COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

MIKE RINGLER, STEPHANIE MYERS, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, 

DIANA SIMPSON, and COLIN SAMPLES, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

Page 

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

Federal Bureau of Investigation .......................................... 165 

Drug Enforcement Administration ..................................... 257 

U.S. Bureau of Prisons ........................................................... 359 

Office of Justice Programs .................................................... 439 

Legal Services Corporation .................................................. 519 

Assessment of Reentry Initiatives, Recidivism and 

Corrections Spending ......................................................... 605 

APPENDIX I .............................................................................. 685 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
PART 7—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

MIKE RINGLER, STEPHANIE MYERS, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, 

DIANA SIMPSON, and COLIN SAMPLES, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

Page 

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

Federal Bureau of Investigation .......................................... 165 

Drug Enforcement Administration ..................................... 257 

U.S. Bureau of Prisons ........................................................... 359 

Office of Justice Programs .................................................... 439 

Legal Services Corporation .................................................. 519 

Assessment of Reentry Initiatives, Recidivism and 

Corrections Spending ......................................................... 605 

APPENDIX I .............................................................................. 685 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

67–259 WASHINGTON : 2011 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

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 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2012 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WITNESS 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. 

The hearing will come to order. I am going to welcome you, Mr. 

Attorney General. You are testifying today on the fiscal year 2012 

budget request. Independent of recissions and scorekeeping adjustments, you are seeking new discretionary budget authority of $28.4 

billion, an increase of $336 million or 1.2 percent above fiscal year 

2010 and current CR levels. 

Your budget request for fiscal year 2012 is in large part driven 

by rapidly growing requirements in your detention and incarceration accounts. You are requesting program increases of $461 million just to provide the necessary capacity for Federal prisoners 

and the secure housing of detainees in the custody of U.S. Marshals Service. 

There are small yet important increases requested in the area of 

national security. We will have some questions on that. As in the 

case of last year, it was unclear what direction you are going to 

take in attempting or not to carry out the President’s executive 

order related to the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Congress has not 

provided any of the resources requested in the past for these purposes, and the fiscal year 2012 request does not include new requests for prosecutions or for acquisition of the detention facility in 

the U.S. 

We will also have some questions about gangs and other issues 

like that. 

But before we go to your testimony, I want to recognize the ranking minority member, Mr. Fattah, for any comments he might 

make. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank you, Chairman Wolf, for scheduling 

this very important hearing. 

And I want to thank the Attorney General for his appearance 

and participation this morning. 

And moreover, I want to thank the Attorney General for the extraordinary leadership that is being provided by the Department, 

and we see it in the everyday headlines that showcase major arrests, in terms of Medicare fraud, organized crime, and gang preVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
2 

vention. The work of the Department is obviously vital to our country, and we appreciate your appearance today and look forward to 

you addressing the appropriation needs of this Department. Given 

the national security duties relative to many of the agencies in the 

Department, it is critically important that you have the resources 

you need to carry out your duties. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. I thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. Rogers was going to be here to make a statement, and I 

think he is at the Republican Conference. So when he comes, we 

may break for that. 

With that, Mr. Attorney General, we welcome you and look forward to hearing your testimony. And your full statement will appear in the record. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department of Justice and to provide an update on the Department’s 

progress as well as the Department’s priorities. 

Today I come to you on behalf of my colleagues of more than 

117,000 dedicated men and women who serve our Nation’s Justice 

Department in positions and offices all around the world. Above all, 

I come on behalf of my fellow citizens. As our Nation’s chief law 

enforcement officer, protecting the safety of the American people is 

my most important obligation. At every level of the Department, 

this is our primary focus. 

As you know, in recent years, our Nation has confronted some of 

the most significant terrorist threats on the homeland since the 

September 11th attacks, and the Justice Department has played a 

vital role in combating these threats. Since 9/11, there have been 

hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related 

violations in Federal court. And during 2009 and 2010, the Justice 

Department charged more defendants in Federal court with the 

most serious terror-related offenses than in any similar period 

since September 11th. 

Just last week, in Chairman Wolf’s district, Zachary Chesser, a 

resident of northern Virginia and a United States citizen, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for attempting to provide material support to the terrorist organization al-Shabaab, communicating 

threats against Americans and encouraging violent jihadists to impede and obstruct the work of law enforcement. 

Also last week, FBI agents arrested an individual in Texas for 

the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Thanks to the 

around-the-clock work of hundreds of FBI agents, analysts and 

Federal prosecutors, this alleged plot was thwarted. 

Beyond our critical national security efforts, the Department has 

made, I believe, extraordinary progress in fulfilling the pledge that 

I made before this subcommittee nearly two years ago, that we 

would restore integrity and transparency at every level of our work 

and that under my leadership, every decision made and every policy implemented would be based on the facts, the law and the best 

interest of the American people, regardless of political pressures or 

consequences. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
3 

I am also proud to report that the Department has taken meaningful steps to safeguard civil rights in our workplaces, in housing 

markets, in voting booths and in other areas; to protect our environment; and to bring our Nation’s fight against financial and 

health care fraud to unprecedented levels. In fact, in the last year, 

the Department has announced the largest financial and health 

care fraud takedowns on record. And in fiscal year 2010, the Department’s Civil Division secured the highest level of health care 

fraud recoveries in history, $2.5 billion, as well as the second-largest annual recovery of civil fraud claims. 

Our Criminal Division saw similar success. In fiscal year 2010, 

the Criminal Division participated in efforts, including joint enforcement actions with our U.S. Attorneys Offices throughout the 

country, that secured more than $3 billion in judgments and in settlements. 

In addition to our work to secure these recoveries, we have made 

strategic investments, and we have taken historic actions to combat 

gangs and both national and international organized crime networks. We have harnessed the new tools and authorities that Congress made available to us to investigate and to prosecute hate 

crimes. And we have responded to, and must continue to respond 

to, the recent nationwide surge of law enforcement shootings by ensuring that law enforcement officers have the tools, the training 

and the protective equipment that they need and deserve. 

This is of particular concern to me. This is a very, very real concern of mine. That is why today, overall, I am here to ask for your 

support of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department of Justice. Among the priorities identified in this budget are 

strengthening national security; preventing and combating crime; 

maintaining safe prison and detention facilities; supporting effective intervention and reentry programs; and assisting our State, 

local and tribal law enforcement partners. 

The budget proposal also places a premium on achieving new 

savings and efficiencies. It also reflects hard choices, such as program reductions that we have made in order to focus our resources 

on our highest priority programs, to respond to current fiscal realities and to act as sound stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

The fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution has presented significant budget challenges for the Department, given that the current 

cost of operations and staffing is considerably higher than it was 

last year. I have announced financial restrictions that I consider 

difficult but necessary, including ordering a temporary hiring 

freeze and curtailing nonessential spending. My hope is that these 

measures will preempt more severe measures in the future. 

But even with these directives in place, I submit to you that the 

Department’s fiscal year 2012 budget request, which itself reflects 

many tough decisions, is essential to our national security and law 

enforcement work, among other priorities that matter deeply to the 

American people. With these investments and with your support 

and steadfast partnership, I am very confident that we can continue to build on our past successes and make good on our core 

promises of ensuring safety, opportunity and justice for all. Thank 

you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
4 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 10 here 67259A.001
5 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 11 here 67259A.002
6 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 12 here 67259A.003
7 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 13 here 67259A.004
8 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 14 here 67259A.005
9 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 15 here 67259A.006
10 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

And I understand from your staff that a member of your family 

could have a health care problem. If at any time you feel it necessary to leave, that would be terribly appropriate. What we would 

do is just recess the hearing, and we would reconvene in a month 

or two or whatever would fit in your schedule. 

So I do want you to know, as a father of five kids and fifteen 

grandkids, to me, family is number one. If you feel at any time, 

just tell us, and we will recess the hearing. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS

Mr. WOLF. The Freedom of Information Act, I briefly discussed 

this, but I wanted this to be on the record. A review of recent responses to Freedom of Information requests by the Department 

conducted by the former Civil Rights Division attorney, Jay Christian Adams, showed that political and ideological factors may have 

influenced how quickly responses were provided. 

He provides a list of information from the Department’s Freedom 

of Information Act logs, including the requester and how long the 

Department took to comply: Fred McBride, from the ACLU redistricting coordinator, got same-day service. Kristin Clarke, NAACP 

Legal Defense Fund, who sought the dismissal of the New Black 

Panther party case, same day service. Jerry Seper of the Washington Times, 6 months. Jed Babbin of Human Events, 6 months. 

In May of 2009, I made a Freedom of Information request pertaining to your efforts to secretly release a number of Guantanamo 

Bay detainees and resettle them into northern Virginia. The Department failed to provide the information I requested after many, 

many months, never even responded. The Freedom of Information 

Act requires the Department to respond to a request within 20 

days and to provide the requested documents within a reasonable 

time frame afterwards. Why did Mr. Adams find that no conservative or no Republican or no one on the other side received the 

reply in the time period prescribed by law? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure what research Mr. 

Adams has done. I have looked into the issues that were raised in 

a blog post or an article or something that he wrote. And the best 

I can determine, there is no ideological component with regard to 

the response times that the Justice Department makes to these requests. More complex requests take more time. Requests that are 

relatively simple in nature can be answered faster. But I can assure you that there is no ideological component with regard to how 

we respond to FOIA requests. 

Mr. WOLF. I have never even received an answer. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I will certainly look into anything that you have submitted that is outstanding. We try to respond to letters, to FOIA requests. We have tried to make as part 

of this transparency effort that I talked about in my opening statement, we try to be very responsive when it comes to FOIA requests, whoever submits them. We have metrics that we use to 

gauge our success in that effort. And I think we have done pretty 

well reducing our FOIA backlog. To the extent there are still 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
11 

issues, I would be more than glad to work with you on those. Our 

hope is to try to be responsive to the requests that we get. 

Mr. WOLF. Could you get back to us by the end of the week? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will endeavor to work on this as 

quickly as we can and try to delineate those things that are outstanding. 

[The information follows:] 

FOIA REQUESTS

The Department has worked with the Chairman and Subcommittee staff to clarify 

and expeditiously respond to this request. 

I have to say that in preparation for the hearing, one of the 

things I asked about was where we stood with regard to responses 

to the letters, I guess, that you had sent. I was told by the folks 

in the Department that we only have at this point two outstanding 

responses with regard to letters that you have sent us. 

Mr. WOLF. The last letter was 11 months in answering and came 

in anticipation of the hearing. Eleven months is not a very good 

time for the Department. We will wait until the end of the week. 

And short of that, I think we are going to ask for an IG to look 

at it, because I think you have an obligation certainly to treat Freedom of Information Act requests fairly. So we will see how we go 

by the end of the week. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Last Wednesday, you announced that you and the President have 

concluded that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, as applied 

to the same-sex couples under State law, is unconstitutional. As a 

result, the Justice Department no longer intends to defend the law 

against two ongoing challenges. When an administration makes a 

determination that a duly enacted, overwhelmingly supported statute—I think it passed 360 to some here in the Congress—is unconstitutional, Congress has a reason to be concerned. After all, the 

Justice Department has a duty to defend the constitutionality of 

the laws of the United States and has a long history of doing so. 

As the Washington Post noted in a February 23rd editorial ‘‘this 

does not mean that Justice Department officials must believe in 

the wisdom of the law or its policy implications, only that there are 

good faith and reasonable arguments to be made in defense. It is 

in short a very low bar. That is the approach taken by former Solicitor General Ted Olson in robustly defending a campaign finance 

reform law that Citizen Olson, a conservative Republican, would 

surely have rejected.’’ 

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by a vote of 342 

to 67 in the House. The very fact that this law passed the House 

and the Senate and was signed into law by the President provides 

a strong presumption that the law is constitutional. In addition, I 

believe almost 40 States have passed a similar law. 

According to CRS, the Department of Justice is legally obligated 

to defend all acts of Congress where a reasonable and good faith 

argument can be made that the act is constitutional. I realize ‘‘reasonable’’ in this case is defined by DOJ, but the fact that DOJ has 

defended this Act previously, section 3 in particular, fatally undermines your assertion that no reasonable arguments can be made in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
12 

its defense. Do you contend that your previous arguments in defense of this act were not made in good faith? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. 

The situation that we face is a different one. The previous arguments that we made in support of the Act occurred in jurisdictions 

where there was an existing standard, the rational basis standard, 

a more permissive standard. Applying that standard, the feeling in 

the Department was that we could in fact defend the constitutionality of the statute. Two cases at issue exist in the Second Circuit, which does not have a standard with regard to these cases. 

We then had to make the determination what standard should 

apply. 

We looked in the Department. I made a recommendation to the 

President that, given the discrimination that gays and lesbians 

have endured in our Nation’s history and for other reasons, a 

heightened scrutiny standard was appropriate. Applying the 

heightened scrutiny standard, as opposed to the rational basis 

standard, we made the determination that the statute could not 

pass constitutional muster. The President instructed me not to defend the statute on that basis after I made a recommendation to 

him that we did not think it could pass constitutional muster under 

a heightened scrutiny standard. 

Mr. WOLF. Your decision to abandon your duty to defend this law 

arose in proceedings in circuits where no controlling legal precedents exist. Considering the fact that DOJ has vigorously defended 

the law in the past, can you see why this would be viewed as a case 

of political opportunism? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I cannot assess how other people 

would view this. I can tell you that what we did was apply the 

facts and the law in a neutral and detached way. We made the determination that the announcement that I made was appropriate. 

It was not a decision that I took lightly. We take very seriously our 

responsibility to defend statutes that Congress has passed. We 

have defended the very statute that we are talking about in those 

circuits where there was existing law and where we thought the 

statute could pass constitutional muster on that lower standard. 

It is unusual, but it occasionally happens that the Department 

will refuse to defend a statute that Congress has passed. There 

were a number of instances where that has occurred in the past. 

In 1990, now Chief Justice Roberts declined to defend a statute 

that Congress had passed in the case of Metro Broadcasting v. 

FCC. So it is not unheard of, but it is unusual. 

Mr. WOLF. The Washington Post editorial board pointed out in an 

editorial that the Justice Department is institutionally tasked with 

defending duly-enacted congressional legislation. This does not 

mean the Justice Department officials must believe in the wisdom 

of the law or its policy implications; only that there are good-faith 

and reasonable arguments to be made in its defense. It is in short 

a very low bar. That is the approach, as I mentioned earlier. 

The Obama administration’s tactic, it says, could come back to 

haunt it. What would the President say, for example, if a conservative Republican administration in the future attempted to sabotage the Obama health care initiative by refusing to defend it 

against constitutional attacks? Are there other laws down there 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
13 

that you find difficult to make a reasonable defense on that we 

should expect? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Again, we take seriously the obligation that we have. 

We have sent letters to Congress in the past. During the course 

of this Administration, I have signed each one of those. On maybe 

10 occasions, for a variety of reasons, some technical, we have declined to defend a statute that Congress has passed. We look at 

these on a case-by-case basis, mindful of the historic obligation that 

we have and that we have followed to defend statutes that Congress has passed. We have shown no unwillingness to do that. This 

is irrespective of what we think about the wisdom of the statutes 

that the Congress has passed. 

Mr. WOLF. In the past, DOJ has encouraged Congress to engage 

attorneys in the defense of acts that the Justice Department would 

not defend. Do you encourage Congress to do that in this case? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We did what I think was the responsible thing, which was to announce our position well in advance of 

the deadlines that have been set by the court that is involved so 

that Congress can make its own determination as to how it wants 

to proceed. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I think it is highly unusual for the Justice Department to pick and choose on something that has passed the 

Congress by a vote of over 360 votes, signed by the President, by 

a Democratic President, by President Clinton. There are similar 

laws in 40 different States. It almost looks like a political decision 

more than anything else that I can say. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will say that I think the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing private homosexual conduct are, in fact, unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ act. Several lower courts 

have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. 

So I think that the landscape has changed fairly fundamentally. 

And when one also looks at the historic discrimination that gays 

and lesbians have been subjected to, I think the decision that the 

President made, upon my recommendation, is appropriate. 

Mr. WOLF. I think it is inappropriate, and I think it is a bad decision, but we will see how history treats it. 

NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING

Your budget request states that defending national security from 

both internal and external threats remains the Department’s highest priority, yet the funding increases for national security programs are fairly modest, especially when compared to the increases 

for prisons, $461 million, and for COPS hiring, $302 million. The 

increase in the national security programs are $128.6 million and 

are almost all in the FBI’s budget. This is less than half the 

amount you sought for such increases in the fiscal year 2011 budget, none of which have been funded. What are the biggest gaps in 

fulfilling the Department’s national security mission, and how does 

this budget address those gaps? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think one of the things that we need 

to do is make sure that we have the intelligence capabilities that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
14 

we need, that we have bodies in order to do the very important 

work that has been set upon us. We have to have a very robust 

FBI. The FBI is really at the heart of our counterterrorism efforts. 

And it is for that reason that we have requested additional monies 

there. 

Given the lean budget times, we have tried to formulate a budget 

that will respond to the needs and the responsibilities that we have 

while at the same time being mindful of the fact that we are not 

in the situation where, frankly, we were just a couple of years ago. 

I think the budget that we have submitted will allow us to fulfill 

our national security responsibilities in addition to the other things 

that you have mentioned. 

Mr. WOLF. I am going to ask a couple more, and then, Mr. 

Fattah, I will be going to you so you can know. 

GUANTANAMO DETAINEES

You have sought funding in previous years to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in U.S. courts and to acquire and fit out U.S. prison space for their detention and incarceration. The Congress has 

not provided the funding, and there is no request for any such activities in your fiscal year 2012 request. Can you update the committee on exactly what plans are and what budget requirements 

are, if any, for activities related to the Department’s responsibilities under the executive orders on Guantanamo? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is still the intention of the Administration to close Guantanamo. Guantanamo serves as a recruiting 

tool for al-Qaeda. All of the intelligence tells us that. It has served 

as a wedge between the United States and some of its traditional 

allies. Countless numbers of people who are steeped in these 

issues, Republicans as well as Democrats, have indicated that the 

closure of Guantanamo will help us in our fight against those who 

have sworn to do harm to the American people and American interests around the world. 

We want to close Guantanamo. We have also indicated that we 

will make decisions about how we want to do this. We have to deal 

with congressional statutes, restrictions that have been put in 

place, unwisely so, I think, as I indicated in the letter that I sent 

to Congress about those restrictions. The President in a signing 

statement indicated that he thought they were unwise and that he 

would work to have them repealed. I agree with the President’s 

statements. We have to deal, however, with that reality in making 

determinations as we structure the budget request that we send up 

to you. 

Mr. WOLF. Just for the record, I want to make sure it is answered. The thought that Guantanamo Bay is a recruitment tool— 

the first bombing of the World Trade Center took place before 

Guantanamo Bay was there. The bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; Khobar towers; USS Cole. Even in the 

previous Congress, there was no will, which was a Democratic Congress, to really close Guantanamo and most Members strongly disagree with the administration and you on moving Khalid Sheikh 

Mohammed to New York City. So what are the plans? You have 

been quoted on previous occasions. What are the plans now? What 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
15 

should someone expect with regard to Guantanamo and with 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, we are going to work 

to try to close Guantanamo. We put together a task force that included law enforcement personnel, people from the Intelligence 

Community, lawyers, to look at the 242 people who were in Guantanamo when this Administration took office. I think the count now 

is about 170 or so. We have categorized each of those people, put 

them into appropriate dockets, in an attempt to close Guantanamo. 

Again, I start my day at 8:30 every morning with a briefing about 

the threats for the past 24 hours. It is a compilation of all that the 

Intelligence Community has found. I am not revealing anything to 

say that, not every day, but I think on a fairly consistent basis, indications are that the existence of Guantanamo is something that 

al-Qaeda uses in its recruiting effort. It is simply a fact. 

You are right, those incidents that you talked about occurred before the existence of Guantanamo. But Guantanamo fairly or unfairly exists as a thing that is used against us by those who have 

sworn to harm us and who have in the past demonstrated a capability to harm us. And it is for that reason that we feel as strongly 

as we do, and are as determined as we are, to close that facility. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think it will be closed by the end of the President’s first term? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know. We will do all that we 

can. We have to, obviously, work with Congress. Congress has put 

barriers in place to what I think we should be doing, so we will 

have to try to work through those restrictions and work with our 

allies to try to come up with a way in which we can do this. 

TERRORISM RECIDIVISM

Mr. WOLF. I am concerned about terrorist recidivism among 

those transferred from Guantanamo back to their home countries 

or third countries. Your head of Legislative Affairs just recently 

again—this is another indication—recently replied to my letter of 

last March—that is 11 months—about these concerns. In the intervening 11 months, the situation has gotten worse. 

In December, the DNI released assessment that 150 former 

Gitmo detainees are confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorism or insurgent activities. That is 25 percent of all of those released and a substantial increase over previous reports. The number of confirmed recidivists increased from 27 to 81. Presumably 

these transfers were only done when adequate security measures 

were pledged by the receiving government. 

What is the Department doing to make sure that these governments can now live up to the supervision, particularly in light of 

what has taken place in some of those governments around the 

country, around the world? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Recidivism is obviously something 

that we take very seriously. And those people who go back to the 

fight—I guess that is the expression that is used—are people who 

we will hunt down and bring to justice. 

Mr. WOLF. Have any Americans been killed by anyone who has 

gone back to the fight, as you say? 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
16 

RECIDIVISM OF DETAINEES TRANSFERRED

The Department takes extremely seriously any incidence of recidivism of detainees transferred out of the Guantanamo Detention Facility, which is why all transfer 

decisions have been based on comprehensive reviews of intelligence and threat information. Since January 2009, the Administration has transferred 67 detainees in 

Guantanamo Detention Facility to foreign countries. Of these 67, three are confirmed recidivists and two are suspected recidivists. Prior to January 2009, 535 detainees were transferred and of these detainees, 79 are confirmed recidivists and 66 

are suspected recidivists. 

The Department is not the entity within the Government that maintains incident 

specific information related to these confirmed and suspected recidivists. The Office 

of the Director of National Intelligence may be able to provide additional information in response to your question. However, as stated, we take extremely seriously 

any incidence of recidivism of detainees transferred out of the Guantanamo Detention Facility, and are working across the government and with partner governments 

to minimize risk and keep the American people safe. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not aware of that. I don’t know. 

Mr. WOLF. Wouldn’t that be something to find out, though? If we 

had somebody and released somebody, and he then killed somebody. The Administration released several back to Afghanistan. To 

have somebody from Guantanamo Bay who has been down there 

serving with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be released back to Afghanistan, and the Administration—you were releasing people back 

to Yemen, only stopping after a number of people raised the issue, 

saying they are concerned. So I guess it could be checked for the 

records to see if any who have been released or have been captured 

or have been picked up have been involved with regard to the 

death of any Americans? 

Attorney General HOLDER. As one looks at the rate of recidivism, 

I think there is an interesting statistic. With regard to those that 

have been released during the time of the Obama Administration, 

we have a recidivism rate of about 7 percent that compares to a 

rate of about 25 percent under the previous Administration. I think 

that is a function of the fact that we have been very careful in how 

we made determinations as to how people at Guantanamo should 

be treated. 

And the numbers with regard to those who have been released 

during this Administration, we are talking about the possibility— 

I guess of the 67 people that have been transferred, there have 

been 2 that have been confirmed, and then 3 who are suspected of 

re-engaging. That is 3 possibles; 2 confirmed of the 67. As I said, 

that comes to about 7 percent. 

Again, any kind of recidivism is serious and something that we 

take seriously. But also note that since 2009, there has been a congressional restriction that we have had to run by Congress the people who in fact were going to be released from Guantanamo. That 

has been done in every case in which this Administration has released anybody from Guantanamo. We have never heard an objection from anybody in Congress about that. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Attorney General, I have objected, number one. 

And number two, I offered an amendment which was rejected. We 

hope to offer it again to make those releases public so the public 

knows. They are all top secret. We take a look at every one that 

is done, but most Members of Congress don’t know who is being released, when they are being released. So you haven’t heard anyVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
17 

thing because there has been no disclosure and dialogue. The 

amendment that I had would have made it public. 

So I guess I am going to go to Mr. Fattah. The last question is, 

can we expect any additional transfers in the near future? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are congressional restrictions that we have in place. We still are endeavoring to close Guantanamo, and we will try to continue those efforts, but we will also 

be mindful of the obligations we have under existing congressional 

restrictions and communicate whatever we have to communicate to 

Congress. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

GUANTANAMO—RULE OF LAW

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And obviously, a wide 

area of issues has been covered, but why don’t we start where you 

left off on Guantanamo. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared 

before a panel discussion here in the Congress almost a decade ago, 

after 9/11, and they were having this discussion about the United 

States and our ideals as a nation, as a country that operates under 

the rule of law. And the chairman would recall that under President Bush, the first President Bush—I think the chairman even 

joined in—there were complaints lodged against China for arresting people with no charges being made public and no trial. And so 

there were no charges. There were no trials. And we said that 

China was operating in a way in which it was in violation of international law and under the guise of a country operating under the 

rule of law. 

The biggest concern about Guantanamo is that our own country—and I go back to Speaker Gingrich. I asked him this question. 

I said, given post-9/11, given Guantanamo, how do we talk about 

the rule of law in international company? How do we say it is okay 

now to arrest someone without charges, with secret evidence, hold 

them indefinitely and say that is a permissible fact, given our criticisms of China and criticisms of other countries acting in this way? 

So I am less concerned about al-Qaeda using it as a recruitment 

tool. I am more concerned about our own justification for how we 

take someone, arrest them, don’t make the basis of the arrest 

known, don’t allow them to have an attorney, don’t try them at any 

point and hold them indefinitely at Guantanamo, and how we then 

say as a nation that we are operating under the law. 

So my concern is a little bit different from the chairman, and I 

think that it takes away our ability. When you saw President 

Bush, Sr., aggressively attack China for doing this, I wonder what 

we would do today, given our own actions. 

But I do think that the chairman makes an important note that 

people have been released who have returned to activities that are 

of concern to us. They have been released under the previous administration with complete silence by those on the other side of the 

aisle in the House who now selectively want to attack this administration, even though the rate of recidivism, as you point out, is 

drastically different and Congress has approved of these releases. 

So I think that there are politics in this and I think that we 

should try to get politics away from this question of national secuVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
18 

rity; let’s actually focus on what is important to our country. And 

in that regard, I want to go to the chairman’s original point. 

FUNDING IMPACTS OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION

A significant part of the FBI’s responsibility is in the area of national security. And I want to know, given the short-term CR, given 

the budget request for next year, where you see the level of agents 

in terms of—particularly given the fact that over 40 percent of 

their responsibilities are in the area of national security and it was 

the desire of the Congress not to have cuts in the area of national 

security—whether than any of these would be impacted? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am very concerned about the ability 

to run the Department in a way that is consistent with the obligations that we have if this CR were to continue. We have responsibilities on a national security front that we have addressed in the 

2012 budget, even though the increases are frankly not as large as 

I would like them to be. There are nevertheless increases. We have 

tried, as I said, to come up with a budget that deals with the fiscal 

reality that we confront. I am particularly worried about the Bureau of Prisons and the responsibilities that we have there with regard to the intake that comes our way because prosecutors are 

doing what we expect them to do and agents are doing what we 

expect them to do. At the current levels that we have in the continuing resolution, we are going to run into a wall at some point. 

But to get more particularly to the question that you have asked, 

I am also worried that, with regard to the hiring needed to stay 

in front of these national security issues that are the responsibility 

of the Department, we have to get beyond this continuing resolution. I have tried to take into account the continuing resolution, 

and I have put in place a hiring freeze and done other things. But 

that can only tide us over for so long. So I would hope that through 

my testimony, through the interaction that hopefully the Administration will be having with members of this committee and Congress as a whole, that we will have a resolution of the budget 

issues that now divide us so that we will have the monies that we 

need to protect the American people. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. FATTAH. The Defense of Marriage Act. Any time that in a 

court of law we are arguing that someone’s rights should be restricted in our country, the basis of the scrutiny of the court is an 

important one. So the point that this should be handled under 

heightened scrutiny I think, at least for myself and I believe for a 

majority of the American people that would agree, that any time 

we are going to trample on someone’s rights or restrict them, it 

should take a very high level of scrutiny by the court. And I think 

that when we have my colleagues quoting the Washington Post editorial, which is not a normal thing for Members who sometimes are 

on the opposite side of the administration, you can obviously see 

that there is a great deal of interest in this matter. But it apparently is the case that there have been times in the past where the 

Department—‘‘past’’ meaning outside of this administration— 

where the Department has not gone into court with arguments that 

they cannot believe in as constitutionally legitimate in previous adVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
19 

ministrations. And I want to make sure that we enter those for the 

record, and we will, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
20 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 41 67259A.007
21 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 42 67259A.008
22 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 43 67259A.009
23 

But as to the point about the Administration’s decision, as I 

would understand it, the Administration has said that it will still 

require upholding the letter of the law, but you will not allow your 

attorneys to go into court and argue something that on its face 

doesn’t meet the scrutiny that would be required? Is that where the 

Administration is on this? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is actually a very important distinction. We will not defend the constitutionality of the 

statute, but until the statute has either been changed by Congress 

or there is a definitive judicial interpretation of it or ruling with 

regard to it, we will continue to enforce the law because it is a law 

that does exist on the books. So we will enforce the statute, but we 

will not defend its constitutionality. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Could you talk a little bit about the work of the Department in 

the area of combatting human trafficking? 

Attorney General HOLDER. This is something that is of great interest, not only to the Department, but to this Administration as 

a whole. We have made this a priority. We have an Administrationwide effort to deal with the problem of human trafficking. We have 

made budget requests in that regard. When one looks at the problems that exist, not only in this Nation but around the world, it 

seems to me that this is something that we have to make a priority. You have those people who are at greatest risk being taken 

advantage of, unfortunately—young people especially. It is something that I have really tried to focus on at the Department and 

also in conjunction with my colleagues in other executive branch 

agencies. The Secretary of State leads our efforts on the international side. 

MEDICARE FRAUD

Mr. FATTAH. I referenced in my opening statement your recent 

activities regarding Medicare fraud and organized crime. If you 

could comment on the Department’s recent efforts and successes in 

that regard and what appropriations requests in your fiscal year 

2012 budget would be important in continuing those efforts? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have been particularly successful, 

I think, when it comes to our fight against fraud efforts. As I have 

indicated in my opening statement, when it comes to health care 

fraud and other fraud-related recoveries that we have made under 

the False Claims Act, we have recovered billions of dollars for the 

American people. With additional resources, we can increase the 

amount of money that we get back for the American people, and 

we have made budget requests in that regard. 

When it comes to organized crime, this is something that continues to be an issue that has to be focused on by the Department 

of Justice. I was in New York about 4 or 5 weeks ago to announce 

a major takedown that we did of organized crime figures—the largest single takedown of organized crime figures in the history of this 

Nation. And it shows the breadth of organized crime activity from 

those things that seem relatively small in scale to things that are 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
24 

larger and more traditionally seem to be in control—the attempts 

to control the docks and union activity and things of that nature. 

So organized crime continues to be something that we have to 

focus on. There is a wide range of things that the Department of 

Justice has on its plate beyond that which is relatively new, the 

national security side. And what I have come to call these traditional functions are things I have tried to focus on, give attention 

to and make sure that we have adequate resources to try to address. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

And I will catch up on the next round. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I will wait until the next round. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General, it is good to have you back here. Send greetings to your wife who is a citizen of my hometown. 

Attorney General HOLDER. From Mobile? 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, sir. 

In a minute, I want to go to some questions specific to the Gulf 

Coast Claims Facility, the process set up by the administration. 

But I would like to pick up on the line of questioning that the 

chairman and the ranking member had. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

First, about DOMA, since it appears that the Department is not 

planning to defend DOMA and since, as you know, we are operating in a continuing resolution trying to finish the budgeting process for this fiscal year, could you give us any idea of how much 

money would be saved by the Department in not defending this, 

even though there is strong disagreement from many in Congress 

of this position? And would any of those monies be available in 

terms of returning to the process? Since you won’t be defending it, 

those are monies that will not be spent by the Department. Would 

you have any idea how much money that would be? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure we save any money, 

frankly. The people who would be defending the statute, were we 

to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice who 

will not be spending their time doing that. They will be spending 

their time doing other things. I am not sure that I see any savings 

as a result of the decision that I announced with the President. 

HYPOTHETICAL CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

Mr. BONNER. And then, as a follow-up to Guantanamo—again, 

that was the original line of questioning. A few days ago, the CIA 

director said that if we were to capture Osama bin Laden, that he 

would very likely end up in Guantanamo. Is there a conflict within 

the administration that the CIA Director would make that statement and yet you, in answering to Chairman Wolf, continue to advocate a position that it is this administration’s view that Guantanamo should be closed? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the Administration speaks 

with one voice. It is true that Director Panetta did indicate that in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
25 

his testimony. He issued a statement later that evening that was 

consistent with what the Director of National Intelligence said at 

the hearing with Director Panetta. And I think the Administration’s position is—this is something that we have thought about, 

that we have tried to work on and prepare for. And were bin Laden 

to come into our possession, the national security team would consider its obligations and make a decision as to how he would be 

treated. 

GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY

Mr. BONNER. As I said earlier, I want to switch gears to something that is parochial to me but really is important to the whole 

country. Because as you know—I think you were certainly involved 

in it—that was the impression—back when the President announced last year, in response to the worst environmental oil spill 

in American history, the creation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 

and his naming through an agreement worked with BP and the administration—and again, it was our understanding that the Justice 

Department was heavily involved in this—to the appointment of 

Mr. Ken Feinberg to be the administrator of this. In the opinion 

of this Member, who represents Mobile, Alabama, and the coastal 

counties of my State, the GCCF has been a dismal failure. 

Despite continued and direct engagement with Mr. Feinberg to 

address the systematic shortcomings of his organization, there appears to be no improvement on the horizon, and consistency and 

transparency remain problematic. Let me give you a quick example. Based on the GCCF’s own web page, last week—there are two 

coastal counties, as you know, in my home State, Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Last week, based on their own numbers, they processed four claims. Unfortunately, based on their own numbers, 

there are 93,000 claims that remain unprocessed. At this rate, it 

will take 450 years—I don’t think any of us will be here—to process all these claims. And that is assuming there are no new claims 

that are filed. 

Now, the President said in creating this, again with the support 

of the administration, that this administration was going to stand 

by the people of the Gulf Coast. Can you—first of all, I want to give 

a shout-out to Tom Perrelli. He is the only person in this administration that I have confidence in that is going to put pressure on 

Mr. Feinberg and on BP to fulfill the promise that both the company and the administrator that this administration helped create 

made and that was to make the Gulf Coast whole. So I want to 

give a shout-out to Mr. Perrelli, and please let him know how much 

I appreciate his work. 

But can you give us any insight into what the Justice Department’s role is in making sure that this creation is going to fulfill 

the promise that the President of the United States made to the 

American people? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I share the concerns that you have 

about the impact that the oil spill had on the Gulf Coast. I went 

down there shortly after, in fact went to Mobile and looked at some 

of the reconstruction efforts that were at that point underway, the 

rehabilitation efforts that were underway. The Justice Department 

does not operate or have any statutory responsibility for the GCCF. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
26 

Although, I will say for the record—I thank you for the kind 

words you said about Tom Perrelli. He is the Associate Attorney 

General at the Department of Justice and has spent a great deal 

of time pushing to have claims paid more quickly. We have tried 

to monitor the activity of the GCCF. Its performance as of January 

27th, looking at the numbers I have here, there were about 480,000 

claims filed with GCCF; 170,000 of those have been paid, totaling 

a little over $3 billion. We have expressed our concerns about the 

pace and Tom has, again, as you have indicated, taken a lead for 

the Department. We have expressed concerns that we do not think 

these are being processed as quickly as they can. We have tried to 

apply, I am not sure I would call it pressure, but we expressed concerns in a way that is consistent with the responsibilities that we 

have. 

We don’t have any formal relationship with GCCF. But Tom has 

used his time, his skills to try to speed up the pace at which people, who are very deserving, whose lives have been very negatively 

impacted—you have to go, you have to be there to see. It is one 

thing to read about this. It is a whole different deal to go down 

there and to actually see people who run hotels, restaurants. I was 

really struck by the fact that when I was there, it was warm—it 

was in the height of tourist season, and we went into a restaurant 

and my wife will kill me for this, I don’t remember if it was outside 

of Mobile, a beach there, and we were the only ones in the restaurant. I talked to the owner of the restaurant; and he said, this 

was totally atypical, that on a day like this that time of year, they 

would have had a full restaurant. The only people that were in that 

restaurant at that time were the people traveling with me. 

I made a pledge to the people there I was going to come back a 

year from my visit to see where we stood with regard to how the 

claims process was going and to show them that, A, we cared, and 

B, we did as much as we could to make sure that this process 

worked for them. And I will go back on that one-year—— 

Mr. BONNER. Please let me know when that is. I would love to 

go to lunch with you. 

OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

I believe that ultimately the Department will have to issue a ruling that defines exactly what OPA requires of BP. You may not 

have a direct oversight of the GCCF. Although it begs the question 

that if you don’t, who does? Because clearly it is a monster that has 

been created by this administration with the promise of making the 

people whole. And again, the thought that we might have to go 450 

years before the last claim is determined, whether it is legitimate 

or not, our people will not be able to wait for that, obviously. What 

do you think will trigger a requirement for DOJ to issue a ruling 

on OPA, and are you preparing to make such a ruling at that time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure I understand the question on the OPA. 

Mr. BONNER. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that passed that 

holds the company responsible and that there will be substantial 

fines. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have filed a civil lawsuit, at least 

a couple of months or so ago. We are actively pursuing that matter 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
27 

in an attempt to gain money from the people and the companies 

we think are responsible for the spill. There is, as I indicated when 

I was in New Orleans, an ongoing criminal investigation as well. 

So the Department is operating on both levels, both with regard to 

the civil enforcement powers that we have and also with regard to 

the criminal investigative powers that we have to hold responsible 

those companies, those people who were responsible for the worst 

natural disaster in this Nation’s history. 

We are being aggressive in that regard. We are pushing to make 

sure that we resolve this as quickly as we can. I think, under Mr. 

Perrelli’s direction on the civil side, we put together this fund that 

BP has contributed to and from which claims can be processed. But 

beyond that, we are using our civil enforcement powers to sue to 

gain additional monies from the responsible parties. 

We have made clear, and I pledge again today, that the American taxpayers are not going to have to pay a dime for the cleanup 

or a dime for making whole the people who have suffered in the 

region that you represent. 

Mr. BONNER. Just one final question, Mr. Chairman. And I have 

some others that I will submit for the record. 

GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY

Not to blindside you on this, because you have had a lot of issues 

to touch base on, but do you have a response to the Federal judge’s 

ruling in New Orleans that Mr. Feinberg is not an independent administrator as he was originally presented to the American people 

that he would be and, in fact, that he is executing his responsibilities on behalf of his employer, British Petroleum, rather than in 

a manner that is in the best interest of the victim? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The way this has been set up, he is 

paid by BP or works for BP. But the emphasis that we have placed, 

and Tom Perrelli has placed is on trying to make this claims process work. Our hope is that however the GCCF is constructed, it potentially can work, and should work better. The 450-year time period that you have indicated is obviously unacceptable. Something 

substantially, substantially shorter than that, is what we have to 

be looking at, and we will try to assist to the extent that we can 

by applying pressure where we can, by using our lawsuits to try 

to get money to people as quickly as we can. And to the extent we 

find issues with regard to how the GCCF is working, we will do 

what we can. We will certainly identify them and try to work to 

rectify them. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked 

that—and again, I know this is parochial to me because I am on 

the Gulf Coast, but why it is important to our friends in Pennsylvania or California or Georgia or wherever, Kansas, is if you go 

from Key West in Florida all the way to Brownsville, Texas, and 

you look at the economies of the five Gulf Coast states, you are 

looking at over $2.8 trillion of GDP impact to this country. Last 

year we were all worried about what was happening in Greece, 

which was about a $350 billion impact on the global economy. The 

five Gulf Coast States, by rough estimates, $2.8 trillion, and we 

were devastated by this oil spill last year, and we continue to be 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
28 

devastated, and that is why I raised the questioning today asking 

for the Department to do everything it can. 

It is very unusual for a conservative Republican Member to be 

asking any Justice Department, this Justice Department or any 

other, to intervene here. But we have got to hold the people who 

did this accountable, and we have got to make sure that the claims 

facility that was set up by the Justice Department and the administration to make those people whole, we have got to make sure 

they are doing a better job. And with that, thank you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would disagree with you, Mr. Bonner. The questions that you have asked are not parochial ones. I 

think the statistics you just used about the trillions of dollars of 

impact, show that this is a national issue. It affects maybe most 

directly the people on the Gulf Coast. But the reality is this is a 

national issue, and that is why it requires a national response. And 

I can assure you that the Justice Department, Tom Perrelli and 

others, will stay focused on this issue. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Mr. Holder. I want to thank you for your testimony here today, and I really do appreciate your attention and 

dedication to the many important civil rights and justice issues 

that we face today. 

STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

I wanted to ask you something about the budget dance that we 

seem to go through every year and is the proper funding for the 

State Community Assistance Program more commonly known as 

SCAAP. As you know, border States, like California, are disproportionately affected by this. And I notice for the 2012 request, the 

funding for SCAAP has been reduced greatly. And now I understand some of this programmatic shifting is going on. But at some 

point, we as a country need to come to a solution on this issue that 

goes beyond just partial reimbursement. And to this, I ask, do you 

have any suggestions or ideas on what Congress could do to permanently address this issue? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have requested I think $136 million for SCAAP. As we all know, that goes for the incarceration 

costs for inmates who do not have legal immigration status. And 

so I think one of the things that the Congress could do, working 

with the Administration as well, is to look at the whole question 

of illegal immigration and to try to address that in a comprehensive way. I think that would have an impact on the monies that 

we spend with regard to SCAAP. 

I mean we have tried to make sure that this money is spent 

wisely. I have seen the Inspector General report that indicates that 

some high percentage of people, I think it was 58 percent or so of 

people were not identified as people who were illegal immigrants 

and their status was not totally known. And so that is something 

I think that has to be worked on. 

The money that we are asking for this year is less than we 

sought last year. Again, that is just a tough decision, a tough budgetary decision that we had to make. We are of the view that this 

is in fact a national obligation and the states need to be reimVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
29 

bursed for the monies they expend in this regard. And the only reason we are seeking less money than we did last year is strictly on 

the basis of budgetary constraints that we have. 

Mr. HONDA. I don’t disagree with you about the efficacy of having 

a comprehensive immigration reform package that would include 

law enforcement and border protection and things like that. And it 

seems to me that over the past few years we have been approaching this whole issue, mish-mash, and spending a lot of money that 

doesn’t seem to have a return on the kind of investment that we 

are seeking. 

INDIAN COUNTRY JUSTICE PROGRAMS

And you know that California has large needs for Indian country 

Justice programs. And I consider refunding components of Public 

Law 106–559 of vital importance. And I know that in this 2012 request, the DOJ has created a new discretionary set-aside to fund 

all tribal assistance programs rather than separate appropriations. 

How will the change affect the civil and criminal and legal assistance programs, and particularly ensuring that current funding levels remain? 

Attorney General HOLDER. What we tried to do is actually 

prioritize the work that we have done with regard to tribal lands. 

It is something that I hope will be a legacy of this Administration, 

that we have taken seriously the responsibilities that we have on 

tribal lands, that we have recognized the unique needs and the 

unique problems that are faced there. We have in our budget funds 

that will go towards supporting what is certainly a desire on my 

part, and on the part of the President as well, to have as a legacy 

the fact that we are taking very seriously our responsibilities in 

that regard. We have over $420 million in the budget. We want to work with 

you to make sure that that money is spent in an appropriate way. 

But I really want to emphasize that this is something that is a 

high priority for this Administration. I met in the Roosevelt Room 

with the President and with a number of tribal leaders; I have 

gone to a listening conference in Minnesota; Tom Perrelli has taken 

this on as a particular priority of his. 

When one looks at the problems that women face on tribal lands 

with regard to violence that they are subjected to, when one looks 

at the rates of substance abuse, there are a whole host of issues 

that have to be dealt with. There are not sufficient law enforcement resources there. And the monies that we are seeking for tribal issues I think go a long way to backing up the promises that we 

made and the obligations that we think that we have. 

Mr. HONDA. I appreciate the attention and the sense that you 

have regarding Indian country, because I think that that is an area 

where we at times turn a blind eye to, and I think that in terms 

of our relationship to sovereign nations it is an obligation that we 

need to fulfill. 

GUN CONTROL—LONG GUNS

One other issue I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Holder, is gun rights and gun control. As an avid outdoors person myself, I support the Second Amendment, but also support reasonable 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
30 

changes to existing law that makes it easier to track criminals purchasing weapons. 

One of the biggest gun issues facing California is, of course, the 

sales of the so-called long guns and drug and criminal violence at 

the border. I know that there is a public comment period through 

the ATF on new reporting standards on long guns. But I would like 

to know what steps the Department has taken to improve the situation and what more can be done to put reasonable safeguards in 

place? 

Attorney General HOLDER. ATF currently has a proposal that 

has been made with regard to the purchase of long guns. It is, I 

think, a reasonable proposal that would require firearms dealers to 

report any instance where a person buys two long guns within a 

5-day period that are above .22-caliber, that are semiautomatic, 

and have has a detachable magazine. The concern is, obviously, 

with the possibility that people are buying these as straw purchases, and that a lot of these weapons end up in Mexico. The proposal that ATF has made only applies to four States that border 

Mexico, but we think we could have a substantial impact on the 

flow of guns that go into Mexico. 

I am greatly concerned that some of these weapons that find 

their way into Mexico might be used against the agents from this 

Nation who are down there fighting with their Mexican counterparts against the cartels. It gives me very great concern. I think 

it is a responsible thing to do. I think it is respectful of the Second 

Amendment. It is something that we require gun dealers to do with 

regard to the sale of pistols. And it seems to me that asking dealers 

along the border to report on certain long gun sales, and given the 

limited circumstances under which I said that we do this, I think 

that that is appropriate. I think it would go a long way to helping 

us deal with this issue. 

Mr. HONDA. I understand there are quite a few statistics that we 

have at hand relative to the number of firearms that are confiscated across the border that can be traced to the United States 

into several different kinds of activities that we have here that are 

not unlawful but should have greater oversight and scrutiny. And 

if those statistics are available, I would be very interested in receiving them. 

[The information follows:] 

FIREARMS SEIZED IN MEXICO

There are no United States Government sources that maintain any record of the 

total number of criminal firearms seized in Mexico. ATF reports relate only to firearms recovered in Mexico that were subsequently traced by ATF based upon firearms identifiers submitted to ATF by the Mexican Government. All crime gun traces 

are performed by ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC), the country’s only crime 

gun tracing facility. The Mexican government does not submit every recovered firearm to ATF for tracing. Mexico trace data (as of April 28, 2011) indicates that between FY 2009 and FY 1020, a total of 21,313 firearms recovered in Mexico were 

traced by ATF. Of these, 10,945 were manufactured in the U.S., 3,268 were imported into the U.S. from a third country, and 7,100 were of undetermined origin 

due to insufficient information provided. The Department is committed to reducing 

the flow of guns across the border into Mexico through straw purchasers. ATF has 

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act a request to require Federal licensed firearms dealers 

in Arizona, California, New Mexico and California to report to ATF sales of two or 

more long guns (above a .22-caliber, semiautomatic, and has a detachable magazine) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
31 

to the same individual within a five day period. If OMB approves the request, ATF 

plans to implement the reporting requirement without delay. 

PATRIOT ACT

A few weeks ago Congress passed extension to a few key provisions in the PATRIOT Act. And I opposed those acts since inception, as I strongly believe they crossed the line in terms of civil and 

privacy acts of our citizens. I understand the need to keep our 

country safe from harm, but as a country we need to do better than 

to pass laws that give broad powers to civilians. We need to do better than that. 

Many have called for hearings on this issue and a pragmatic approach to this issue. I would like very much to hear your thoughts 

on how we can bridge the gap between protecting the rights of 

Americans while giving the tools needed to protect us. And I think 

that that is probably an area that has come to fore because of the 

change in technology and the kinds of things that we understand 

technically as to what is going to be important and how to go about 

doing that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we do support the renewal of 

those three authorities: the business records provision, the lone 

wolf provision, and the roving wiretap provision. But the Administration also supports increased civil liberties protections. I think, in 

particular, a good balance is struck by the bill that Senator Leahy 

introduced that supports the extension of those authorities but also 

dials in civil liberties protection. These are necessary tools for us 

to have in order to fight the threat that confronts our Nation. We 

think that we can do this in such a way that, with appropriate supervision within the executive branch and working with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, we can make sure that these 

tools are used in a way that is effective but also is consistent with 

the values that have made this Nation great. 

The concerns you express I think are legitimate ones. We may 

end up in a different place, but the concerns you have I think are 

legitimate. And as I said, I think Senator Leahy’s bill really strikes 

a good balance. 

Mr. HONDA. What would be the critical steps that would need to 

be pronounced and clear in order for us to be able to execute some 

of the provisions that law enforcement may have, that may be at 

question by some other Members of Congress, the concerns we have 

in terms of privacy. What are some clear steps that need to be in 

place? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that as we use these provisions and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act, we have to be 

mindful of the privacy interests that American citizens have. We 

have to make sure that we act in a way that is consistent. We have 

to make sure that we don’t overreach. We can’t let the threat that 

we face make us turn our backs on that which has defined this 

country and made it the great Nation that it is. And that is a balance that you have to strike, but it is something that we should 

always be mindful of. And I think that if we keep that in our 

minds, those of us who have to enforce these laws and take advantage of these tools, if we keep those kinds of thoughts in our minds, 

we will act in an appropriate way. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
32 

We want to work with Congress as well. Oversight, for instance, 

is something that makes a great deal of sense when it comes to the 

use of the PATRIOT Act. Generally these three provisions in particular: interaction with Congress about how these tools are being 

used, an airing of concerns that people have, and responses from 

those of us in government who are using these steps. I mean, that 

kind of interaction I think makes a great deal of sense and will 

make sure that there is no overreaching by those in the executive 

branch. 

FISA COURT REQUIREMENTS

Mr. HONDA. One last question, Mr. Chairman. One of the things 

that seems to concern—well, it concerns me—is the decision that 

a person would make, whether it is executive or otherwise, to move 

forward without going through the legal process of securing permission to wiretap or to tap into the internet in the name of national 

security. 

Does that condition exist in the current law? And if so, are there 

requirements of that person to report in a timely manner that action to somebody like the judiciary arm? 

Attorney General HOLDER. All the surveillance activities that the 

Department of Justice and other intelligence agencies are involved 

in are done pursuant to statute and with the approval of the FISA 

Court or an Article III Court, if we are talking about just regular 

wiretapping, so that there is a statutory basis for those surveillance activities that we engage in, and then there is judicial approval of the request that we make so that there is supervision of 

these activities. There can be things done on an emergency basis 

at the direction of the Attorney General, but even those have to ultimately be submitted to the FISA Court for approval. So there is 

always judicial supervision of the things that we do. 

Mr. HONDA. But the term ‘‘ultimately reported back,’’ is there a 

time definite that needs to be observed? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, it is 72 hours. We are not talking 

about some extended period of time. I would have to look. But 

those things that I have done on an emergency basis, we try to report within the timeframe. I would have to check and get back to 

you on that. I think we are talking about 2 to 3 days within which 

we have to report back to the FISA Court. 

[The information follows:] 

FISA COURT NOTIFICATION

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Attorney General may 

authorize emergency electronic surveillance or physical search of a foreign power or 

agent of a foreign power. The Attorney General or a designee must notify a judge 

of the FISA Court of the emergency authorization ‘‘at the time of such authorization.’’ An application must then be presented to a FISA Court judge ‘‘as soon as 

practicable,’’ but no later than 7 days after the Attorney General’s emergency authorization. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I apologize 

for being late. General Holder, welcome to the committee. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Morning. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
33 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

Mr. ROGERS. I want to focus your mind with me on a problem 

of an epidemic that is sweeping this country, and that is prescription drug abuse and methamphetamine abuse. Today, two people 

at least will die in Kentucky from overdoses; 82 a month. My State 

perhaps is Ground Zero for prescription drug abuse, but it is everywhere, it is not just there. It is sinister. Nationwide, in the last 

decade we have seen a 400 percent increase, in those reporting 

abuse of prescription pain relievers with about 7,000 new abusers 

every day; 7,000 new abusers every day. 

There is a mechanism that we are fighting in Kentucky and 

other States and that is, as you well know, the prescription drug 

monitoring programs in Kentucky—it is called KASPER—where 

doctors and pharmacists can check in the central computer in the 

State to see if a person presenting a prescription has been doctorshopping or has filled it in another location. 

Thirty-eight States now have responded to a Department of Justice grant program that helps them set up that system in their 

State. Thirty-eight States now have that system and 10 more applied for those grants, including Florida, which I will come to in a 

minute. And KASPER works. We have seen a dramatic decline and 

a dramatic increase in prosecutions of fake doctors and pharmacists and the like. Other States have reported the same. And yet 

in your budget request, zero. 

This is a program that has been in place for—in fact it was started by this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, under your leadership. It 

has been in place for maybe 10 years or so. We have seen the number of States with authorized or operational programs triple from 

15 to 45, an increase of almost 2,600 percent in the number of prescription reports. And yet for whatever reason, you did not request 

any funds to continue that program which has proven itself countrywide, why? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget, the budget that we have submitted, does propose to use $3 million of OJP’s proposed research, evaluation, and statistics to set 

aside a fund for a limited number of prescription drug monitoring 

pilots in conjunction with an evaluation. 

So the information I have is that nearly every State has decided 

to implement a prescription drug monitoring program and had an 

opportunity to apply for those funds. The problem that you talk 

about is indeed a serious one. It is one that is nationwide in scope, 

though I think you are right, there are particular areas in the 

country that have had to deal with this issue in a more concentrated way. 

The fact that we have moved in the way that we have with regard to our budget is no indication that we are not mindful of the 

problem or less serious—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Zeroing out the program that is the only thing 

going that is getting at prescription drug abuse, zeroing that out 

tells me you are not serious about solving this problem; $3 million 

in an ill-defined request that you have made for a pilot and evaluation. These aren’t pilots, these are operational. Ask your State poVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
34 

lice and your U.S. Attorneys; they will all tell you this is the only 

weapon we have against prescription drug abuse. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would respectfully disagree in that 

regard. We have our enforcement efforts that we take with regard 

to the prosecution of people who engage in the sale or misuse of 

these products. Those kinds of efforts will continue. So this is not 

the only tool that we have. And again, as I said, this is a problem 

that we take very seriously. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well the head of ONDCP in the White House, Gil 

Kerlikowske, I spent last week with him in Kentucky. He was 

there 3 or 4 days talking about this problem, and he says that this 

is a valuable weapon in fighting this cause. I didn’t discuss with 

him the fact that you had not requested any funds for it, I didn’t 

want to embarrass him in public. But the ONDCP director has serious problems with your budget request. 

Now, that gets me to Florida. There is a thing called a Flamingo 

Express, the Flamingo Road. Broward County, Florida, is where 

practically all of the prescription medicines that are illegally obtained come from; 98 of the top 100 prescribers of oxycodone, 98 

out of 100 top ones come from Broward County, Florida. They dispense over 19 million dosages of this drug, which is about 89 percent of the total dispensed by the entire country. These are pill 

mills, these are drive-throughs. You drive through like a Burger 

King, with a truckload or van load of people from Kentucky or Tennessee or Ohio or any other State, particularly on the eastern seaboard. You load your van up, you take them to Broward County, 

you drive them through the drive-through, and you come back with 

a ton of prescription medicines that you then foist off on innocent 

children and other people. And two of them in Kentucky die every 

day. 

Now, don’t tell me that you are enforcing the law. What do you 

say about that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The budget request that we have made includes $322 million funding for 1,497 positions at the DEA 

Diversion Control Program. That is an increase of $2.2 million in 

base adjustments; 124 positions, including 50 special agents, 50 diversion investigators, 9 intelligence analysts, and $30.8 million to 

support regulatory and enforcement activities of the Diversion Control Program. I think that is an indication that we take this issue 

seriously. It is one that we are trying to address, which is not to 

say that our State and local partners have not been as successful 

as we might have wanted to be. Our efforts need to be continuing 

ones. The toll that these medicines take on the lives of people and 

the impact they have in certain areas is substantial. And we are 

using the tools that we have. We have sought additional tools in 

the budget to try to deal with the issue that you have raised. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it is not working so far. This is an interstate 

problem; this is in your ball park. Individual States are doing what 

they can, but how can Kentucky, for example, prosecute somebody 

in Broward County, Florida? They can’t do that. That is only in 

your bailiwick. That is why we have a national government. It is 

an absolute disgrace that is killing people every day. 

Not only do dealers and addicts in my region make those frequent bus and van trips down there, but several budget airlines 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
35 

have recently instituted direct flights from Charleston or Huntington, West Virginia, to South Florida. An airline has seen it 

profitable to ship these people down there, buy their drugs, and 

ship them back. 

I am ashamed. You know what they call that? They call it the 

OxyContin Express. And you are seriously not dealing with the 

problem. And then in Florida there is an extra special problem. 

Florida, under a previous administration, applied for a grant 

PDMP grant, like 38 other States have done, and it was granted. 

And DOJ and this grant program that you didn’t fund has given 

them $800,000 to start a KASPER-like program in Florida where 

it is most desperately needed, which would help us prosecute those 

crook doctors that are running these pill mills with drive-through 

service. And the State legislature authorized the program. But for 

some problem, it didn’t get done until now. 

Then a new Governor takes over, and he not only announces he 

is not going to fund the program, he is going to try to repeal the 

law in Florida that authorized the program. What do you think 

about that? The Attorney General of Florida says it is crazy. What 

do you think? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We certainly have to work with our 

State and local partners. This is something that is of primary responsibility because of the interstate component of this that the 

Federal Government clearly has a role to play. We also have to 

work with our State and local partners because there is a local 

component to this as well as a State component. 

It is only when we work together that we will be effective in trying to deal with the transportation of these drugs. And also we 

have to come up with ways in which we deal with prevention aspects so that people don’t start to use these drugs. We must have 

treatment money as well to deal with people who, unfortunately, 

use these drugs and become addicted to them, and as a result, continue to use and fund the activities that you are talking about. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, there are certain things the State of Florida 

can do and certain things they can’t do. And what they can’t do is 

do the interstate prosecutions. I know just last week, a part of a 

thing called Operation Pill Nation, DEA arrested 22 people, seized 

over $2.5 million in assets during a takedown of rogue pain clinics 

in Florida. Those arrests had resulted after 340 undercover buys of 

prescription drugs from over 60 doctors and more than 40 pill 

mills. And I congratulate DEA for that, but it is a drop in the bucket. 

Why can’t we build up the forces, the DOJ forces in Florida, to 

get at this problem that is poisoning the rest of the country, particularly the eastern seaboard and the Appalachian States where 

I hail from? I would like to see you beef up the forces there, not 

in headquarters, but in the field. Make those buys, get rid of these 

doctors who are poisoning the country and killing people every day. 

What do you think? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that the additional resources 

we are talking about are not all going to headquarters. I think the 

fact that you talk about a successful DEA operation is an indication 

of how seriously this is taken by this Justice Department, by the 

DEA, which is a part of this Justice Department. We recognize the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
36 

seriousness of the problem. I think that operation that you talk 

about is an indication, as I said before, that we not only have the 

program that you talked about in KASPER, but also have our enforcement arm that is, I think, in some ways as important, if not 

more important, than anything else that we are going to do to hold 

accountable those people who deal in these drugs, to put them in 

jail, and use that as a deterrent for others. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me make a specific request. Would you consider 

sending extra investigators, either through DEA or the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or both, or any other of the Federal law enforcement 

agencies, would you consider shipping extra manpower to Florida 

to help shut down these drive-through pain clinics that are poisoning the country? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will identify the places where we 

can best deploy our resources to be most effective in dealing with 

the issue that you have raised and the other issues, narcotic-related issues we have around the country. We have to work with our 

State and local partners. DEA can’t do it alone, but we try to deploy our resources in a way that we are most effective. 

And I realize that what you are talking about is in fact beyond 

a regional problem, it is a national one, and that is why it has gotten the attention of the DEA in a way you previously described. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, there is a high-intensity drug trafficking area 

there. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is a HIDTA operation. 

Mr. ROGERS. Which is the supposed best way to marry up Federal, State, and local law enforcement in one operation. Can we 

beef it up and put more assets into the HIDTA that covers that region in order to go after these people? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think we are always looking at the 

existence of these HIDTAs to see which ones are effective and 

which ones need more resources and which ones are not being particularly effective. So that kind of review is something that we do 

on an ongoing basis. 

Mr. ROGERS. You didn’t answer my question. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I am answering as best I can. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would you look at beefing up that HIDTA? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We do with regard to all of them and 

try to make the determination as to where we can use our resources the best. 

Mr. ROGERS. Question: Will you look at that one? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will look at that one as we look 

at all of them, but I will look at that one. But I don’t want to—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you not recognize that the problem is in 

Broward County, Florida; it is not in Denver or Miami or New 

York. It is in Broward County, Florida. Do you want me to spell 

that for you? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You know the problem that you described is not one that is only in Broward County. There are parts 

of West Virginia that have been decimated by the use of the drugs. 

Mr. ROGERS. Ninety-eight of the 100 prescribers of OxyContin 

are from Florida, 98 out of 100. Eighty-nine percent of all of 

oxycodone is dispensed by those in Broward County, Florida. If I 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
37 

ever saw a target, this one has got an X all over it. Why can’t you 

see that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think what I have indicated is that 

as part of what we do, we will look at that HIDTA and see if it 

is effective, see if there are additional resources that are needed, 

as we do with regard to all of them. 

The responsibility that we have is national in scope, and we try 

to make sure that we deploy our resources in a way that deals with 

these issues in an effective way. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right, I am asking you: Will you look at that and 

get back to this committee in two weeks? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will do the best that we can. We will 

look at this and try to get back to you with a response as quickly 

as we can. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
38 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 81 here 67259A.010
39 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 82 here 67259A.011
40 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 83 here 67259A.012
41 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 84 here 67259A.013
42 

Mr. ROGERS. And will you tell us what you can and can’t do in 

Broward County, Florida, on this problem and tell this committee, 

with the chairman, in two weeks? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will do the best that we can in the 

review that we will conduct and try to be as responsive as we can 

be. When you say things, what we can do and can’t do, these are 

issues that if I had the ability to come up with a solution within 

two weeks, of course I would share it and implement it. But the 

issues that we are dealing with are ones that are longstanding and 

they are difficult. They are difficult. 

And we will do the best that we can. We will be as responsive 

as we can. But we are serious about this issue, we are dead serious 

about this issue, and understand the consequences of what it is 

that you are talking about. This is a national problem. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, my time is up. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROGERS. But I am going to stay with you. I am going to keep 

after you on this, because my people are dying and I can’t sit here 

and let that happen. 

Mr. HONDA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, one thing I would say is they 

are not your people, they are my people. These are American citizens, and we are doing the best that we can, in as many places as 

we can, to deal with the drug issues in whatever form they exist. 

I have seen lives ruined. I have sent people to jail, as a judge, who 

have dealt in these substances. I have tried to deal with this on 

the treatment side and on the prevention side. This is something 

that has decimated parts of our country. And we are trying to deal 

with this in as serious and productive a way as we can. So they 

are your people, but they are also my people. 

Mr. HONDA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROGERS. I yield. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share your concern and 

I share your passion for the needs that our local folks face, because 

they are in fact lives that we feel responsible for. 

In California, we have a variety of counties that are methamphetamine farms where these drugs are being manufactured. I 

understand the need for interdisciplinary interagency cooperation. 

That is why I brought up the issue of SCAAP and the border issues 

and things that plague us locally, but it is a national issue too. And 

yet we have this great demand that we expect from our agencies. 

In today’s testimony, I heard the gentleman talk about the cuts 

they had to make and shifting priorities around within that constraint. If this committee or subcommittee is willing to put forward 

any kind of resources that would enhance or build upon whatever 

additional resources the Department needs, I would be willing to 

stand shoulder to shoulder and request this. 

Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, I am afraid I have imposed too 

much time from the Chairman already, so I yield back. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Before I recognize Mr. Schiff, let me just say I agree 

with Mr. Rogers. We had a hearing here about 7 or 8 years ago, 

and there was a young man—I can still remember he was with his 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
43 

father; his father was a minister and he had a blue suit coat on, 

I can still see it. He was sitting in the back and his dad had said 

his son had been addicted to OxyContin. And I remember seeing 

Mr. Rogers on the floor a couple months later. And I said, ‘‘How 

is the young man doing?’’ And he said, ‘‘He died, he overdosed.’’ 

And there was a New York Times piece. Mr. Rogers makes a very 

good point. You know where this is, you could have said sure, Mr. 

Rogers—I mean if I were in your job, I would have said, ‘‘Boy, I 

am going to have a team down there tomorrow. If I can deal and 

save one person, I am going to do it, because that is why I am the 

Attorney General and that is why I am here.’’ 

Now, Mr. Rogers, they are your people, they are our people. But 

you could have just said, ‘‘Yes, I’ll have a team go down there.’’ 

Maybe you can’t do it, maybe you can, but you can look. 

Let me read you what the New York Times says. ‘‘More than 

20,000 people die of prescription drug overdoses, including an estimate of seven a day in Florida.’’ I mean you are a father; can’t you 

feel the pain and the suffering and the agony? I can still see that 

young boy. You know, we will try to put the money back in, but 

you could have said, ‘‘Yeah we are going to look at this.’’ Maybe you 

can, maybe you can’t. But he is laying it out. 

And if you read this—and we will share this with you—it is in 

several locations. It says here, ‘‘addicts, driving cars with out-ofstate plates, camp out most nights and wait for clinics to open at 

10 a.m. ‘When we go into these clinics, there is a gun in there,’ he 

said. ‘How many times have you gone into your doctor’s office and 

there’s an armed guard outside?’ ’’ 

If any member here had a problem in their district and came to 

me and said, ‘‘Hey, Wolf can you help us?’’ I would say ‘‘Yes, anything we can do to try to help.’’ And if you can save a young person 

from not being—but they know where it is. It is Broward County. 

They are flying down there. There have been articles in the paper. 

And the West Virginia thing, you are accurate. The Senator from 

West Virginia is concerned because they are going from West Virginia down there. 

So just send somebody down there and look at it and take a look, 

and if you can beef the thing up—and if it is happening in Mr. 

Honda’s district, do the same thing; and if it is happening in Mr. 

Fattah’s district, do the same thing. 

Anytime we can sort of deal and help people, I think we ought 

to do it. With that, I just hope you can help Mr. Rogers. I still remember that young man, he is gone now, the pain and suffering 

and agony his dad must feel. 

And if there are 20,000—according to the New York Times, 

20,000 a year die of prescription drug overdoses. And this is kind 

of the center, kind of summum bonum of all this going on. Let’s get 

down there and see what we can do. Don’t wait two weeks to come 

back. Tell us tomorrow or by the end of the week. With that—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Let me just say this. This is something that I have had personal experience with. I sat as a judge 

in the D.C. Superior Court, and I saw the impact of drugs, and I 

have seen lives ruined. I have seen futures destroyed. I have seen 

what should be the future of this city, Washington, D.C., sent 

away, incarcerated for selling drugs or because of the use of them. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
44 

As Attorney General, I would hope that in the limited time that 

I have, I will use all the tools that I can to fight drug abuse in 

whatever form. To the extent that it exists, there is a particular 

problem in Florida as a supplier of prescription drugs, of course I 

am going to focus on that; of course we will send resources down 

there. And that is one of the reasons I am here, to ask for the resources to do the kinds of things that I know DEA agents are capable of. It is one of the things we have in our budget, the request 

for those funds. 

You are not talking to a bureaucrat here, you are talking to a 

father of three kids, you are talking to a former judge, you are talking to a person who has been in law enforcement all my life. I have 

seen the impact not only of prescription drugs, but of crack, powder 

cocaine, heroin. We have to deal with this problem in all of its 

forms so that we can make this Nation as productive as it can be, 

so we give futures to the children of this Nation, all the children 

of this Nation. 

I don’t mean to imply that this is not something that—because 

Mr. Rogers has raised it—that I am not taking it seriously. Of 

course I am going to take it seriously and of course we are going 

to review what is going on with that HIDTA down there. I feel this 

pain. I have seen this. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me just object before we go to 

Congressman Schiff. There is probably not another member who 

has been more passionate and focused on this than Chairman Rogers. And we live in a different culture here, Mr. Attorney General. 

When the chairman of the Appropriations Committee asks the 

question—and obviously the answer is yes—to any of us, you have 

a different responsibility. You are the Attorney General of the 

United States of America. So I don’t want anyone to misconstrue 

here. You have to exercise the authority of your office fairly across 

the country on a whole range of priorities. And so I understand the 

chairman’s passion. I also know with a certainty that not only can 

you spell it, you know how to find it on a map. But there is also 

a reality when we put a burden on the Department, when we cut 

funds, when we require a reduction in funds, that there are going 

to be limitations and we have to give up some of the redundancy. 

Now Health and Human Services has a similar program to the 

one that the chairman has referred to, which is in the President’s 

budget, for a multimillion-dollar appropriation to do similar work. 

But I think that the one in Justice might be a better way to go, 

and maybe we can find some way to eliminate in the redundancy 

in the funding, this one versus the other one. 

I think it is improper to ask the Attorney General to somehow 

skewer the operations of his office. In terms of focus, he is focusing 

on the entire country. That is his job. We as Members of Congress 

have parochial responsibilities. 

I know for a fact that when Philadelphia had a problem, I went 

to the chairman, Chairman Wolf, and he arranged for a considerable amount of resources to be focused on a problem there. We live 

in this type of environment in which we respond to Members’ concerns. But a member of the President’s Cabinet has a different responsibility, and I just want to make sure we are clear about it, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
45 

and that we understand there are differing roles here. I thank the 

chairman for giving me a moment. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if I were the Attorney General and somebody 

asked me to go into their district to look and see, and I thought 

I could save one person, I would do it. In spite of the fact that you 

can look at this in an analytical global way, and you are a good 

person—I understand, we will help you in prisons, we will do all 

that—frankly, I haven’t been happy with the lack of action you 

have taken on prison rape. 

I mean Bobby Scott and I have the bill and we are pushing and 

pushing and you are sort of taking this global, analytical—if I was 

the Attorney General, or I could go down and help one region, 

whether in north Philadelphia or northern Virginia or in that area, 

I would do it. Maybe you don’t see that role there, but I would do 

it. And I would hope you can. 

And if any member along here on the other side of the aisle has 

something like this, that you could just kind of help their district, 

forget Republican and Democrat, but just help people, that is what 

government is all about, helping people individually to make a difference. With that, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Attorney 

General. I just want to say at the outset, as someone who worked 

in the Department for six years, how much I appreciate the job you 

are doing and how I think we have really turned the Department 

around from some difficult days the Department went through. I 

appreciate the thoughtfulness you bring to the job and your sincerity and commitment to fulfilling your responsibilities. I think 

you are doing a magnificent job. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I also want to compliment one of the task forces that 

was established. I think it was a multiagency task force between 

the Justice Department and the Defense Department and other 

agencies with respect to the GITMO situation, that painstaking 

work in looking at each of the detainees, gathering as much information, seeking further information where needed, to try to make 

intelligent decisions about how each detainee ought to be handled, 

whether a detainee could be repatriated, whether a detainee should 

be tried in Article III Court, or detainee should be brought before 

a military commission or whatnot. It was painstaking work and involved a lot of difficult decision making, but I think they did a remarkable job and their work will probably never be known unless 

there is a problem. But I want to express my appreciation for the 

hard work they put into it. 

And I hope that we can support the work the administration is 

doing to try to resolve each and every case of the detainees in 

Guantanamo in a sensible way without imposing funding restrictions here that will impede your ability to do that. 

I don’t envy the difficulty of the job you have to do in the best 

of circumstances, but even more so under the rather difficult financial situation we are in right now. I think the conversation we have 

been having over the last half hour with respect to prescription 

medication will, unfortunately, be played out across many departments because we simply don’t have the resources. We would like 

to give every problem the attention it deserves. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
46 

I think we are seeing already in the budget fights an effort to 

rob Peter to pay Paul. As much as there is a problem that has to 

be addressed with respect to prescription drugs, as you point out 

there are problems that have to be addressed with respect to crack 

cocaine and powder cocaine and heroin, a whole panoply of drug 

abuse problems throughout the country. 

As my colleague Mr. Honda pointed out, methamphetamines. We 

were the world producer of methamphetamine in California. And I 

don’t envy the task of trying to address all of those problems and 

prioritize in a year of declining budgets. 

DNA BACKLOG

I want to raise one of the subsets of potentially declining budget 

and ask what the impact will be, and that is the area of DNA. Let 

me say, first, congratulations for eliminating the offender backlog, 

which had been a subject of discussion and concern for years and 

years, and it is finally done. We don’t have an offender backlog at 

the Federal level. That is phenomenal. A lot of States and municipalities are still struggling with that, but I am glad the Federal 

Government led the way in terms of its own backlog. 

There remains, though, a casework backlog and the OIG report 

indicates some of the periods in the casework backlog. What I 

wanted to ask you about is, I think the budget request is $110 million or thereabouts for DNA. Traditionally this committee has 

plused-up what the administration has asked for, 250, 160 million. 

I don’t know whether that is going to be possible given the budget 

situation. If we can’t, if the most we are able to do is meet what 

you have asked for, will that be enough, number one, to avoid a 

future backlog in the offenders’ samples, and will it be enough to 

continue to make progress in reducing the casework backlog? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Those are all good questions. The 

FBI’s DNA database program cleared its backlog of over 312,000 

samples in September of 2010. We have had to make hard choices 

about our budget request in fiscal year 2012. We were actually asking for $137 million for DNA programs in fiscal year 2012, which 

is a 27 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2011 CR level. And 

that represents a very difficult choice given the usefulness of DNA 

not only in closing cases and in finding the guilty, but also in absolving people, clearing people who might otherwise be charged 

with crimes. We will do the best we can with the limited resources 

that we have. But we understand that DNA is a vital tool, and we 

want to have a 21st century criminal justice system. I think in 

many ways DNA is the foundation for an effective 21st century 

criminal justice system, so we will do the best that we can with the 

resources that we have, understanding that in these tough budgetary times we don’t have all the money here that, frankly, I would 

like to have. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, if you could keep our committee informed, as 

we go along through the year, whether you start to develop another 

backlog in offender area, and also what progress you are making 

in terms of the casework backlog, that will help us understand 

whether we are devoting the right amount of resources to the problem. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
47 

And I realize that the DNA may be the showcase for a broader 

problem in forensics generally, as State labs that do ballistics and 

do fingerprint analysis are aging along with the people who do the 

work. And the DNA problems may be sort of the canary in the coal 

mine of the need to make a new investment in the infrastructure 

of forensics in the country. 

One thing I think that would be useful for the Department to 

do—and this was also highlighted by the OIG report—and that is 

in trying to evaluate how the States and municipalities are doing 

with their backlogs. There is no common definition of what a backlog is. My own experience in Los Angeles with LA county and LA 

city backlogs is, you can easily play with the numbers by defining 

away your backlog. 

And so I think it would be helpful if the Federal Government can 

develop a sort of best practices definition so that we can compare 

State to State, municipality to municipality, and make sure that 

we are all talking about the same thing. I think that will help keep 

local jurisdictions honest in terms of where they really are with 

their backlog problems. 

To me it is just devastating when we see a situation like we have 

seen in Los Angeles where you have a multi-multiyear backlog, 

when you finally take the kits off the shelf and analyze them, rape 

kits for example, you find people that you take off the street who 

committed subsequent rapes in the interim while the kit has sat 

on the shelf. And those are all victims that didn’t have to be victims. 

The other DNA point I wanted to raise with you is familial DNA. 

California recently solved the Grim Sleeper case. We had run the 

sample, the offender’s sample, got no hits. Law enforcement tried 

everything else, and finally resorted to familial DNA. The State of 

California is one of only two States that has a protocol for doing 

a familial DNA search. The familial DNA search turned up the son 

of the suspect. And that led us to the suspect. Without the use of 

that familial DNA search, that serial murderer would still be on 

the street. 

The Federal Government doesn’t have a policy that permits familial DNA searches of the national database. We were lucky in 

the Grim Sleeper case that the son was the hit in the system lived 

in the same State, in California. Had he lived somewhere else, we 

would not have had a match and the Grim Sleeper would still be 

at large. 

So I would love to see the Federal Government have legislation 

on this that I will pursue with your office. I would love to see the 

Federal Government adopt an appropriate policy where, as a last 

case resort, the Federal Government can do a national database familial search, and also establish requirements for States that want 

to take advantage of that capability to have protocols in place to 

make sure that it is not abused and privacy rights are respected. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on that subject. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think it would be very interesting 

to see exactly what California has put in place. As you indicate, 

that very serious case was in fact solved because of the use of familial DNA. It is something that I think we certainly should want 

to examine on the Federal level, being mindful of the privacy conVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
48 

cerns that have to be a part of that. I would be very interested to 

see how California balanced that and see whether or not that is 

something that we could use on a Federal level. 

But I would be interested in working with this committee and 

other Members of Congress in examining that and potentially 

working on legislation that would allow us, if legislation is needed—it may be some administrative thing, I don’t know, but if there 

are ways in which we can increase our use of family DNA. 

GUN CONTROL—REPORTING OF LONG GUN SALES

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me turn to one last topic, if I could. This was 

raised by my colleague Mr. Honda, and that is the problem with 

extensive numbers of American weapons going into Mexico and 

being used in drug crimes. We have been rightfully frustrated by 

our neighbors to the south with all the drugs that are exported 

from those countries and imported in the United States. They have 

a justifiable frustration with the flow of weapons, now leaving our 

country and going into theirs, that are being used to kill their law 

enforcement and they are being used to kill innocent people on the 

street and are creating an environment of almost complete lawlessness south of the border. 

I was pleased to hear your support for what ATF has proposed. 

I think adding a requirement of report of long gun sales will be 

helpful. But even that will be of limited value. 

I wonder if you could share some of your thoughts on the difficulty of investigating and prosecuting these cases of gun sales 

south of the border, which are against the law. We are not talking 

about criminalizing something here that is not already a crime. 

Why are these cases so tough and is there anything that can be 

done to very substantially change the dynamic, make a substantial 

dent in this problem? 

Attorney General HOLDER. One of the problems that we have is 

that people have their Second Amendment rights here in the 

United States and can legitimately, lawfully, buy weapons, and 

that is fine. The concern we have are for those people who act as 

straw purchasers, and who buy weapons in their own names but 

then transfer them or sell them to people illegally for use in Mexico. And that is one of the reasons why the ATF proposal is a good 

one. These are cases that are difficult to investigate because the 

sale on its face can appear to be a legitimate one. We don’t know 

what the ultimate destination of that weapon might be. And to the 

extent that we can look for multiple sales within a relatively short 

period of time, and along the border States, I think we are focusing 

our attention in an appropriate way, respectful of the constitutional 

rights that American citizens have to purchase and to hold weapons, while at the same time trying to meet the obligations that we 

have to our very valiant Mexican neighbors who have lost substantial numbers of people against the cartels. 

I have to tell you the concern that I have is that with the increased number of DEA agents that we have in Mexico, ATF 

agents, FBI agents, I am concerned that these weapons that are illegally brought into Mexico and purchased in the United States 

will ultimately be trained on them, and that is is a tragedy that 

I hope that we can avoid. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
49 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well—— 

GUN CONTROL—STRAW PURCHASERS

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for a second. The Department earlier today, just a few hours ago, has made some arrests in the death of a U.S. agent, an ICE agent, who was killed. 

The gun was purchased in the United States, in Texas, and apparently—at least by the arrest—allegedly by an American citizen who 

was working in conjunction with Mexican cartels to make these 

purchases. So the wisdom of what the ATF is trying to do is borne 

out in this instance. And your fear about American law enforcement being the victims of these guns has also been borne out, unfortunately. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. General, do you have any sense of what proportion of the weapons that are being used, the weapons of American 

origin that are being used in Mexico by the cartels, are the result 

of straw purchasers as opposed to either theft or acquisition? In 

other words, is the vast majority of these weapons lawfully acquired by American citizens, then unlawfully sold or smuggled out 

of the country? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know what the percentage is. 

I have seen a variety of numbers used in that regard. I am not 

really comfortable with quoting those numbers because I am not 

sure what methodology was used. But I think we can safely say a 

substantial number of the weapons that we find in Mexico were 

lawfully purchased in the United States through the use of straw 

purchases. And that is one of the reasons why, as I said before, the 

ATF proposal makes a great deal of sense. 

[The information follows:] 

AVAILABLE STATS FOR GUNS TO MEXICO FROM THE U.S. 

The Department is unable to provide the specific number of firearms confiscated 

in Mexico that were purchased legally in the United States. The difficulty is determining whether a seized gun was purchased ‘‘legally’’. A firearm may have been initially purchased legally but then subsequently purchased illegally before being 

transported to Mexico. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Austria. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Attorney General, for your service to our country and for being here 

today. I know it has been a long morning so I will try to keep my 

comments relatively short. 

I want to thank Chairman Rogers for bringing up a very important issue because I can tell you when I talked to my sheriffs and 

my county prosecutors, one of the biggest drains on their budget 

is the prescription drugs and the meth labs. And I think we need 

to hear more about the Department’s efforts as far as enforcement 

and also meth lab cleanup. So I know there has been a considerable amount of time spent on that today. I appreciate that. I also 

want to let you know in Ohio we are hearing the exact same thing 

from our locals. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
50 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Mr. Attorney General, I would like to ask you about the Office 

of Justice Programs, OJP. The President’s budget request for OJP 

is 22.1 percent below the fiscal year 2011 amount. And it appears 

that most of the savings comes from the elimination of different 

programs, different projects. And I understand that some of these 

may be congressional projects. But with that, I would think it 

would lower the burden on OJP to administer and provide oversight for these grants. But there is a 30 percent increase for salaries and expenses to OJP. 

And my question is, why is there a substantial increase for OJP’s 

salaries and expenses when the administrative and oversight burdens for OJP will be reduced? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that what we have proposed is a budget that unfortunately reduces monies in some areas, 

increases it in others. We have, for instance, increased the amount 

of money that we seek for COPS grants, I think from about $298 

million to $600 million. So there are different places where there 

is going to be an increase in funds sought, decreases in other areas. 

We want to make sure we administer these funds in an efficient 

way, in an appropriate way. And the numbers that we have set up 

with regard to the administrative costs I think is consistent with 

that desire. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. But it seems to me if you have less administrative 

and oversight, less projects out there, those type of burdens on 

OJP, that the administrative costs would move parallel to that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think it is a question not only of the 

amount of money that is involved, but the number of projects that 

we might be trying to administer. Even if the amount of money 

goes down, the number of projects that we might be ultimately supervising could be the same. As I said, COPS money goes up; that 

is still a program, but it has additional funds in it. We might have 

another program that continues to exist, although the money allotted for this year goes down. So it is in some ways difficult, I think, 

to draw a direct connection between the amount of money that goes 

to a particular component within the Department of Justice and 

what is the appropriate administrative amount. 

THOMSON FACILITY

Mr. AUSTRIA. Let me move on to another subject, Mr. Attorney 

General. I understand that this budget request includes a request 

for operating the maximum security Thomson facility in Illinois. 

And I also understand that it became the government—I understand that because the government is currently operating under a 

CR, which we expect throughout the remainder of fiscal year 

2011—the Federal Government does not own the Thomson facility. 

If the Department is not able to purchase the Thomson facility in 

fiscal year 2011, how do you plan to do so in 2012? Will the purchase and operation timeline just slip back a year? And the other 

part of the question is, can you assure this committee that if purchased by the Federal Government, that the Thomson facility will 

not house detainees being currently held in Guantanamo Bay, or 

what is the plan there if you do intend to house them? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
51 

Attorney General HOLDER. The money we have in the 2012 budget is to start up the running of the Thomson facility. The hope 

would be that in the 2011 resolution that ultimately is reached, we 

would have the money allotted that we had in the budget for the 

purchase of the Thomson facility. 

We will actually save money. Thomson is something that is needed by the Bureau of Prisons to house maximum security prisoners. 

That is a big need that BOP has. We can get that facility, put it 

into operation and save the taxpayers money because it is an existing facility as opposed to one that we would have to construct. And 

that is why you have money in the 2012 budget—I think it is $60 

million or something like that—for operational expenses. 

But the money that we need to purchase it is actually in the 

2011 request, and as I said, it is our hope that we will be able to 

use the 2011 money to acquire Thomson for the need that we have. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Are there any plans with Gitmo as far as the detainees there as far as future use with the Thomson facility? 

Attorney General HOLDER. There are no present intentions. We 

have these congressional restrictions with regard to the movement 

of people from Guantanamo to the United States, or obtaining facilities in the United States. Our need for that facility is, as I have 

indicated, to house maximum security prisoners. We have overcrowding with regard to that category of prisoners in the Bureau 

of Prisons now. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. AUSTRIA. One last question, I know Chairman Wolf has already asked you about the Department’s recent decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. And the I agree with the chairman’s concerns on this. And by taking this position, in my opinion, 

the Department of Justice is no longer fulfilling a usual role of defending Federal statutes. And it raises the question and it seems 

to me to be a considerable power grab by the executive branch. And 

if this practice continues, the legislative branch will have no choice 

but to start defending the Federal statute ourselves. And we are 

actually looking at ways now how to respond to that, whether it be 

through legislative branch attorneys or whatever means that 

might. And I know there are suggestions that whatever dollars are 

being used right now by the Department of Justice to be moved to 

whatever area, whether it be the legislative branch attorneys to defend Congress’ statute. 

What are your thoughts on that? Because it seems like we are 

going down an area now because of the decision that was made 

that is opening up different areas, and I just want to get your clarification as far as your position on that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. What we did I think is correct 

for the reasons that I detailed before, but it is something that is 

exceedingly rare. We understand the obligation that we have to advance reasonable arguments in defense of statutes that Congress 

has passed. As I have indicated, there have been in other Administrations, other Departments of Justice, decