

better situation than we are this year. It will still, I think, require 

us to act very cautiously, look for efficiencies, prioritize our responsibilities and focus on the highest priorities. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
304 

But yes, I think if we can get that mark we are going to be in 

a much better situation than we are this year. It may still require 

some strategies to gain efficiencies, but I think we could get 

through that——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does the 2009 request take into account the possibility of this reprogramming request being granted? In other 

words, would the reprogramming request, say you were to get $240 

million, be annualized in the 2009 request? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not believe that will happen. What I think 

is——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no, ‘‘will happen.’’ The question is——

Mr. LAPPIN. It is not built in. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, so the answer is no. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So if you were to, if the Justice Department’s reprogramming request at $240 million were approved then would 

we anticipate receiving an amended budget request for 2009 to annualize the approval of that request? Of the 2008 supplemental request? 

Mr. LAPPIN. On behalf of the base for 2009. Although there was 

a $100 million 2008 reduction through the Congress. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to forget that big long question I just 

asked. Are you answering it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am going to answer it. I just want to make sure 

that the base in 2009 is $100 million more than what we actually 

got in 2008. Because when the 2009 budget was built they added 

back in the $100 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, what about, all right, you are telling me 

$100 million——

Mr. LAPPIN. That is right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Would be accounted for in the base, 

and it would be annualized for 2009 in your 2009 request? 

Mr. LAPPIN. One hundred million more. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, so there would be $140 million that would 

not be taken into account and would not be annualized in your 

2009 request? Correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So for that amount would we expect an amended 

budget request for 2009? If we were to approve the $240 million 

would there be a request for—well, let me ask it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We do not anticipate that, no. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You do not anticipate what? 

Mr. LAPPIN. An amended request for another $140 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well then, how are you going to pay for, in 2009, 

the increased funding, which is basically for S&E——

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Which will occur in 2009, how are 

you going to pay for it in 2009? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, one we could work within the Department to 

identify other funding, possibly. But the other thing is, we may not 

see as many inmates. We anticipate some reduction in the number 

of inmates because of the crack amendment impact, the guideline 

amendment. Let us take an example currently. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
305 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you are so far down on employees right now 

if you let every adjusted sentence adjust and release early, you 

would still be short of employees, would you not? 

Mr. LAPPIN. But again, there are other things—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the answer to that question? And then 

you can elaborate. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Would we still be short of—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, sir. Of employees? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not necessarily. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh boy, I am really confused. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, it is actually $140 million. In the way you calculated it—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did I ask the right question here? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You did ask the right question. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We believe that with the higher number, the President’s number—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. And the fact that the base started a little higher than what was actually enacted, okay? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. All right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You would assume we would be about $140 million 

short. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. What we can not gain through, continue to gain 

through efficiency in operational areas for some of that $140 million. If not, we will work with the Department to identify what 

funding we might need beyond that. If it requires a reprogramming 

request, we would certainly submit one. But certainly starting off 

from this point we do not anticipate that, in hopes that we can gain 

those efficiencies through some of the strategies that we have. We 

will work with the Department. And if there is a need, we would 

ask for more funding. Obviously, we are not shy about that. We forwarded a $240 million reprogramming to you this time. We would 

make the same assessment once we got into 2009. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You may not be shy but I would say the, the Department is reluctant. Thank you. Boy, I tell you, Mr. Frelinghuysen, saved by the bell. 

RECIDIVISM

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Lappin, I just wanted to pick up one 

more figure. The number of people who come through your operation that have been in prison before or have come up through the 

juvenile system and had some degree of incarceration? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The number of people? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. In other words, of the population——

Mr. LAPPIN. Not prior records? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. With prior records, yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not know that number off the top of my head. 

I may be able to find that number for you through our research department. I can tell you our recidivism rates——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Are about 40 percent in the federal prison system. So we are releasing 62,000, 63,000 inmates a year, of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
306 

50,000 of those returning to the United States we are seeing a return of about 40 percent. Which really, in my opinion, is significant. I mean, we would love to see it lower. We have seen that 

number come down over the last few years. If you look at the 

states, they have about 65 percent recidivism rates. We attribute 

the difference to the many, many BOP programs that are offered. 

The inmates are improving their skills in educational and vocational work, and more important are going home better prepared 

to face reality. But I will work with our research folks—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. To see if we can give you a number, the 

number of inmates coming into our system with prior records. 

[The information follows:] 

INMATES WITH PRIOR RECORDS

Of the 77,804 inmates designated during calender year 2007, 54,807 (70%) had 

a prior record, as indicated by U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Criminal History 

Score. 

CRACK SENTENCING AMENDMENT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You started down this path, the impact of 

the crack amendment? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just briefly, because I want to get into 

where you stand relative to the counterterrorism unit and things 

like that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. As of, this week, Tuesday, we had processed 1,522 

orders to reduce sentences. Of those, 793 were immediate releases. 

729 shortened the sentence, but not to an immediate release so 

those inmates have some time remaining. I do not know exactly 

how much. Now that we have started the process our sense is that 

this fiscal year, between now and the end of September, we will 

probably release about 1,500 to 2,000 more inmates than we would 

have without the adjustment. We believe next year will probably 

be around 2,500 to 3,000. So there are 19,500 offenders who are potential candidates for reduction. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well you said that in terms of drug related 

you gave us a figure of 14,000 earlier. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, that was sex offenders. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Oh, excuse me, sex offenders. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And 52 percent of our offenders are drug offenders. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But many of those offenders have convictions on 

things other than crack—powder cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana. So of the 52 percent of the offenders, there are about 19,500 

who may fall into the category of being eligible for a sentence reduction. We anticipate, at least the sentencing commission’s projections reflect, that about 12,000 of those could be released over the 

next five years, earlier than they would have been. The other 6,000 

or 7,000 are going to be spread out over the course of about fifteen 

or twenty years. So it is going to slow down significantly over the 

first five years. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And they will be monitored after their departure? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
307 

Mr. LAPPIN. My assumption is the majority of them have supervised release. And my guess is we have some statistics of those 

that do not. But the vast majority of the offenders come into our 

custody and then have supervised release. So they do not lose that 

when they release early, it just picks up a little earlier. They continue to be supervised. 

COUNTERTERRORISM

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. Could we focus for a few minutes? 

We provided you with $17 million last year to establish the 

counterterrorism unit. Where do we stand? How is the effort going? 

I know you have a pending supplemental of, what, $9 million? Is 

that right? Update us on it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am very pleased with the progress we have made, 

not just on the counterterrorism unit but on our management of 

terrorist offenders. Last year when we spoke there were some concerns over the monitoring of mail, phones, and so forth. The ramp 

up of the counterterrorism unit is going quite well. We are doing 

a better job of monitoring mail and phones given that mandate. 

The other thing we have done is we have——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You may have to direct that to the Chairman. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will do that. We have ramped up communications 

management units. Now that we know we are going to have these 

folks long term, a lot of the more serious offenders, terrorists, were 

housed at ADX Florence. We found that some of those, although 

they needed closer monitoring, did not need the security requirements at Florence. So we are ramping up two communications 

management units that are less restrictive but will ensure that all 

the mail and phone calls of those offenders are monitored on a 

daily basis. 

CRACK SENTENCING AMENDMENT

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The new sentencing, or some decisions impacting 

the sentencing guidelines, would impact the length of the sentences 

for crack cocaine convictions and incarcerations? If that happens, 

you are going to be releasing drug addicted offenders more quickly, 

correct? Addicted offenders. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does that suggest that somebody is going to 

have to take care of that problem on some percentage basis? I 

mean, they are not all going to walk out and stay clean. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So what should we be anticipating? What should 

you be anticipating programmatically, or planning for programmatically? And what should we be anticipating in the treatment 

area? Should we be increasing the treatment intensity? The after 

care? The halfway house? How should we be doing this, particularly since folks are being released early? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well these folks that are being released immediately, unfortunately some of them will return to the community 

without treatment. That is unfortunate. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that is really unfortunate. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
308 

Mr. LAPPIN. Very unfortunate. And given that, I would certainly 

be working with, we need to be working with probation, the folks 

that are supervising those folks. Some of them will release, unfortunately, without halfway house opportunity. Now this is a very 

small percentage of the entire group. It will only affect those that 

are releasing right now, and that we anticipate releasing with in 

eighteen months. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you releasing people right now that you 

were anticipating releasing in eighteen months? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That we were anticipating? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So this policy is in effect immediately? 

Mr. LAPPIN. In November the Sentencing Commission made a decision, actually December, to adjust by two levels the crack guidelines, crack sentencing guidelines, and postponed its implementation until March 3. It asked judges to please wait until March 3, 

give the prisons and other probation, marshals, other folks, time to 

prepare for what could be a wave of early releases. And so there 

was kind of a waiting period. But some of these folks may be in 

drug treatment now, because they were nearing the end of their 

sentence. A few of them may not have gotten into drug treatment 

yet. And their sentence was shortened to the point that they are 

releasing with either only a portion of that treatment completed, or 

possibly none. But again, it will only affect those that are releasing 

right now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not only, though. I am all for a reconsideration 

of our sentencing guidelines. But is it mandatory that you release 

from the prison prisoners who fall into this category even if they 

have not received drug treatment? Or have—— Mr. LAPPIN. We have no choice. The judge reduces their sentence, we must release them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can they be released contingent upon their staying clean after they are released and going through a program that 

requires testing? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I assume the court could put conditions on that release. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And when you say ‘‘the court?’’ Mr. LAPPIN. The court. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are talking about federal courts? The individual courts? It would be up to the discretion of the individual 

judge? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. Now, again, hopefully after this first wave, 

as I mentioned of the 1,500 we have received orders on 729 of them 

did not release. So what we will do with those, 729, we will immediately look at their new release date. And if they are recommended for drug treatment and they are volunteering for drug 

treatment, we are going to put them at the top of the list, and we 

will immediately put them in drug treatment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Doing these things individually like that, is not 

the way to do it. We ought to be looking at what are the consequences of this action, however well intentioned. And I am totally 

in favor of more sympathetic treatment to people who are in jail 

because of drug use offenses. But it needs to be looked at in the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
309 

context of the different situations we are putting people in and the 

likelihood of their being successful or failing in those situations. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, without a doubt, it was a negative consequence 

of the decision. Because some of these folks will leave—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, they will be right back in. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Without completion of treatment. And 

just let me say, I mean, we are struggling a little bit in the drug 

treatment area. We unfortunately——

DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I want to get that. What about the needs, 

additional resource needs, to intensity the treatment for those who 

are still going to be in long enough to experience treatment? Do we 

need to think about the supplemental, increasing your funding in 

that area? 2008–2009? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me get the number for you here. This was the 

first year since the requirement was imposed, that we treat 100 

percent of the inmates who require drug treatment, and volunteer 

for drug treatment, that we were unable to treat all of the offenders. We treated probably 18,000 offenders this past year. We needed to treat 22,000. So we—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is because of lack of resources? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We did not have enough drug treatment specialists 

to increase the number of classes to accommodate that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, is that a problem you face, you are describing a 2008 problem? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We still have that problem. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Were you describing 2007? Just when you said 

that was the first year? Okay. What about 2008? What is your circumstance in 2008? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We still have a 7,000 inmate backlog for drug treatment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Does the Department of Justice request for the $240 million reprogramming include funds for adequate 

drug treatment of all the inmates that require it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I have to go back and check exactly what was included in that $240 million? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are not sure you can answer that question? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will answer that. What we have done is, getting 

back to what we need——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you get back to the Committee for the 

record? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will do that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Soon? Before we do our supplemental? And before we address your reprogramming request? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I really want to know the answer to this. Your 

testimony indicates that 40 percent of inmates entering the BOP 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
310 

system have a drug use disorder and require residential drug abuse 

treatment. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is pretty close. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In fiscal year 2008, BOP was only able to provide treatment to 80 percent of eligible inmates instead of the 100 

percent requirement established by the Violent Crime Control and 

Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Do you agree with that? Treated 80 

percent instead of 100 percent that were mandated under the authorization? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is probably pretty close. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How much additional funding is needed to be in 

compliance with this law? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We need about another eighty positions. And about $10 million in funding to work off the backlog and treat 100 percent. The eighty positions are included in the $10 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Now have you followed these individuals in a 

way that would allow you to tell us what percentage of the participants succeed in remaining drug free after treatment and after release? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what is——

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, as I indicated our recidivism rate is about 40 

percent. We have recidivism research on all of our programs. Our 

drug treatment, vocational training——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that was not exactly my question. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And we see a reduction of about 16 percent, from our 

40 percent——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. My question was how many remaining drug 

free? Do you have a kind of follow up program——

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. That would allow you to say how 

many remain drug free? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I do not know the exact number. I can tell you 

what percent, which the percent coming back is probably about 30 

percent of those folks coming back versus 40 percent without treatment. 

INMATE MEDICAL CARE

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of your biggest cost drivers in your S 

& E account is inmate medical care. We sort of touched on it. I 

think the last couple of years you have needed reprogramming to 

cover those costs. And you have a large increase for fiscal year 

2009. Now what is the total amount budgeted in the package before 

us today for medical care? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Medical care? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We spent about $730 million last year. I think we 

got close to $800 million in requirements this fiscal year. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Why the increase? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The rising cost of healthcare——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. And aging. You know, although the average age remains about the same, we have a lot more older inmates. It is also because we tend to get a lot more younger inVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
311 

mates. So the average age stays about the same, but we have more 

older inmates, more care issues, more needs, and healthcare costs 

continue to increase. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I cannot imagine a more difficult environment to provide inmate medical care. How much of it is provided 

in the institution and how much of it is related to being placed in 

other settings? I obviously assume these people are armed or not 

necessarily. They may be dangerous, but they obviously have to be 

guarded to protect other patients. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our goal is to perform as much of that care as we 

can in our institutions. But without a doubt, we cannot provide the 

full range of services. We have a break down of inside and outside 

healthcare. We will get that to you for the record. I do not have 

the exact number. But our goal is to provide as many of those services in our institutions. We have done a number of things to be 

more efficient. For example——

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And those who provide it are MDs? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our healthcare structure, includes medical doctors, 

PAs and nurses, with their support staff. But it is really a combination service. We provide the base level staffing to perform the 

basic functions necessary in medical. We oftentimes have contracted at each location with hospitals surrounding the facility to 

assist us with needs that we cannot provide there. What we have 

done is we realized, we finally realized, that we could not provide 

the same level of healthcare at all 114 prisons, given the fact that 

some were in very rural locations. Some were in locations where we 

really could not get very good deals at the local hospitals. So we 

basically went to structured care level facilities. So we have institutions now that have very healthy inmates. We have institutions 

that have less healthy, we have institutions with more ill inmates, 

and we have those that need hospitalization. So there was a couple 

things there. One, we could not get good contracts at local hospitals. Two, we could not hire the people we needed. We were in 

rural area. It was difficult to get the professional staff. And so we 

tried to put more healthy inmates there so you have less of a need. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So the bottom line is you are doing your utmost to control the cost? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I would be happy to provide for the record the strategies we deployed over the last three or four years to control costs. 

But even with that, our costs continue to increase. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
312 

CROWDING ISSUES

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Getting back to the issue of overcrowding, 

I understand you recently completed a study tying increases in 

crowding and inmate to staff ratios to increase in serious assaults. 

Can you tell us a little bit about, share the results of that study? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We did do an evaluation of the impact on crowding 

and staffing on violent incidents. And let me give you an example. 

Let me explain a serious assault. A serious assault, is oftentimes 

when somebody has to go to the hospital. They need medical care. 

They could die, or they are very seriously injured. So you have got 

varying levels of assaults in the institutions. You have serious assaults, and you have less serious assaults. So the study was relevant to serious assaults. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There are assaults, prisoner to prisoner and 

there are assaults prisoner to the prison staff. Make the distinction, if you could, in your response. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Currently, we do it by rate per 5,000. Without a 

doubt, if you look at the actual numbers from year to year to year, 

the numbers are increasing but primarily driven by the fact that 

you have more inmates. So you would expect the number to go up. 

But if you look at it by rate, right now our rate of serious assaults 

on staff is 1.8 per 5,000 inmates. And on inmates, inmate on inmate serious assaults, is 10 assaults per 5,000 inmates. What that 

study reveals, is if you increase crowding by 1 percent, you should 

expect, I think, 4 or 4.09 more assaults per 5,000 than if it remained at the original level. If you increase the ratio of inmates 

to staff by one inmate, you are going to see an increase of assaults 

by about 4.5 per 5,000. If you lowered the ratio we would assume 

that there would be some lowering of that. So we know that crowding and level of staffing has an impact on the number of serious 

assaults. Obviously that’s why we are monitoring very closely that 

ratio, of inmates to staff as well as crowding. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So are there certain institutions that have 

historically had the most serious assaults between inmates and 

prison staff? Are there some that are up there historically? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We monitor that very closely. You are right. It kind 

of goes in waves. It fluctuates. But there are a couple of locations 

where we have had more serious incidents than others. Let me give 

you an example. I just recently responded to the Chairman, specifically on homicides and assaults at certain penitentiaries. In that 

response, excuse me——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am glad you have quite a lot of water provided. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But you know what? If I run out of water——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. All that water, it looks like it is from the 

spring but it is actually from the Anacostia. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But if we run out of water and I am done, just give 

me a second, I will be done here in a second. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. One particular institution was USP Beaumont. And 

without a doubt we have got concerns at that particular institution. 

And it has gone on several years. The staff there have done a wonderful job in very challenging circumstances. I give them enormous 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
313 

credit. On the other hand, I am concerned about their reaction to 

some of the training that is provided, some of the direction. And 

this goes to all of the staff. I am not talking about just management, I am talking about all of the staff. So given that, we are 

going to make an adjustment there, temporarily. We are going to 

bring down the security level. We are going to give them a break, 

and we are going to bring down the level of high security inmates 

there. We are going to reduce the number of inmates then we are 

going to do some training. We are going to ensure that the folks 

are properly trained, ready to go, and then we will begin to transition back. 

So certainly when we see those incidents, let me give you the 

whole story. His other question was these newer institutions, you 

are seeing some serious assaults there. And we are. And that, I 

guess, certainly is the challenge of opening a high security institution with your most risky inmates and lots of less experienced people. So we have gone into those locations and done additional training. We are very pleased with the reaction of those staff. We are 

confident that level of incidents will come down and be more consistent with other penitentiaries. But without a doubt, when we see 

this increase occurring over time, we try to intervene and do what 

we can to reduce those levels of incidents and concerns. That is a 

great question. 

PROGRAMS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we have 

talked about inmate substance abuse treatment. And I would like 

for the staff to be able to follow up with you and your staff, Mr. 

Director, about that so that we know exactly what the situation is 

and what appropriation demands would be to make it better. Offender recidivism, as we talked about, is at a 40 percent rate. 

Other than drug treatment, what programs does the Bureau of 

Prisons offer, which you think have an impact in reducing, recidivism and what more should we be doing in those or other areas? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. Without a doubt, Prison Industries is one of 

these programs. Of the inmates who participate in Prison Industries, we see fewer of them coming back than the run of the mill 

inmate. Also inmates who get a GED, and inmates who get vocational training. And to be quite honest with you, even though we 

do not yet have the results of other specialty programs that improve social values, improve decision making, we anticipate that we 

are going to see similar results in those programs as well. So too 

other psychology programs, we have some other specialty programs, and we have faith-based programs. The bottom line is, 

those inmates are volunteering for those programs. That is the first 

step towards improving their skills and abilities. They are acknowledging, ‘‘Hey I have issues. I need to deal with those issues.’’

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I get the feeling we have a very progressive 

management in the Bureau of Prisons. For all of these programs, 

we do not have enough resources to implement the programs that 

we need and certainly to run them at a scale that makes them 

available to all eligible, willing prisoners. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We monitor our waiting lists in all these areas. We 

are managing the GED waiting list very well. We are managing the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
314 

vocational training waiting list well. Obviously we have already 

talked about drug treatment and the backlog we have there. It is 

unfortunate that there are thousands and thousands of inmates 

who release from prison never participating in Prison Industries 

where they learn, work skills, that is a trade. They learn what it 

means to get up on time and be at a certain assignment and be 

held accountable for the work that you do. Work skills that many 

of them lack when they come to prison. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Lappin, I would like you to submit for the 

record references which discuss this matter. Academic references, 

case study references, which talk about all of these, I call them remedial programs, and to the extent they are available what impact 

they have on recidivism. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will do that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And also the quality of life of incarcerated people. And then I would like to follow up, perhaps at a hearing, or 

otherwise, and understand those issues. So I have a lot of questions 

in those areas. Some of them we will submit for the record. But I 

do want to mention, or give you an opportunity to talk about the 

importance of the Prison Industries Program. I understand that is 

particularly effective at providing skills for inmates when they are 

released and works to reduce recidivism. Is that accurate? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is accurate. This was reflected by the research 

we have done on inmates who participate in a Prison Industries 

Program for as little as six months. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many inmates in the federal prison system 

ever participate in a Prison Industries Program? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Today there are 23,000 inmates working in Prison 

Industries. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the percentage of your population? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 18 percent of the eligible inmates who could be in 

Prison Industries. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. 18 percent of the eligible inmates? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 18 percent of the eligible inmates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our goal is 25 percent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why? Does that reach all of them? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It does not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well why is that your goal? Why is your goal not 

to reach 100 percent of those who are eligible? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am confident if we ever reach that goal, we will 

set a new goal. But it has been the goal for many years. Our proposal would be that all eligible inmates——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is a factor, really, of resources, that 

also the push back you get from the private sector with regard to 

Prison Industries, is that correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And some legislation that has been passed that has 

limited our ability to continue to grow and provide additional work 

opportunities in Prison Industries. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
315 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I think that is very shortsighted because 

the cost to society is real and the savings to society would be, I 

think, equally or more real if we did engage inmates in more 

skill—— Mr. LAPPIN. I mean, we recognize the concern. The concern is we 

are taking jobs away from law abiding citizens and businesses. We 

do not want to do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are more than happy to explore work opportunities that have less, if any, impact on businesses in the United 

States. Let me give a quick example, call centers. Most of that 

work has been done in other countries. We have brought some of 

that work back and inmates are now answering 411 calls for information, all public information. It is a wonderful area. They work 

in shift work. In advance of going into that program they receive 

education where we help them eliminate slang from their language—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I do not want to go into too much of that 

but you have certainly affirmed the usefulness of the program and 

I would like to follow up for the record, and to follow up otherwise. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

HEALTHCARE COSTS

Quickly on healthcare costs, because we have not included, and 

Mr. Ruppersberger has not had a chance to question and Mr. Rogers wants an additional chance. But I do want to talk about 

healthcare cost increases. The budget includes large increases for 

healthcare, $40 million just for healthcare inflation and a requested increase for population adjustment. 32 percent is for medical care and supplies, I understand. What is the total amount 

budgeted for prison healthcare in 2009? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think it is $770 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What has been the annual cost growth for medical services? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think at about 9 percent. I think that is, other 

than personnel, it is about a 9 percent increase from year to year, 

over the last couple of years. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I understand that we are not adequately providing healthcare to all inmates in the prison system. Or that is 

my belief. Is that accurate? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not agree. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I believe we are providing adequate healthcare. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about all these drug offenders? Hepatitis, 

are they all being treated adequately for any drug related diseases 

such as hepatitis? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We very closely track infectious diseases. We know 

exactly how many HIV offenders there are, that we are aware of, 

and under risk assessment we test hepatitis, chronic hepatitis B, 

chronic hepatitis C. We know exactly how many offenders——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
316 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, would you submit a detailed answer for 

the record? Mr. Ruppersberger? 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

GANGS AND COUNTERTERRORISM

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Just a couple questions. On the issue of 

gangs and counterterrorism in prison, I just, I am from the Baltimore area, and ATF working with local law enforcement just had 

a bust of a Blood gang member and it has turned out, I believe, 

the key, the head of the operation was running the whole gang operation out of a state prison in Western Maryland. Also the issue 

of terrorism. And those are two subject matters that are different. 

You have gangs on the one area, Crip/Blood and whatever else you 

have, and then the terrorism issue. Are you working with the other 

federal agencies, both intelligence and FBI, ATF, DEA to deal with 

that? What are you doing and how are you dealing with it? It is 

my understanding you are dealing with it a lot better than state 

prisons. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We all have our challenges. But I have to say I 

thank our staff locally. This is the key, you need support from the 

top. And we have great support from FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals, in 

effective communication back and forth on offenders who are coming into our custody or leaving our custody, who have associations 

with disruptive groups or security threat groups, which is the generic term for all the gangs. We operate in conjunction with the 

Marshals, the FBI, the Sacramento Gang Intelligence Unit in Sacramento, California, which is kind of the clearing house. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And the Marshals are the——

Mr. LAPPIN. The Marshals, the FBI, they are part of that organization. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Kind of like a strike force? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is, and in fact it is housed in the same building 

as the California gang intelligence unit. And they work collaboratively on identifying people who are coming into our system, and 

leaving our system. So we know who is coming as best we can, and 

they know who is leaving as best they can. I think over the last 

three or four years the communication has been enhanced significantly. A greater flow of information, great work locally and nationally on that type of issue. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Do you coordinate with the JTTF in that 

regard too? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have permanent members. We have two permanent seats on the National Joint Terrorism Task Force. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay, good. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And our staff are actually the liaisons for all corrections, federal, state, and local. More applicable to terrorists, but 

certainly getting involved in some of the gang issues. Locally where 

we have prisons, many of our wardens or representative of the warden are on the local JTTFs so that they are involved locally as well. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
317 

Let me just transition a little bit. Let me back up. Without a 

doubt, as I said earlier, the management of the gangs continues to 

be a challenge. More of them, more younger offenders, more violent, more gang associations, so it is troublesome for us. And we 

are currently stepping back, reevaluating how we are managing 

those gangs, and the gathering of information. We record all the 

phone calls, we monitor as many as we can. We read mail, especially on high profile inmates. Our classification system takes into 

account gang participation. So certainly those at the higher levels 

end up in more structured, and more controlled environments. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me stop you right there. If you have 

identified a gang leader. Do you have a policy on cell phones in federal prisons? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What is that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. None. 

CONTRABAND AND STAFF SEARCHES

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. None, okay. So the other issue. It seems 

where we are having problems are corruption with respect to the 

prison guards. And again, this is more state than federal, so I am 

focusing more on my knowledge of the state prison. Do you have 

an issue there? And if you do, what protocols do you use to identify 

that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is as much a challenge for us as it is locally. That 

is, the introduction of contraband, some of which comes in through 

other inmates or families, some comes in through staff who have 

decided to break the law, unfortunately. We have recently implemented, I guess it was until January we did not search our staff 

coming to and from work. We now search all our staff entering 

work. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So that is a protocol? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Obviously we will be doing a better job of stopping 

the introduction of metal, cell phones, those types of issues. It is 

still going to be a challenge. We are working closely with a number 

of organizations to identify equipment to help us detect phones in 

prisons. So it is a big challenge for us. And the smaller the phones 

get and the less metal that is in them it is going to be more of a 

challenge. 

TERRORISTS

Let me transition real quickly to terrorists. We have got about 

211 international terrorists. If you throw in the domestic terrorists 

the number goes up to a little over 1,200. As I mentioned earlier 

to one of the other questions I think——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Where are these terrorists from, by the 

way? What countries? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, primarily the Middle East. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But there are some international terrorists from 

other countries. I could get you, I could get a break down very easily and submit it to the record. I think today we are doing a much 

better job than we were doing a year ago and the year before that. 

We know more, we have increased resources. We are monitoring 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
318 

100 percent of the phones and mail for those inmates, it is required 

for those that we have concerns about. We have in place contracts 

with companies or to assist us with interpreting. We struggle trying to find resources to bring into the system, to hire people. So we 

now have contracts in place to complete the interpretations that 

are required. We have a system to classify those individuals, so 

that we have them at appropriate security levels and locations to 

monitor and oversee their incarceration, and what contacts they 

have both in and outside of prison. 

[The information follows:] 

CITIZENSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS

International Terrorists Incarcerated in BOP institutions are citizens of following 

countries: 

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Belize, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, 

Ecuador, Egypt, France, Gaza Strip*, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, 

Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sri 

Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Trinidad, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, 

Yemen, and Yugoslavia (Serbia). 

*Not a country. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back briefly to the staff 

versus prisoner ratio. Have you noticed any change in the number 

of incidents of violence or disorder as your staff ratio has increased? 

Mr. LAPPIN. If you look at the rate of serious incidents over time, 

you will see peaks and valleys. But the trend has been a slight increase in the rate of serious assaults. So we have not seen a significant increase. There has been more of an increase at higher security institutions, a concern of ours. I think what concerns me more 

is the increase in the severity of those incidents. We are seeing 

more serious assaults. When we have serious assaults they are 

more serious, I think, now than in the past. We have had a rash 

of homicides. We have had, as of today, nine homicides this fiscal 

year. We had twelve last year in 2007. We had four in 2006, and 

we had twelve in 2005. Let me give you the three prior years, for 

2004, 2003, and 2002. We had four, three, and three. So we have 

seen an increase in the severity of the serious assaults. We have 

also seen a severity of those assaults that occur on staff, a huge 

concern of ours. 

So, again, the number is a little deceiving. When you look at the 

rate, you do not see a huge increase. You would assume there 

would be given more inmates, and fewer staff. On the other hand 

we are very concerned about the severity of the assaults that are 

occurring. And we are trying to address those issues by identifying 

those offenders who behave in that manner and getting them into 

higher security institutions for greater control and custody. 

NON-U.S. CITIZEN INMATES

Mr. ROGERS. Deportable aliens. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. How do you handle that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Of the 201,000 inmates, almost 52,000 are non-U.S. 

citizens. 22,000 of those are incarcerated in private contract faciliVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
319 

ties. We determined some years ago that would be an appropriate 

use of private contract facilities. So 22,000, of the low security offenders, low security criminal aliens are the only offenders that are 

there, primarily. There is a small group of D.C. offenders in one facility, about 600 to 700. So the vast majority of the offenders in private corrections are low security, criminal aliens. The rest of them, 

the balance, are housed in our low facilities. What we cannot get 

into our private contract low facilities are in our low facilities. The 

majority of what remains are in mediums and highs because of violence or escape history, or disruptive behavior. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I want to know about deportable. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Those that can be deported. 

Mr. LAPPIN. They are, and obviously they first stay at locations 

around the Bureau. We have a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement where they actually 

have staff on site. And we try to concentrate the individuals who 

are being considered for deportation, who are coming up on the end 

of their sentence, we try to concentrate them at those locations 

around the Bureau. There are institution hearing programs officers 

from the BICE agency who review and determine whether or not 

that person is going to be deported. We also work with them and 

have a facility in Oakdale, Louisiana where many of these offenders are ultimately transferred. If there is a decision to be deported, 

many of them end up in Oakdale, Louisiana where we then, again, 

work with the immigration staff to have them deported to their 

country of residence. There are some folks who we are unable to 

deport because the country of residence will not accept them. And 

some of them remain in our custody. Oftentimes BICE takes them 

back into their custody to house them as detainees. But a small 

portion of them remain in our custody as long term detainees. We 

are working closely with BICE for a reimbursable agreement on 

those few that remain in our custody. Oftentimes the ones that 

stay with us have health issues or at a higher security level than 

what they want to put in some of their detention facilities. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am trying to figure out a place to help you 

reduce the population. So aliens, noncitizens who are serving time 

in a federal prison, you do not have the authority to deport them 

short of them serving their time here? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I do not. 

Mr. ROGERS. Should you and would you like to? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I think that is an issue for the Department of 

Justice. 

Mr. ROGERS. You have a feeling about it, surely. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, again, I am open to any strategy to help us 

maintain safe, secure prisons. I certainly have no problem assisting 

or working with the Department to determine if this is a viable option, and with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now one-third of your prisons are over fifty years 

old? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And require very significant upgrades and maintenance because of that, obviously. But in your testimony you also inVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
320 

dicate that the prisons constructed since the seventies reflect a 

modernized architectural design to support the principle of direct 

supervision of inmates. In other words, increased efficiency. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Increased visibility. 

Mr. ROGERS. But requiring fewer personnel per prisoner. 

Mr. LAPPIN. If you compare institutions designed prior to that, 

you are going to see the need for more staff per inmate than in the 

newer facilities. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, the President’s Budget Request includes only $95 million for construction, which includes maintenance of these 

older prisons especially, which is some indication that your facilities budget is going to become even more backlogged. Repair 

projects deferred, projects already in construction delayed, not to 

mention new construction. Is that not counterproductive? If a new 

prison is going to save you a lot of manpower, they are more efficient. They were designed that way, right? So does it not make 

sense to phase out some of the really old ones that are not efficient 

and need a lot of repair in favor of a newer facility? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I cannot argue that point. Clearly there are some of 

our older facilities that are very expensive to continue to operate. 

But our dilemma has been that we have never had the opportunity 

to close them because we have too many inmates. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We could not take them offline. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have you ever closed one? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we have. In fact, we just closed four institutions 

a year ago. Four older, very small, inefficient, minimum security 

camps. But over the course of seventy-seven years we have closed 

a number of prisons. Alcatraz, McNeil, well, we did not close 

McNeil we gave it to the State. There are a number of different institutions. We have a list of institutions that have been closed over 

the years. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But certainly an area of concern. There are two aspects of the B and F budget. Certainly new construction is one 

issue. M and R is the other issue. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me briefly follow up. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And we certainly have to prioritize very cautiously 

funding for modernization and repair because of the number of 

older prisons and the cost of reconstruction and modernization. So 

it is an area we really have to prioritize well. Without a doubt we 

are concerned about the funding level in that area. 

TELE-HEALTH

Mr. ROGERS. Let me follow up briefly on the Chairman’s questioning about medicine, healthcare. I remember from years ago we 

were talking about telehealth and telemedicine in the prisons. That 

has probably been fifteen years or so. I do not think we have moved 

very far along in that time, have we? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we have some. Not as far as we would like to 

have moved. We do quite a bit of telepsychiatry. We are doing some 

telehealth in certain locations where we have a contract with a 

community hospital or an organization that can assist us with that. 

But without a doubt, we are not where we would like to be. I think 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
321 

that has been limited some by our funding challenge. I mean, without a doubt some of the things that we would like to do have been 

slowed, given the funding challenges that we have had over the 

last three or four years. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it just makes all the sense in the world to me 

to try to utilize telemedicine in the prisons, saving manpower and 

expenses and malingering prisoners who use this as an excuse to 

take a ride out in the country one day a week. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me mention something we see evolving though. 

I mean, you are right, fifteen, twenty years ago we saw a greater 

need. But what has occurred over the last ten, fifteen years or 

more, is community hospitals who are willing to come to the facility 

to provide service. That has had a huge impact because in the past 

typically we took the inmates to the hospital. But we have now arranged services through contracts for them. Let us take FMC 

Butner in Raleigh, North Carolina. We have several contracts locally where on a given day somebody shows up to do certain types 

of services for inmates. And we will have all the inmates prepared. 

Contractors spend an entire day so it is efficient for them. Given 

that we have seen more of a transition to that type of provision of 

services, not to say that telehealth is not an option, but we certainly see a bit of a transition ongoing via the priorities and the 

available manner to provide services. 

Mr. ROGERS. You could stop a lot of prisoners saying, ‘‘I am sick. 

I want to go to the doctor or the hospital just to get a free ride into 

town or day out of the cell.’’ I am sure if you said to that same person, ‘‘Okay, come to this next cell and we will hook you up with 

a doctor across town or across the countryside here,’’ I would say 

you would have fewer prisoners saying they were sick, one. Two, 

you do not have to have your staff accompany that prisoner all day 

long out there, wasting time, so it makes every bit of sense in the 

world to try to save some money. Now the FCC has just awarded 

over $417 million for the construction of sixty-nine statewide or regional broadband telehealth networks in forty-two states and three 

U.S. territories. It seems like a grand time for you to make your 

big move. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I would love to have that information. We would 

welcome an opportunity to chat with them. 

Mr. ROGERS. With whom? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Make connections with the people. I was unaware of 

this. And if there is funding for the advancement of telehealth we 

will certainly look into it and see how it can be utilized. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well I would challenge you to do that. No one is 

going to come and lay it on your table. You are going to have to 

go after it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. There has been awarded a big sum of money for the 

FCC to expand the telehealth network, which could save you tons 

and tons of staff and money. 

REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT WITH BICE

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, you mentioned a few minutes ago about 

the long term detainees. I can tell you for sure the ones that we 

keep in our custody typically are individuals who have huge medVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
322 

ical issues, because BICE may not have the locations available, or 

the resources to provide it. So what we need from them, as an example, is a reimbursable agreement with BICE to pay for the cost 

of those individuals. But we will certainly look into, this opportunity to see if we can enhance our—— Mr. ROGERS. If you could get back to us with some report on how 

you are proceeding, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will do that. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
323 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 898 42792C.013
324 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 899 42792C.014
325 

Mr. ROGERS. And I would be happy to try to help the gentleman 

and I am sure all of us would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And with the BICE issue. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Aderholt, we are about ready to move onto 

our next witness. We have three hearings. Do you have any? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. No, you all can move on and I will get ready for 

the next witness. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know the Director will welcome any questions 

for the record from any of us. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I have some for the record. I know you would 

love to stay longer, but——

Mr. LAPPIN. I am running out of water. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Director Lappin, again, thank you for appearing 

before us particularly under these circumstances. And we look forward to working with you and your fine staff. We appreciate the 

great job they do and we look forward to working with you as we 

mark up this bill and 2008 supplementals reprogrammings and try 

to get the Bureau of Prisons the resources they need to do their job. 

Thank you for appearing here today. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I appreciate your listening and assisting us. We look 

forward to working with you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Next the Committee is going to turn to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service to present the U.S. Marshals 

Service budget. 

[Recess] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All right, we will resume the hearing. Now we 

are going to turn to Mr. John Clark, the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service. Mr. Clark, welcome. We thank you for your time, Director Clark, and we look forward to your testimony. Based on your 

proposed budget increases we expect to hear a lot about your workload in the Southwest Border districts. We have all heard about the 

challenges you are facing in that region and we are aware that 

even more significant challenges are on the horizon as a result of 

changing immigration enforcement policy. Today we have to discuss your ideas and proposals for addressing those challenges. At 

the same time, we recognize that the Marshals Service has many 

more mission requirements than just prisoner security along the 

Southwest Border. We are anxious to discuss these other requirements as well, including Adam Walsh enforcement, courthouse security and judicial threat assessments. Your written statement will 

be made a part of the record. We will invite you, after Mr. Frelinghuysen has an opportunity for an opening statement, to summarize 

your testimony and to be responsive to questions. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome and 

thank you for running a good operation, the U.S. Marshals Service. 

So a great job on your team. Thank you. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Clark. 

Mr. CLARK. In the interest of time I will try to speed it along as 

fast as I can. Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Frelinghuysen, 

other members of the panel and Subcommittee, thank you for alVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
326 

lowing me to come here today. I am here today as the Director and 

as a career Deputy U.S. Marshal, representing more than 4,600 

men and women of the United States Marshals Service. Our employees are located in ninety-four judicial districts nationwide and 

six regional fugitive task forces, three foreign offices, and headquarters. I am also here to represent the many clients that we 

serve in the Marshals Service, including the judiciary, the public, 

other Federal investigative agencies, and our state and local partners. The Marshals Service needs your help now more than ever. 

In 2006, we worked together to pass the Adam Walsh Act. The 

Act requires the federal government to help state, local and tribal 

entities standardize and link sex offender registries. Through the 

Marshals Service’s unique constitutional authority and proven success at catching fugitives, the law also mandates Deputy U.S. Marshals to investigate, locate, and apprehend sex offenders who fail 

to register. This enforcement mission adds, according to conservative estimates, 100,000 additional fugitives to our current workload. We have already shown that we can be creative and effective 

at catching fugitives. Operation Falcon, Fugitive Safe Surrender, 

and regional task forces are excellent tools we use to carry out this 

mission. Catching sex offenders is a mission that Deputy U.S. Marshals have taken to heart. We have been told that each offender 

has, on average, ten victims. Every second we are delayed in looking for one of these predators is another second they can use to repeat their crime against society’s most vulnerable and valuable resource, our children. 

Last year, both the House and Senate marks for the Marshals 

Service contained resources for the Adam Walsh Act. The funding 

was denied. This year I urge you to honor the memory of Adam 

Walsh, Megan Kanka, Jessica Lunsford, Polly Klaas, Jacob 

Wetterling, and the thousands of other current and future victims 

of unregistered sex offenders. 

This year I also ask you to remember the unique role the Marshals Service plays in protecting our judicial process: the fundamental principle that witnesses, judges, assistant U.S. attorneys, 

and defense attorneys, can all operate freely without fear of harm 

or retribution. Over the past years we have seen a 69 percent increase in threats to the judiciary. Currently we have only thirtyfive people who are dedicated full-time to analyzing threats against 

those 7,700 officials. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Further, we have never lost a witness in the Witness Security 

Program who followed our guidelines. We are taking care of over 

17,000 witnesses and their families. The number keeps growing 

since we are good at what we do. This service that we provide is 

part social worker, part probation officer, and a large part bodyguard. It is an excellent program and motivates witnesses to cooperate. The government has achieved an 89 percent conviction 

rate using protected witness testimony. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
327 

Another example of why we need your help this year is the 

Southwest Border. The five judicial districts that are along the 

Southwest Border handle over one-third of the entire prisoner population. Thank you for the positions you appropriated to us in 2008 

to help with our mission there. I also appreciate your support with 

the additional positions for the U.S. Border requested for 2009, 

which will assist with the ever increasing workload. The workforce 

has not kept up with the increased workload, we send deputies to 

the Southwest Border on temporary travel orders for weeks at a 

time to maintain operations. That means they are not able to do 

their jobs in their home districts, not able to catch fugitives, not 

helping your state and local police, and not keeping courts running 

smoothly. As you know we answer to the federal judges. When they 

hold court they set the docket and we have to be there with prisoners in hand. 

I also ask you to remember the role that the Marshals Service 

plays when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of both the 

general public and employees in our federal courthouses. In some 

older courthouses, deputies are forced to walk prisoners through 

public hallways, open areas, and use public elevators. This situation causes some obvious safety and security concerns and needs to 

be addressed. 

Finally just let me say that we do not conduct counterterrorism 

or counter intelligence investigations, but someone has to protect 

witnesses and detain accused terrorists. Someone has to protect the 

courthouses and court officials where terrorists stand trial. Someone has to investigate and apprehend violent criminals who are terrorizing our communities. And that someone is a Deputy U.S. Marshal and that is why I am here today. So thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to speak on behalf of the men and women of the 

Marshals Service. I look forward to taking your questions now. 

[Written statement of John F. Clark, Director, United States 

Marshals Service] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
328 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 42792C.015
329 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 42792C.016
330 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 42792C.017
331 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 42792C.018
332 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 42792C.019
333 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 42792C.020
334 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 42792C.021
335 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 42792C.022
336 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 42792C.023
337 

ADEQUACY OF FY 2009 REQUEST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Clark. The Marshals Service has 

quite an extensive list of responsibilities. I imagine that you have 

to do plenty under the best of circumstances. But you are currently 

facing unprecedented increases in your workload due to stricter immigration enforcement, higher judicial threat reporting, and a vast 

new mandate for sexual offender apprehension. I understood in 

your opening remarks, you indicated that you were assigning Deputy Marshals to hot spot areas and they were not able to do this, 

not able to do that, not able, repeat that sentence for me, will you 

please? 

Mr. CLARK. Essentially, Mr. Chairman, we have Deputy Marshals on special assignment going around the country. Some may 

be working on high threat trials, as for example in Miami. The resources that we may need there requires us to oftentimes bring 

Deputy Marshals from some other districts to help. On any given 

day, we have numerous special assignments around the country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that because you are stretching resources? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, that is one way to put it. We are stretching 

some resources. What we are able to do in the special assignment 

process is to move or bring in Deputy Marshals from districts that 

perhaps do not currently have a significant workload. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Repeat those ‘‘nots’’ for me then again. I did not 

get them all down. They were not able, not able to do this, not able 

to do that. What did you say there in your opening remarks? 

Mr. CLARK. Essentially, if you can bear with me a second to find 

it——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I want to hear it again so I do want to bear with 

you. 

Mr. CLARK. Okay, one moment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sorry, thank you. 

Mr. CLARK. I think it starts here. Since the workforce has not 

kept up with the increased workload we send deputies to the 

Southwest Border on temporary travel orders for weeks at a time 

to maintain operations. That includes, by the way, the other examples that I just gave you. That means they are not able to do their 

jobs in their home districts. For example, not catching fugitives, 

not helping state or local police in their law enforcement duties and 

not keeping courts running smoothly. We also answer to the federal 

judges and when they hold court they require us to be there at that 

particular time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well I think I have heard that right then. 

You are stretching resources beyond the point that you can be able 

to fulfill all of the responsibilities you currently have. 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have projected increases for, and I repeat, 

stricter immigration enforcement, higher judicial threat reporting, 

and a vast new mandate with regard to sexual offender apprehension. Given your current situation, and given what you are looking 

at in the future, do you believe that your 2009 budget request is 

sufficient to allow you to fully enforce all of your mandated responsibilities? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
338 

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, we were disappointed with the 2007 

continuing resolution in that we did not see the resources to enforce the Adam Walsh Act. We continued to be disappointed in 

2008 when the positions were not continued in the Omnibus Bill 

in Conference. We were initially looking for start up positions of 

approximately fifty-four positions and $8 million. This year the 

President’s budget calls for additional resources to support the 

Southwest Border, which handles about 34 percent of our pretrial 

detainees. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I want to share your disappointment in 2007. I 

want to share your disappointment in 2008. We wish the President 

had negotiated with the Congress as that process is supposed to 

work in a normal environment. I also want an answer to my questions. Do you believe that your 2009 budget request is sufficient to 

allow you to fully enforce all of your mandated responsibilities? 

Mr. CLARK. We certainly need additional resources to adequately 

implement all of these various missions. Our five year plan for, the 

Adam Walsh Act includes 100 Deputy Marshals for each of the 

next five years to successfully complete operations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well let me suggest that I hear you answering no. Your 2009 budget request is not sufficient to fully enforce all of your mandated responsibilities. Please feel free to correct me if I misheard that. 

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. We——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. If not, then where do you anticipate 

cutting back in order to work within your budgeted level? 

Mr. CLARK. Well for example on our enforcement operations, 

where we use our congressionally-funded regional task forces. We 

have a force multiplier there with the state and local police that 

greatly enhance our capabilities. For example to succeed with the 

Adam Walsh Act despite no funding, we have about 2,700 sex offenders thus far. 

ADAM WALSH ENFORCEMENT

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well one of the places you are going to cut back 

with is your Adam Walsh. I mean, you have how many non-compliant sex offenders? 

Mr. CLARK. By conservative estimates about 100,000. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many FTEs do you have working on that 

job? 

Mr. CLARK. Right now, Deputy Marshals work on a collateral 

duty basis in addition to their other responsibilities investigating 

fugitives. That workload is melded into their current workload. So 

while no one may necessarily be saying, ‘‘I work solely Adam Walsh 

Act cases,’’ we have a number of Deputy Marshals nonetheless performing those duties. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, my question was how many FTEs do you 

have assigned to performing your Adam Walsh mission? 

Mr. CLARK. Currently we have about five, I believe, that are reassigned to——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And how many Adam Walsh offenders do you 

have out there? 

Mr. CLARK. There are approximately 100,000 according to the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
339 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. CLARK. I am sorry, I just—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. This is harder than it should be. I feel like that 

is a real good example of where you are going to be cutting back, 

or not hiring personnel to meet a responsibility. Am I wrong about 

that? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, what we are hoping to do, and again these are 

positions that we hope to see in the future, is to be able to start 

the process of building up those task forces with people who can 

work solely on Adam Walsh Act investigations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many people would you have to have dedicated to that responsibility to adequately fulfill that mission? 

Mr. CLARK. Our five year plan is based on projections we receive 

from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Additionally, we know the current caseload to be from the states that 

have provided their statistics. Our five year plan would call for 

about 100 Deputy Marshals for each of the next five years. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you think that the budget is appropriately 

balanced between your four major lines of business? Judicial security, fugitive apprehension, witness security, prisoner security and 

transportation? 

Mr. CLARK. Adequately balanced, if I understand your question 

correctly. Yes, in the sense of working in all those programs so that 

at the end of the day everything is being done that we have on the 

workload ‘‘to-do’’ list. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Getting back to the Adam Walsh Act, why 

did you not request money specifically? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, this particular——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I understand that you obviously have priorities. You are doing all sorts of things, your traditional missions, 

and this is a relatively new one. 

Mr. CLARK. Sure. In the initial 2008 President’s Budget request, 

we requested positions for the Adam Walsh Act, and as I mentioned a moment ago we were hoping to see those fifty-four positions and $8 million. That fell by the wayside in the Omnibus Bill. 

So we did not receive those—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, if it fell by the wayside why did you 

not pick it up and add a little more emphasis to it? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, I had been championing the cause——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I know you have. 

Mr. CLARK [continuing]. Of receiving as much as we can get for 

our five year plan to properly enforce the Adam Walsh Act. As the 

2009 budget came together the emphasis was more strongly towards the priorities on the Southwest Border, which I think arguably after listening to Mr. Lappin and others that we certainly 

have a need there with 34 percent of our workload. So we are 

pleased on the one hand to receive that, but we are disappointed 

in the sense of—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well the Southwest Border notwithstanding, there is a pretty strong sentiment in this Committee and 

outside this Committee that the purposes for which the Adam 

Walsh Child Protection Act and Safety Act, that we hope that at 

least you would ask for some money. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
340 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. Yes. And it is my intent to keep pushing to receive adequate resources to operate that program. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well the best way to receive adequate resources is to highlight your commitment, which you are doing orally, but perhaps in your budget documents that you would like to 

fulfill what Congress has strongly suggested is an important need 

out there. 

Mr. CLARK. Understood. 

WITNESS AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Shifting here, I understand that the Marshals Service, and let me commend those that are there, has personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan providing security and witness protection for courts in those countries. We want to commend you and 

your people for providing this very dangerous but incredibly important service that is integral to the establishment of the rule of law 

in those countries. The administration’s pending war supplemental 

proposes a $7 million appropriation to the Marshals Service for 

costs associated with your deployments in Afghanistan. Is this not 

basically a State Department mission that you are performing? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, the particular duties we have been performing 

in Iraq and in Afghanistan——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is a type of nation building here. 

Mr. CLARK. One of the duties that we are responsible for, is helping to establish a more robust judicial presence there. We are 

working with the Iraq government to get a rule of law established, 

in addition to providing services protection for witnesses, particularly for example those who testified in such events as the Saddam 

Hussein trial. So some of the things that we are performing and 

doing, I believe, are uniquely situated to be a Marshals Service 

mission. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well you are uniquely situated, but in reality you are doing the work of the State Department. 

Mr. CLARK. Well the State Department, I believe, has the greater 

responsibility for those kinds of things. But we, by nature of our 

expertise and accomplishments in those areas, were asked to provide the service for the governments there. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not want to take away from what I 

think we all have a huge respect, anybody who works in those environments. Talk about our judiciary potentially being under fire, 

your people, I am sure, risk their lives all the time protecting the 

few jurists that are willing to stand up Sunni or Shiite, and perhaps a few Kurds, but you are doing a remarkable job. For the 

record it might be good to take a shot across the board at the State 

Department. 

I just want to clarify the Witness Protection numbers again. You 

said in your statement that there were 17,000? You have given new 

identities to how many? I have a figure here, 8,000. 

Mr. CLARK. We have in the Program——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But you protect, relocate, and have given 

new identities to how many witnesses? As opposed to those who 

come with them, their families? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
341 

Mr. CLARK. Well, the number that you have is more adequately 

describing those who get the new identities and new document 

changes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You mentioned a figure of 17,000. That 

would be the combined, if you were to take the 8,000 witnesses and 

the over 9,700 family members? Is that right? 

Mr. CLARK. Correct. The family members would make up the 

bulk of that, and not in every case do they or would they get a different identity or be relocated in the same way as what we would 

refer to as the principal. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much money is spent in this area? 

And how much more do you need? 

Mr. CLARK. I do not have that figure off the top of my head and 

I am not sure if someone on my staff does. That may be something 

I will have to get back to you on in terms of the total figure. I know 

it is a multimillion—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have provided you with some additional 

positions in 2005 and I think additional ones in fiscal year 2006. 

Do you need additional resources? 

Mr. CLARK. Actually, I am just referring to the number you just asked me, it is about $32 million, Congressman, on the annualized 

amount to run that program. In terms of the additional positions 

for the program, it is my estimation right now that we are handling that program and it is staffed and managed quite well. We 

do have people that continue to come into the program, but we also 

have some individuals who for a variety of reasons are not in it 

anymore. So on the one hand we have some new inductees coming 

in and there are also some others who eventually come out. So we 

are able to manage that, and we thank you for the——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And lastly, just briefly, the judicial protection, you are putting in quite a lot of home intrusion detection systems. Have a good number been installed? And I assume there are 

quite a lot of, there are costs related to administering this program? 

Mr. CLARK. That is correct, Congressman. Of the initial group of 

approximately 1,600 judges that asked for a home alarm, some 

changed their mind for their own personal reasons along the way. 

There are roughly 1,500 now that have received a home intrusion 

alarm. We had those alarms installed. The feedback we have received there has been very, very positive. The monitoring costs, 

which are now built into our budget, to make sure those alarms are 

appropriately monitored, have been going well. Like any new program within the government it took a few rough bumps in the road 

to get it going well, but we have the alarms in. The feedback from 

the judges, all that I have spoken to, has been very, very positive. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt. 

OCDETF

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Director Clark for being here, and thank you for stopping by my office 

a few days ago so I had a chance to visit before this hearing here 

today. In your testimony you had discussed, or had mentioned, 

about your participation in the Department of Justice Organized 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
342 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, and how effective 

that has been in the apprehension of fugitives. You mentioned that 

you have included six new Deputy Marshals to help out with this 

effort. Are six Deputies enough to really accomplish the goal that 

you are trying to achieve in this particular—— Mr. CLARK. Yes, it is. In fact, the program itself has received 

some enhancements in recent times. This enhancement, of course, 

will help even further, particularly with the organized crime and 

drug enforcement fugitives that flee to Mexico and the areas where 

we have already established some foreign field offices. So I believe 

this level of enhancement will go a long way. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. How many are currently working on that, Deputies, or Marshals, are working on the project currently? 

Mr. CLARK. I believe it is around thirty, somewhere in that ballpark. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mm-hmm. And so basically just in a nutshell, if 

you could just tell the Committee and explain exactly how this program actually operates and how it would work? 

Mr. CLARK. Sure. The Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement 

Task Force is a multi-agency task force. The Marshals Service is 

one of the participants. Our area of expertise, the resource we 

bring to the table, if you will, is our fugitive apprehension mission. 

So frequently what we are doing, within that Task Force is looking 

for a drug fugitive. If the individuals are wanted on federal warrants, charged with some type of a drug violation, U.S. drug violation, or someone the DEA has identified as a major drug offender, 

but their whereabouts are unknown. The men and women who 

work in this program help the larger Task Force to find those individuals who are charged under federal law with violating the drug 

law. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right, thank you. That is all I have right now. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER ACTIVITIES

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Clark, your testimony clearly describes your struggles with keep pace with the 

workload being generated in the Southwest Border districts by 

DHS enforcement activities. Now unfortunately, those struggles are 

only likely to intensify. At the levels proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request, the number of Border Patrol agents 

will have doubled since 2001. But the Marshals staffing will have 

increased at less than a fifth of that rate over that same period. 

You have proposed a $13 million enhancement to address these 

workload challenges, and I want to make sure I understand the 

scale of what you are requesting. A couple of questions. Will this 

$13 million enable you to merely catch up on existing workload? Or 

will it allow you to also keep pace with further scheduled DHS enforcement increases? As you project those requirements out, is $13 

million enough to meet them? 

Mr. CLARK. Our projections are based on what we believe will be 

coming from the U.S. Border Patrol and their apprehensions. This 

is entirely different in relation to the workload that we will incur, 

because not every one of those individuals that the Border Patrol 

would bring in would necessarily go through the full federal judicial process; to take them to a hearing, to be incarcerated, to needVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
343 

ing bed space, and so on and so forth. So there is sort of an offset, 

even though the Border Patrol and DHS have been increasing apprehensions. We feel, based on what we received through the 2008 

process, and are now requesting in 2009, that this will help us to 

keep pace with what we project will be coming through. 

I am appreciative particularly of the Committee is recognizing 

the fact that all the Southwest Border initiatives that are sometimes labeled under immigration reform do have an impact on the 

entire judicial system; of course, the federal judges, the probation 

officers, and the like—whom I sometimes call the downstream effect. So we have been working very closely with the Border Patrol, 

DHS, and others to make sure we are discussing and talking 

through how to, handle the increased workload that will be coming 

through. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the workload that you anticipate? What 

is the workload increase and how do you measure it? When you see 

DHS activities increasing, what is the impact upon your workload? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, there are a number of things that, I think, 

come into play there. The U.S. Attorney’s desire to—

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me ask you, have you looked at those and 

have you quantified it? Have you looked at that workload increase 

and have you quantified it? 

Mr. CLARK. We have quantified some figures, and I know that we 

have looked at data that will affect our agency’s——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can you share that with me right now? 

Mr. CLARK. I cannot right now. I do not have that readily available. I would be pleased to provide it for—

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are your budget estimates based upon those 

numbers? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, in many respects they are. We have individuals 

that, have been working with the Border Patrol, DHS, and others 

to try to project what we think——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Your workload increase because of the additional 

activity that is involved with DHS enforcement increases? 

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. We also know that we will have a 

couple of spots along the Border that have higher projections than 

others. Tucson comes to mind. In fact, the workload there I think, 

even for DHS, is predominantly located in that one sliver of Border. 

So——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you have done that exercise? Your agency? 

You have——

Mr. CLARK. We have looked at data. We have looked at numbers. 

We have looked at what we believe to be——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And your budget requests and the budget you 

are requesting here is based upon those projections? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We can provide some correlation between what 

we sense could be future workload requirements for us as compared to what we think DHS is doing, which is quite extensive in 

some ways. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does your request take into consideration the 

impact of Operation Streamline? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We have discussed Operation Streamline and 

other, as we sometimes refer to them, targeted enforcement initiaVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
344 

tives with the Customs and Border Patrol. Of course Tuscan, Arizona is one such area. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. But your request has taken that into account? You know that? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. In terms of, Operation Streamline and other targeted enforcement—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Marshals Service has taken that increase in 

effect, into account as it has come up with this budget request? 

And the budget you are requesting here is based upon those 

projctions? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, and we can provide some correlation between 

what we sense could be future workload requirements for us as 

compared to what we think DHS is doing, which is you know extensive in some ways. 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We have looked at budget or, I’m sorry, at workload correlation between those types of programs, Operation 

Streamline and other DHS initiatives that run through the Border 

Patrol. We are trying to align our resources to that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I will have some other questions in that 

area to submit for the record. 

A few more questions about the Adam Walsh Enforcement. You 

indicated that you have dedicated five positions exclusively to 

Adam Walsh Enforcement. Is that correct? 

Mr. CLARK. It is actually three. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, okay. 

Mr. CLARK. I stand corrected. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well three is probably just as inadequate as five 

to try to deal with 100,000 people. 

How many are tasked with Adam Walsh Enforcement as a collateral duty? 

Mr. CLARK. In our 94 judicial districts we have identified a coordinator in each of those districts. In many of our districts that are 

located in States that have a higher volume of unregistered sex offenders, we have more than that. So in essence that number is the 

minimum working collateral duties. 

And then our six regional fugitive task forces have identified the 

individuals who are supporting the Adam Walsh Act enforcement. 

That is the reason we have been able to make some positive impact 

on apprehension of the unregistered——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It still sounds daunting to me to try to meet that 

responsibility with the number of people who you have assigned to 

it. 

Do you agree or disagree with that? 

Mr. CLARK. It is daunting. I do agree, and we would, again, look 

forward to the support of the Committee. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why didn’t you request Adam Walsh Enforcement resources for 2009, or did you? Did you request that to OMB? 

Mr. CLARK. We did make a request for the funding and the positions that we would need. A lot of it, again going back to what I 

referred to as a start up cost, that we had projected in the 2008 

budget and hoped to continue the momentum through 2009. But 

priorities for funding, as many things——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Other areas crowded it out. 

Mr. CLARK. Went to Southwest Border. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
345 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. From your perspective, as a law enforcement officer, what would be required to fully implement the Adam Walsh 

Act? 

Mr. CLARK. Our projections, based on what we are referring to 

as our five year plan, would be 100 Deputy Marshals over each of 

the next five years. What we——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Accumulative? 

Mr. CLARK. An accumulative total. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. A hundred first year, two hundred, second year, 

three hundred fourth year? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. That is correct. With the emphasis to place 

those positions in those districts, within those, States that we know 

have the highest volume and——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Those are new Marshals? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, they would be new Deputy Marshals. Then we 

would, of course, take experienced investigators to place them 

to——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have an estimate of the cost associated 

with full implementation? 

Mr. CLARK. I do, I believe, somewhere. I may have to get back 

to you. Yes, it would be about $130 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is no where in your request for 2009? 

Mr. CLARK. No, it is not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the status of your efforts to create a National Sex Offender Targeting Center to collect, distribute, and use 

intelligence to identify, locate, and apprehend offenders? 

Mr. CLARK. We are working to get that established now with the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. We already 

have, through our headquarters efforts, a process underway to get 

that going. It will allow us, through the collection of data and 

shared data from the National Center which also collects from a 

number of the States that will be participating, the capability to 

target individuals that are unregistered. 

So that is coming along well, but we certainly would like to see 

it improve even more. 

THREATS AGAINST THE JUDICIARY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. Thank you. The Marshals Service is reporting that the number of threats against federal judges and prosecutors has risen every year since 2003, with 2008 on pace to be 

the highest year yet. The Judicial Conference has identified this as 

a major concern. Do you agree? 

Mr. CLARK. We believe it still is on the increase due to a number 

of factors. One of them is that we are doing, we the Marshal Service, a much better job of tracking, collecting, and even educating 

the judges and others about how to report threats. 

Similarly, the judges and others we protect are doing a better job 

of reporting. So some of the spike, I believe, is due to education, 

better reporting, and a better collecting of that information to our 

new Threat Management Center. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That being the case, do you agree that there is 

a workload increased associated with this increase threat? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
346 

Mr. CLARK. There has been a steady increase through this collection of more cases and more threats. I think over the last five years 

it has been about 63 percent overall. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. My number is 69 percent. 

Mr. CLARK. Sixty-nine percent, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And funding has only marginally increased with 

inflationary adjustments, is that correct? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. Overall funding, yes, has——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is there a problem there? How are you going to 

keep pace with that growing threat when your funding is only 

keeping pace with inflation? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, the number of positions that we would need to 

fully staff our Threat Management Center and other places will include the resources to be able to do that. It is predominately at our 

headquarters level, where we would be able to do that because that 

is where our new Threat Management Center is located. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is going to allow you to manage this 

increase with only inflationary increases in funding? 

Mr. CLARK. We have real lines——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. What is the answer to that question? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, we certainly could use the support of the Committee to help us in that regard. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I want to help you. I want to support you, 

but I want an answer to that question. Is it yes or no? Can you 

keep pace with that threat just asking for inflationary increases? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, I am concerned about the capability to keep 

pace. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. CLARK. If things keep increasing as those indicators seem to 

predict——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Fair enough. 

Mr. CLARK [continuing]. We would want to make sure that our 

capabilities similarly increase. We have concluded a substantial 

amount of reform on how we are doing this process now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. But you still have a backlog. Do you have 

a pending backlog of threats?—well let me ask you this: What is 

the current status of the backlog of pending threat assessments? 

Mr. CLARK. We have reduced that down to nearly nothing and 

I don’t know what the exact number is now, but we have taken a 

substantial reduction. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Since the Justice Inspector General’s October 

2006 report? 

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In your response to the most recent OIG report 

on Judicial Security, the Marshals indicated that there are several 

new protective intelligence initiatives you would like to implement 

by 2010. Could you provide us with some details about these plans 

and describe how you intend to pay for them without an additional 

funding request? 

Mr. CLARK. Future requests will be based on projecting what we 

thought would be necessary to keep pace. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Protective Intelligence Initiative that you 

would like to implement by 2010. That is what I am talking about. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
347 

Mr. CLARK. Which will also help support the new Judicial Security Improvement Act and——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Mr. CLARK [continuing]. Would include additional threat investigators, for example. Those are the individuals that I think I mentioned a bit ago who are actually in our field offices doing full-time 

threat investigation on those individuals that we protect. 

So that would be one of the key components to implementing 

that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen, do you have any other 

questions? 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just a little clarification on the Adam 

Walsh Act. Under Public Law 109–248, July 24, 2006, ‘‘The attorney general shall use the resources of federal law enforcement including the United States Marshals Service to assist jurisdictions 

in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender 

registration requirements.’’

We have 100,000 figure. Are those figures in State registration 

hands? I thought we were moving toward the National Registry. 

Can you clarify that for me? 

Mr. CLARK. The figures that I have provided are predominately 

from State registries. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children conducted extensive surveys in all 50 States and 

received the numbers that indicate what they currently had in registries. 

What the Adam Walsh Act will seek to do, as you pointed out, 

is to have more of a national registry process to get everyone, as 

you might use the phrase, on the same sheet of music, so that all 

States are essentially doing the same kinds of things with the registration process. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But that is not your job. I assume the main 

burden is on the Department of Justice overall to encourage the 

creation of a national registry. 

One of the issues we have discussed here in terms of Violence 

Against Women Act is that people take off and go off into different 

jurisdictions. And, obviously many of the parents that weigh in 

with us and with you, I am sure, point up the fact that, well obviously we respect people’s privacy. When somebody is a known sex 

abuser of children there ought to be some way on a national basis 

to locate them in a registry. So we are not there yet. I assume, that 

is a general goal? 

Mr. CLARK. The Targeting Center in conjunction with our efforts 

with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will 

help tie that together. As you pointed out a moment ago, just to 

clarify, the Marshals Service is what I prefer to as the enforcement 

arm of the Adam Walsh Act. 

So our job will be, more specifically, to go out and locate those 

who are not in compliance with the Act and whose whereabouts are 

unknown and to track them down and to account for them. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
348 

COURTHOUSE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Congress has invested over $80 million in Marshals construction funding between 2000 and 2006. During that 

time the percentage of federal courthouses and court occupied facilities meeting minimum security standards rose from six to 29 

percent. However, the Marshals fiscal year 2009 budget proposes 

only $2 million for necessary construction projects. 

How many additional courthouses or court occupied facilities can 

meet minimum security standards with only a $2 million construction budget? 

Mr. CLARK. We have, Mr. Chairman, a number of facilities that 

need some security improvements. By that I mean things like surveillance cameras, barricades, screening devices and the like. In a 

number of our courthouses, as mentioned a moment ago, are aged 

buildings. They are in need of some updates and upgrades and a 

variety of these security measures. 

So we look at that list in sort of a priority basis. It is a rather 

extensive list. We don’t know the exact number of courthouses all 

across the country in the federal system that need that but we do 

go out to rate and rank those courthouses to be able to see——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What do you call that? Security inventory lists? 

Mr. CLARK. Security surveys that we conduct to look at facilities 

that we believe would need——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Have you looked at every facility in the country? 

Mr. CLARK. We have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And do you have that list? 

Mr. CLARK. I don’t have it with me, but it is something we can 

provide in terms of materials to the Committee to consider what 

courthouses that we feel are in need of such security. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have a comprehensive list. Do you have a 

dollar figure associated with necessary security enhancements to 

each facility? 

Mr. CLARK. I can perhaps provide that to you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well first of all do you have it? 

Mr. CLARK. We have conducted a national security survey, again, 

of all the facilities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And have you associated a dollar amount necessary to bring those facilities up to some reasonable security 

standard? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. I would have to get back to the Committee on 

that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you submit that list for the record please? 

Mr. CLARK. I would be happy to. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you know what that number is? 

Mr. CLARK. I was trying to look at a note on this. I believe there 

was—if you can bear with me for one moment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Certainly. 

Mr. CLARK. Roughly 230, I believe. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Two hundred and thirty facilities? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. Out of, I don’t see the full number here. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But the total number that needed attention 

would be 230? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. In varying degrees. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
349 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. CLARK. Now some—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. And so you have whatever degrees, but you have 

associated a number with all those. Do you have a total? What 

would be the cost of bringing them all up? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. It was just provided here. It looks like about $88 

million for—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. Eighty-eight million? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. For—— Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is going to take you a long time to get there with a $2 million request every year. 

Mr. CLARK. I agree. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many of those represent really critical security problems—and maybe all of them do. 

Mr. CLARK. I don’t have the percentage broken down that way, 

but I know that many of the courthouses built back in the turn of 

the century or back in the 1920s and 1930s. In the District I previously served in Richmond, Virginia, for example, that courthouse 

is dated back to the Civil War. 

So there are places like that in America that have courthouses 

that are in need of some substantial work. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. You describe it as, ‘‘. . . being stretched beyond acceptable limits,’’ in your testimony, don’t you? 

Well we appreciate that. Does the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts support your construction budget request? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We have a very good working relationship with 

them. They are generally supportive of all of our efforts to——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They support a $2 million request as being adequate? 

Mr. CLARK. I would—you would probably would have to ask Mr. 

Duff that. I believe he would want to see more in that account to 

be able to do that, of course. Mr. Duff being the Head of the Administrative Office. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have additional questions for the record. And 

we have asked you to submit some things for the record. And if you 

would kindly do that, we would appreciate it. 

We very much appreciate the tremendous job you do, both personally in your organization and all those marshals that are out 

there putting themselves on the line for us. They do a great job and 

we appreciate it. And we look forward to working with you to try 

to meet your real needs. 

Mr. CLARK. I really appreciate it. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you both. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENTS ON OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DETENTION

TRUSTEE

And next we will hear from our final witness of the day, Stacia 

Hylton, Federal Detention Trustee. 

Ms. Hylton, we are very pleased to have you here today. We 

thank you for your time. We appreciate your patience with us. And 

we look forward to your testimony. 

The Office of Federal Detention Trustee and the Marshals Service are largely in the same boat with respect to surging workload 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
350 

in Southwest Border districts. We understand that enhanced immigration enforcement has put an enormous strain on your resources 

and challenges you to think creatively about how you manage a 

constantly increasing detainee population. 

We are interested to hear your thoughts about this problem and 

discuss how your proposed budget increases will help you address 

it. We also hope to spend time talking about the state of detention 

housing and transportation services generally. Your written statement will be made a part of the record. I invite you to summarize 

that in your oral presentation. But before that I would like to call 

on our Ranking Member, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for his comments. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Welcome. Thank you for being here and 

thanks for your patience. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ms. Hylton. 

Ms. HYLTON. Good afternoon, Chairman and Congressman 

Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss our President’s 2009 budget request. Your continued support in this account is appreciated. 

In addressing the budget, I would like to discuss some of the 

challenges we face in the detention community, along with our successes. To begin with, I am pleased to report that our current projections for the remainder of 2008 are right in line with the appropriated funds we received. We have worked diligently on improving 

the effectiveness of the detention program and our forecasting 

model to assure this account is in alignment with appropriated 

funds. 

As you recall, unfunded requirements can produce a notable 

shortfall as we have seen in 2004 and 2005. However, over the past 

three years OFDT has launched numerous successful cost avoidance initiatives that have allowed us to manage the account more 

effectively by reducing the time in detention. These initiatives enabled OFDT to continue to meet the increase of new arrests while 

better containing the funding requirements for the existing population. As a result, OFDT was able to return significant unobligated balances to Congress in the last budget cycle. 

I would emphasize, however, that we have incorporated these 

cost savings initiatives into our 2008 and 2009 budget request by 

adjusting the population projection to account for these efficiencies. 

At the same time, we have developed aggressive performance measures to ensure that we stay on track to keep costs contained. 

Therefore, our goal of bringing the account into better alignment 

with appropriated funds is reflected in the current 2008 budget, 

demonstrating the success of our efforts. 

The 2009 budget request is based upon the trends experienced 

over the last several years coupled with a considerable increase in 

immigration activities. However, OFDT does not anticipate any unobligated balances to be carried over from 2008 to 2009 to mitigate 

the unknowns. Our current concerns are law enforcement and immigration initiatives that may occur outside the Department’s 

budget process that could cause significant detention population increases. 

The 2009 request, which totals $1.3 billion, represents an increase of $69 million above the 2008 appropriation. This request 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
351 

will require diligence in managing the time in detention. We must 

ensure that sentenced designated prisoners can move swiftly into 

BOP beds. We anticipate that there is little or no room for outside 

initiatives of which we were unaware of during the development of 

this budget. Problematic too, would be an inability to move sentenced prisoners into federal prison beds. 

Resources are only a part of the challenge for the detention community. Capacity planning for adequate detention and prison beds 

is critical. In meeting the federal detention space requirements, I 

believe that the best value for the Government nationwide remains 

the balanced usage of Federal, local, and private detention bed 

space. 

Intergovernmental Agreements have been and continue to be a 

good approach for housing USMS federal detainees due to the need 

to locate detention beds within federal court cities. In an effort to 

continue building the relationships with local governments, we 

rolled out electronic Intergovernmental Agreements (eIGA) in 2008. 

This initiative fully automated the paperwork for IGAs reducing 

numerous hours of cumbersome processing for both State and Federal Government workers. It has been a great success and we are 

very proud of it. 

In our constant drive to improve detention, we are taking a number of steps to ensure efficient capacity planning by leveraging 

technology, streamlining processes and driving economies of scales 

across government. We have outlined a number of these in our 

2009 budget request. I would like to highlight a major initiative for 

2009 that we have in our budget that is imperative to containing 

our cost. If you recall, e-Designate, which automated the post sentencing prisoner paperwork, has been fully implemented. We now 

turn our attention to seeking improvements in the transportation 

infrastructure that will reduce the ‘‘choke points’’ in the system. 

We will accomplish this by implementing our concept of regional 

and ground transfer centers that will be strategically located nationwide. Utilizing ground and air movements more effectively by 

region will have a significant impact on the efficiencies of scheduling and capacity capabilities. Each location is identified not only 

to provide the best location for the transportation system, but also 

to address critical bed space shortages in certain judicial districts. 

While we have realized improvements in detention and stabilized 

the account, diligence in the daily management of detention and 

transportation resources remains imperative. We are constantly 

strengthening the infrastructure and creating a more effective environment for the detention communities. With approximately 

190,000 new arrests annually an effective infrastructure and management are critical to ensuring costs are contained within appropriated levels. What still remains to be addressed is the full impact 

of law enforcement initiatives throughout the system that need to 

be accepted within the budget process in order to reduce the volatility we have seen in this account over the years. We are grateful 

for the spirit of cooperation from the leadership of the United 

States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

In closing, we appreciate the resources that Congress provides to 

OFDT and your support and your leadership. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
352 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I am pleased to 

answer any question that you may have. 

[Written statement of Stacia Hylton, Federal Detention Trustee] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
353 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 954 42792C.024
354 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 955 42792C.025
355 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 956 42792C.026
356 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 957 42792C.027
357 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 958 42792C.028
358 

FY 2009 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Your fiscal year 2009 request totals $1.3 billion 

including $38 million to address the increased number of detainees 

generated by the DHS enforcement efforts. You have based your 

budget largely on a projection of the average daily detainee population, which you estimate to be 60,821 average daily detainees in 

2009. 

How did you calculate your average daily population projections? 

Ms. HYLTON. Our average daily population projections incorporate time in detention and new arrests coming in. Time in detention, of course, is generated by the type of offense, similar to the 

way BOP forecasts their population. For example, drugs will create 

a longer time in detention because of the complexity of the case. 

Immigration initiatives and offenses will move quicker through the 

system, so it is a balance of that time in detention incorporated 

with those offenses that we have seen in the trend. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am looking at a chart that has your actuals up 

until 2008. But it doesn’t have what you have projected for those 

years. How accurate have those projections proved to be? 

Ms. HYLTON. We are very pleased on the projections. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Ms. HYLTON. We have put a lot of work into the projections; however, we are faced with the fact of the unknown coming towards 

us. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. I know. But how accurate have your projections proven to be in the past, your projections? 

Ms. HYLTON. I am pleased to say this year we are right on the 

mark. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This year being? 

Ms. HYLTON. 2008. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. 2008. 

Ms. HYLTON. And for 2009. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well what about 2007? Or do you know? You 

may not know. 

Ms. HYLTON. On the population forecasting? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. On your average daily population forecasting. 

Ms. HYLTON. I feel that 2007 was——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think that would be hard to do. 

Ms. HYLTON. To project out? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Accurately. 

Ms. HYLTON. It is a challenge, but one that we try to get right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am just trying to get how—— Ms. HYLTON. What I want to say is that I feel we have come further in the process; however there are always the unknown risks. 

I think the one thing we have accomplished in the forecasting 

model is the fact that we have actually blended what we see coming in staffing and on board levels for law enforcement and prosecutors instead of just using trend analysis. We have blended this 

into our process. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you think that is going to improve your projections even more? 

Ms. HYLTON. Oh, absolutely. I feel we have already seen improvement. I am very pleased with what we are seeing in 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
359 

The third factor that we have included that never existed before 

is that we now project out the savings of the time in detention for 

each major invictive. It is that time in detention that drives this 

account. For example five days for 60,000 people equates to $20 

million. 

So, it is all about time for us. We are pleased that we put these 

performance measures in place. Three factors of trends, staffing onboard, and time-in-detention have improved our projections. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And those external factors you mentioned in 

your testimony? 

Ms. HYLTON. Those are our greatest risks. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And one of them is this Operation Streamline 

which I was asking some of our other witnesses about. Are projections associated with that activity incorporated in your calculations? 

Ms. HYLTON. No, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Could that drastically impact your cost? 

Ms. HYLTON. It could. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What other external factors might there be that 

were not taken into consideration? 

Ms. HYLTON. There are two things that could greatly impact 

2009. I was waiting for your question of 2009 being sufficient. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just want this little question in between that. 

Ms. HYLTON. We have allowed a 12 percent growth in 2009 for 

immigration based on the 2008 actuals. We feel that the growth is 

sizeable and it is in line with what has taken place. It is in line 

with what we see. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So how does all that impact your 2009 request? 

Why is your 2009 request——

Ms. HYLTON. Our 2009 request has a 12 percent growth for immigration offenses. If anything was to occur outside that it would 

not be incorporated in our 2009 request. Operation Streamline is 

unclear to us. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you know it is going to generate activity. 

Ms. HYLTON. It is going to generate activity. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And it is not included in your calculation. 

Ms. HYLTON. What we are seeing today as Operation Streamline 

has been incorporated is our 2009 request can handle that. Anything additional to how it exists today——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You will be looking at a supplemental or an 

amended budget request? 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For 2009, if I am reading this correctly, you have 

projected ADP and budgeted ADP. The Projection is 60,821 and 

budgeted is 59,222. It is not a big difference but why do you budget 

on a lower number than is projected? Or am I right? Do you budget 

on a lower number than is projected? 

Ms. HYLTON. We take into consideration some of the efficiencies 

we feel like we can build on like last year. I don’t want to be repetitive, but we often recalculate that projection——

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well you can be repetitive because repetition is 

a really good way to learn things. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
360 

Ms. HYLTON. We recalculate this account quarterly and in fact, 

just ran our numbers in preparation for today, to make sure that 

the forecast is on track. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I get the bottom line. So are you comfortable 

with this request based upon those projections? 

Ms. HYLTON. I am. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you are asking less than you actually 

project? 

Ms. HYLTON. I am, based on two factors. Would you allow me 

to——elaborate 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Please. Absolutely. 

Ms. HYLTON. There are two risks associated with the 2009 request that you have in front of you. I am requesting the support 

for the BOP supplemental, which I am so pleased to see moving 

through the process. 

Without that, this account is at great risk. We have to have adequate prison beds to move detainees to. As I explained, you can see 

how quickly the cost becomes $20 million, for five days. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you know where that BOP request came 

from? Do you know where they are getting that money? 

Ms. HYLTON. I can’t speak to that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I was just wondering if you had a comment on 

where it came from. 

Ms. HYLTON. I am sorry, I don’t. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Ms. HYLTON. I was pleased to hear about it today. You know it 

is one of those things we have been following and I know that it 

just recently came through. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Ms. HYLTON. BOP having adequate bed space and being able to 

secure their prisons is so important to our ability to move fast. It 

is all about moving fast in detention. The faster we can move, the 

faster we can get them into prisons the more we contain those 

costs. That is critical to us and so your support is greatly appreciated. If the reprogramming does not occur that does pose a challenge for this account. In essence, the other risk is the potential for 

the unknown. We have recently heard that Congressman 

Culberson who is not here, has put forth numbers for Operation 

Streamline. 

Again, and I can’t say it enough, as I have tried to lay out over 

the last several months, the Department has significantly addressed immigration. The U.S. Attorneys are prosecuting at a 

strong pace. Bookings grow every year. We took this into account, 

but if the numbers are comparable discussed over the last 30 to 60 

days, we would be in heavy discussions with your staff about the 

difficulties it poses. 

So those are the two risks for 2009. I am pleased to say that 

even with the projection from last night that we see ourselves closer to the budgeted request. When we start the budget request there 

is a 4.6 variance on projections. As we go through this process and 

recalculate we get to this point where we are down to a 2.1 percent 

variance. We are much closer to accurately projecting detention 

needs. I don’t know if that helps but that is why we ran that number right before we came. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
361 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You sound convincing. [Laughter.] 

Ms. HYLTON. We did this last year. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What? 

Ms. HYLTON. We did this last year. I really do feel that it is an 

appropriate request. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Ms. HYLTON. I do point out those risks. They are throughout my 

oral and written testimony and they are very, very real. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What sort of variance on projections are 

you talking about here? Are we talking about population or are we 

talking about budget? 

Ms. HYLTON. I am talking about population. As we get closer to 

the budget year, the forecast on population has an error factor of 

2.1 on either side. As we get closer we get more recent numbers, 

and are able to use them until the end of February in 2008 to formulate projections. When we start the budget process, we are using 

half of 2007. So now we have real numbers because, in detention, 

it is all about what we are seeing today. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well I think you are doing a pretty good job 

on it, although I have to say that it is a little difficult to figure out 

exactly what your true funding needs are. You know, you have in 

your, and I quote from the later part of your statement. ‘‘When we 

can strategically plan for the full impact of law enforcement initiatives we will see a reduction in the volatility we have seen previously in the account over the years.’’

What does that mean exactly? 

Ms. HYLTON. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that for you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Because I think you will get more volatility 

because I assume when you go to OMB you come in with one number and then the back and forth here. 

Ms. HYLTON. As you go through the budget process new initiatives are developed all the time. For example DHS may very well 

develop an initiative tomorrow and decide that is what they want 

to enforce, which would be information unknown to us. 

The point is that in a budget process the more we can strategically plan from the start of the initiative to the end—the full front 

end of law enforcement and prosecution and the back end of the 

process which is the Marshals Service, detention, and prison beds 

the better our protection. The more comprehensively we can do 

that, the more we reduce the volatility of the account and the possibility of anyone having to come forward to request supplementals 

or other funding sources. 

So I think that as a government as we——

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So when you appeared before OMB what 

did you put before them? 

Ms. HYLTON. We put forward what we were seeing at that point. 

I am focused on immigration because that right now is the risk factor. We have projected based on what the Department’s objectives 

were in prosecuting immigration and we allowed for a sizeable 

growth of 12 percent. 

We have seen immigration grow incrementally over the years 

from nine percent growth to a 12 percent growth. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
362 

I feel that, when we appeared before OMB and as we appear 

today, we are in line with that. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. All right. Tell us a little more about these 

IGAs. I am looking over your testimony. [Laughter.] 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But intergovernmental agreements tell me 

a little bit about this. I think most of us have some knowledge of 

that because you look for any space where you can shoe horn somebody in. 

Ms. HYLTON. That is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And then there are other issues in terms of 

the proper reimbursement level. 

And how many do you have? I assume you have what 100s, 

1,000s or how many? 

Ms. HYLTON. We do have 1,900 agreements of which, at any 

given time, 1,200 are utilized. Numbers go up and down based on 

the need and the availability within the State and local government. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And were it not for those IGAs which have 

been going on for what, 30, 40 years or? 

Ms. HYLTON. That is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Ms. HYLTON. That is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You would be up the creek. 

Ms. HYLTON. We would be because, in all honesty, it is advantageous to use private industry in locations where we can capitalize 

on economies of scales, places where we have 4,000 prisoners. It 

wouldn’t be advantageous to outsource and look for 30 beds. 

And so that is where our State and local relationships are so critical. Sixty-five percent of our population are in those IGAs. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Ms. HYLTON. IGA’s are intergovernmental agreements that we 

enter into and sign with the counties and city governments. It is 

actually a win/win across the board for all of us. It does support 

our county and local governments by partnering. Then provide the 

beds and we pay for that in a daily rate. 

We cannot speak enough about the positive impact that it has on 

this account. We were very pleased. One of the reasons we note the 

eIGA is that we really felt that county governments and city governments have been so appreciative of that initiative because it 

automated the entire process. 

Those IGAs are worse than any tax documents that anyone 

would have to fill out. They are very intricate and complicated. 

Automating the IGA Application Process has reduced a lot of hours. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We compliment you on what you call e-Designate and DSN Network. 

Ms. HYLTON. Thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But there are some jurisdictions who when 

they take a look at these intergovernmental agreements understandably feel that there are a lot of other associated costs that 

sort of go into looking after these populations. I know that your 

people do those calculations. I assume there is some uniformity. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
363 

Ms. HYLTON. There is and of course those costs are taken into 

account. The county is able to represent the cost of operating that 

facility and that is what becomes the basis for the negotiations. 

We look to pay our freight for those beds and we negotiate with 

the counties an acceptable rate. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well I know in my neck of the woods there 

has been some, you have done your homework. 

But thank you. 

Ms. HYLTON. I think the IGA will also help with that. It allows 

the counties to better reflect their operating cost and that is what 

we want to accomplish. The—— Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well I know that is the goal. 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You look to the local law enforcement to do, 

you know, a fairly across the board——

Ms. HYLTON. We do. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Evaluation of what the real 

costs are. 

Ms. HYLTON. There are States, such as New Jersey, where the 

State and county governments are feeling the pressure and can’t 

expand. This is something that is real for us. Our focus in 2008 

and 2009 on county governments is on how we can best support 

and keep that infrastructure at the county level, because we know 

we couldn’t survive without it. 

We try to embrace and work with the counties to help them stay 

whole, but they have their own competing priorities of education, 

growth, and highways. So the expansion of jail beds becomes difficult and there is more of a push to get into those beds and it impacts us. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen, looking around this room, you and I are probably the only 

ones here who even know there are such things as Carter liver 

pills. 

They don’t even—they never heard of them. 

Ms. HYLTON. Who is Carter? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is Carter? What are liver pills? 

Ms. HYLTON. I am just kidding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I am confused. I think I heard you say 

that you are fine for 2008? 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is this $60 million base program cost adjustment in your summary of requirements? 

Doesn’t that suggest you need this adjustment? 

Ms. HYLTON. Mr. Chairman, rather than answer that inaccurately, would that be something I could get back to you on? 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Certainly. 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes. When we get into adjustments to base——


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
364 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Ms. HYLTON [continued]. And the base costs. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All right. 

Ms. HYLTON. If that wouldn’t be inconvenient, I would prefer to 

get back to you with an answer. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure. 

Ms. HYLTON. Thank you. 

EFFICIENCY SAVINGS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And how did you arrive at the $54 million efficiency reduction for fiscal year 2009? And what is an efficiency reduction? How do you get to it? How do you compute it? 

Ms. HYLTON. One reason I highlighted those regional transfer 

centers and the ground transfer centers when I spoke earlier was 

to show one of the ways we tried to reduce time in detention and 

how many days we can reasonably achieve in that budget year. 

Our goal with transportation is to reduce time-in-detention by 

four to five days. When you see an efficiency tag like that, we are 

trying to drive that efficiency. I believe we will accomplish this goal 

through the regional transfer and ground transfer centers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is very commendable, but it would have to 

be tied to something. You have to work hard at it. Hope is not 

enough. 

Ms. HYLTON. That is true. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have heard. 

Ms. HYLTON. I will be the first to say that would be a challenge. 

That will be a challenge for us. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This is an estimate that you don’t have a lot of 

confidence in. 

Ms. HYLTON. It is an estimate that I will frankly say is contingent upon adequate prison beds and no radical shifts in what we 

have projected for immigration or law enforcement of initiatives— especially those that evolve outside of this budget cycle. 

I truly believe today versus even four weeks ago that if the prison beds move forward in the supplemental and immigration stays 

with the current growth pattern, the $54 million efficiency reduction can be achieved. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How? 

Ms. HYLTON. I believe I can reduce the time in detention by another four or five days, but we have to have beds to get into. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Because you can push them into other beds? 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. But that is based on a lot of contingencies. 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes everything is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It sounds like quite a wag, is what it sounds 

like. 

The fact that you are requesting, simultaneously with this efficiency reduction, a $60 million get well adjustment to make up for 

costs in the 2008 budget makes it very problematic; I am not sure 

you can depend on that adjustment and I am not sure it is something we should rely on in our considerations of your budget request. 

Ms. HYLTON. It is difficult when we get to the adjustments-tobase issues in this account, because just as everything has rising 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
365 

costs associated with our daily living, the same is true for prisons 

and detention. Inflationary costs can raise a potential problem in 

this account. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are not suggesting the $60 million get well 

is unintended inflationary costs? 

Ms. HYLTON. No, I am not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Thank you very much for your good work and if anybody can 

achieve those efficiency cost reductions, we know you can. So we 

will look forward to working with you as we mark up our budget. 

Thank you very much for your good—— Ms. HYLTON. I appreciate both of you for your time and for staying here today for me. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well let me finish complementing you and then 

you can do that. And I was just going to say thank you for all your 

hard work, we appreciate it and we look forward to working with 

you as we mark up this bill. 

Ms. HYLTON. Okay. Thank you, sir, very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Ms. Hylton. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee within 

the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided 

to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record 

have been retained in the Committee’s permanent files.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING
366 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 980 here 42792C.029
367 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 981 here 42792C.030
368 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 982 here 42792C.031
369 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 983 here 42792C.032
370 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 984 here 42792C.033
371 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 985 here 42792C.034
372 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 986 here 42792C.035
373 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 987 here 42792C.036
374 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 988 here 42792C.037
375 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 989 here 42792C.038
376 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 990 here 42792C.039
377 


wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 991/1000 here 42792C.040
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Clark J.F .................................................................................................................. 277

Dyer, Cindy .............................................................................................................. 203 

Hylton, S.A ............................................................................................................... 277 

Lappin, H.G .............................................................................................................. 277 

Leonhart, M.M ......................................................................................................... 115 

Mueller, R.S., III ...................................................................................................... 71 

Mukasey, M.B .......................................................................................................... 1 

Peed, Carl ................................................................................................................. 203

Sedgwick, Jeffrey ..................................................................................................... 203 

Sullivan, M.J ............................................................................................................ 159 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey 

Page 

Adam Walsh Act ...................................................................................................... 26 

Antitrust Division .................................................................................................... 48, 58 

Assets Forfeiture Fund ............................................................................................ 54 

Border Patrol Agent Prosecutions .......................................................................... 39 

Budget Priorities ...................................................................................................... 16 

Counterterrorism Oversight ................................................................................... 48 

Cyber Security ......................................................................................................... 28 

Detention Standards ................................................................................................ 41 

DNA .......................................................................................................................... 38 

Drug Courts .............................................................................................................. 17 

Earmarks .................................................................................................................. 45 

Eaves-dropping on Mrs. King ................................................................................. 35 

Executive Privilege ............................................................................................ 23, 37, 39 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 42 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act .................................................................... 27 

Grant Funding ......................................................................................................... 47 

Immigration Fraud .................................................................................................. 31 

Impending Crime Wave ........................................................................................... 52 

Inmate Health Care ................................................................................................. 62 

Integrated Wireless Network................................................................ 37, 59, 61, 64, 69 

International Organized Crime and Terrorism ..................................................... 44 

Juvenile Justice Grants........................................................................................... 18, 45 

Law Enforcement Guidance .................................................................................... 44 

Monitorship Contracts ............................................................................................. 46 

Name Check Program ............................................................................................. 57 

National Security Division ...................................................................................... 36 

Opening Statement of Chairman Obey .................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Representative Frelinghuysen .......................................... 2 

Opening Statement of Attorney General Mukasey ............................................... 3 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 39, 41 

Prosecutorial Abuse ................................................................................................. 33 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Obey .............................................................. 51 

Questions Submitted by Representative Aderholt ................................................ 69 

Questions Submitted by Congressman Frelinghuysen ......................................... 65, 67 

Questions Submitted by Congressman Honda ...................................................... 62 

Sentencing Guidelines ............................................................................................. 29 

Southwest Border..................................................................................................... 20, 51 

Supplemental Funding ............................................................................................ 36 

United States Parole Commission .......................................................................... 65, 66 

United States Trustees ............................................................................................ 67 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Worker Abuses ......................................................................................................... 30, 41 

Written Statement of Attorney General Mukasey ................................................ 6 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Director Robert S. Mueller 

Assignment of Agents in Tucson Sector ................................................................. 100 

CNC .......................................................................................................................... 111 

Cybercrime ............................................................................................................... 101 

Development of Budget Request ............................................................................. 110 

DNA Evidence .......................................................................................................... 86 

DNA Samples ........................................................................................................... 86 

FBI Transformation ................................................................................................. 84 

FISA .......................................................................................................................... 88 

FISA Surveillance .................................................................................................... 106 

FY 2009 Budget Needs ............................................................................................ 91 

Gangs ........................................................................................................................ 94 

GWOT Supplemental Request ................................................................................ 92 

Intelligence Analyst Staffing .................................................................................. 112 

International Activities ........................................................................................... 112 

Interrogation Techniques ........................................................................................ 106 

Legat Algeria ............................................................................................................ 89 

Mistaken Identities .................................................................................................. 108 

Narcotics ................................................................................................................... 97

National Security Branch ....................................................................................... 90 

New Technology ....................................................................................................... 88 

NSL Violations ......................................................................................................... 103 

Opening Statement of Congressman Frelinghuysen ............................................ 72 

Opening Statement of Chairman Obey .................................................................. 71 

Opening Statement of Director Mueller ................................................................ 73 

SENTINEL ............................................................................................................... 92 

Southwest Border .................................................................................................... 99 

Surveillance .............................................................................................................. 103 

State and Local Partnerships ................................................................................. 113 

Terrorist Watch List ................................................................................................ 107 

Weapons of Mass Destruction ................................................................................. 97 

Written Statement of Director Mueller ................................................................. 76 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY 

Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart 

Adequacy of FY 2009 Request ................................................................................ 129 

Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 136 

Afghanistan Expansion ........................................................................................... 150 

Business Partnership .............................................................................................. 141 

Drugs and Terrorism ............................................................................................... 137 

Drug Flow Attack Strategy Request ...................................................................... 151 

Electronic Prescriptions .......................................................................................... 157 

International Operations ......................................................................................... 135 

Methamphetamine ................................................................................................... 134 

Measuring Success ................................................................................................... 145 

Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan .......................................................... 115 

Opening Statement by Congressman Frelinghuysen ........................................... 115 

Opening Statement by Acting Administrator Leonhart ....................................... 116 

Prescription Drug Abuse ......................................................................................... 130 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

v 

Southwest Border Operations ................................................................................. 154 

State and Local Assistance ..................................................................................... 153 

Written Statement by Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart .................... 118 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS 

Director Michael J. Sullivan 

ATF Activities in Iraq ............................................................................................. 189 

ATF FY 2009 Budget Shortfall ............................................................................... 169 

Coordination with DHS Along the Border ............................................................. 198 

Explosive Rulemaking ............................................................................................. 192 

Firearms Acoustic Detection ................................................................................... 195 

Gangs ........................................................................................................................ 183 

Graduated Sanctions ............................................................................................... 190 

Gun Dealers along the Border ................................................................................ 187 

Gun Show Enforcement ........................................................................................... 180 

Mexican Gun Tracing .............................................................................................. 180 

NFA Registrations ................................................................................................... 194 

Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan .......................................................... 159 

Opening Statement by Congressman Frelinghuysen ........................................... 160 

Opening Statement by Director Sullivan ............................................................... 160 

Operation Streamline .............................................................................................. 176 

Project Gunrunner ................................................................................................... 172 

Regulation of Potentially Explosive Commodities ................................................ 194 

Sharing Aggregate Firearms Tracing Data ........................................................... 195 

Southwest Border Initiative .................................................................................... 174 

Tiahrt Amendment .................................................................................................. 181 

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism ....................................................... 182 

Written Statement by Director Sullivan ................................................................ 163 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 

SERVICES, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 

Acting Associate Attorney General Jeffrey Sedgwick, Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) 

Director Carl Peed, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

Director Cindy Dyer, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 

Allocation of OVW Funds ........................................................................................ 220 

Applications for Funding ......................................................................................... 224 

Assistance to Victims of Abuse ............................................................................... 269 

Benefits of More COPS on the Streets ................................................................... 225 

Best Practices Serving Grantees ............................................................................ 253 

Community Policing ................................................................................................ 259 

Congressionally Directed Funds ............................................................................. 259 

Coordination between OJP, COPS, and OVW ....................................................... 254 

Coordination with DOD, Veterans Administration and OVW ............................. 265 

COPS Community Outreach ................................................................................... 255 

COPS Hiring Grants ............................................................................................... 263 

COPS on Recidivism issue ...................................................................................... 250 

COPS Perspective on Community Policing ............................................................ 260 

Criminal Justice Programs in High Schools .......................................................... 262 

DNA Initiative ......................................................................................................... 228 

Drug Courts .............................................................................................................. 227 

Effect of Funding Decrease on OJP ICOPS ........................................................... 226 

Effect on OJP of Decrease in Funding ................................................................... 216 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

vi 

Funding Under Grant Consolidation ..................................................................... 219 

Grant Consolidation............................................................................................. 244, 252 

Grant Consolidation Proposal ................................................................................. 223 

Impact of Drugs on Crime ....................................................................................... 217 

Intellectual Property Enforcement ......................................................................... 241 

Is There a Crime Wave and Where Does it Exist ................................................. 239 

JAG Grants and Impact of Cut .............................................................................. 266 

Juvenile Crime ......................................................................................................... 267 

Law Enforcement Unmet Needs ............................................................................. 261 

National Institute of Corrections ............................................................................ 256 

National Protective Order Registry ........................................................................ 246 

OJP Management and Administration .................................................................. 259 

OJP Priorities .......................................................................................................... 267 

OJP Studies on Crime Rate and Recidivism ......................................................... 247 

Opening Remarks of Acting Assistant Attorney General ..................................... 211 

Opening Remarks of Director Peed ........................................................................ 212 

Opening Remarks of Director Dyer ........................................................................ 214 

Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan .......................................................... 203 

Opening Statement by Congressman Frelinghuysen ........................................... 204 

Opening Statement by Congressman Ruppersberger ........................................... 215 

OVW Recent Statistics ............................................................................................ 242 

OVW Timeline for Grant Disbursement ................................................................ 221 

Proposed Grant Consolidation ................................................................................ 211 

Questions Submitted by Congressman Honda ...................................................... 272 

Questions Submitted by Representative Aderholt ................................................ 275 

Questions Submitted by Representative DeLauro ................................................ 273 

Range of Administration Funding Priorities ......................................................... 227 

Reduced Funding for and Restructuring of OJP, OVW, and COPS Budgets ..... 273 

Report-Impending Crime Wave .............................................................................. 247 

Rescissions ................................................................................................................ 257 

Restraining Orders .................................................................................................. 245 

Rise in Juvenile Crime ............................................................................................ 217 

RISS Program .......................................................................................................... 234 

Root Causes of Crime .............................................................................................. 251 

Rural Grants ............................................................................................................ 270 

SCAAP Program........................................................................................... 231, 235, 237 

Salary and Benefits for Law Enforcement Personnel ........................................... 262 

Sexual Predators ...................................................................................................... 256 

Southwest Border Initiative .................................................................................... 237 

Supplemental Appropriations for Drug Enforcement Programs .......................... 275 

Targeting of Funding ............................................................................................... 218 

Timeliness of DNA Analysis ................................................................................... 229 

Tribal Law Enforcement ......................................................................................... 263 

Unfunded Programs ................................................................................................ 253 

Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative ................................................... 268 

Violence Against Women Act of 2005 Grant Program .......................................... 272 

Violent Crime ........................................................................................................... 238 

Written Statement for OJP, COPS, and OVW ...................................................... 205 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

vii 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE 

Director Harley G Lappin, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

Director John F Clark, US Marshals Service (USMS) 

Federal Detention Trustee Stacia A Hylton, Office of the Federal Detention 

Trustee (OFDT) 

Activation of FCI Pollock ........................................................................................ 301 

Adam Walsh Enforcement................................................................................... 338, 347 

Alternatives to Detention ........................................................................................ 371 

BOP Funding/Reprogramming ............................................................................... 303 

BOP Recidivism ....................................................................................................... 305 

Bureau of Prisons Budget Situation ...................................................................... 296 

Bureau of Prisons FY 2008 Needs .......................................................................... 292 

Bureau of Prisons Staffing .................................................................................. 292, 300 

Citizenship of International Terrorists .................................................................. 318 

Contraband and Staff Searches .............................................................................. 317 

Contract Confinment ............................................................................................... 377 

Counterterrorism ..................................................................................................... 307 

Courthouse Facility Improvements ........................................................................ 348 

Crack Sentencing Amendment............................................................................ 306, 307 

Crowding Issues ....................................................................................................... 312 

Detention Capacity Planning .................................................................................. 368 

Detention Confinement Standards ......................................................................... 369 

Detention Standards ................................................................................................ 374 

Drug Treatment Program ....................................................................................... 309 

Efficiency Savings .................................................................................................... 364 

Gangs and Counterterrorism .................................................................................. 316 

Healthcare Costs ...................................................................................................... 315 

Inmate Medical Care ............................................................................................... 310 

Inmate Population ................................................................................................... 294 

Intergovernmental Agreements .............................................................................. 362 

Inquiry from a Constituent ..................................................................................... 297 

Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System .............................................. 372 

Non-US Citizen Inmates ......................................................................................... 318 

OCDETF ................................................................................................................... 341 

OFDT FY 2009 Population Projections .................................................................. 358 

Opening Remarks by Chairman Mollohan ............................................................ 277 

Opening Statement of John F Clark, USMS ......................................................... 325 

Opening Statement of Harley G Lappin, BOP ...................................................... 278 

Opening Statements on Office of the Federal Detention Trustee ........................ 349 

Population Projections ............................................................................................. 366 

Programs to Reduce Recidivism ............................................................................. 313 

Prison Chapel Library ............................................................................................. 297 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Mollohan ....................................................... 366 

Questions Submitted by Congressman Honda ...................................................... 374 

Questions Submitted by Representative Rogers ................................................... 377 

Rated Capacity/Overcrowding ................................................................................. 299 

Reimbursable Agreement with BlCE ..................................................................... 321 

Southwest Border Activities ................................................................................... 342 

Stun/Lethal Fences .................................................................................................. 301 

Tele-health ............................................................................................................... 320 

Tele-health Programs .............................................................................................. 323 

Terrorists .................................................................................................................. 317 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

viii 

Threats Against the Judiciary ................................................................................ 345 

USMS Adequacy of FY 2009 Request .................................................................... 337 

Witness and Judicial Protection ............................................................................. 340 

Written Statement of John F Clark, USMS .......................................................... 328 

Written Statement of Harley G Lappin, BOP ....................................................... 280 

Written Statement of Stacia Hylton, OFDT .......................................................... 353 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING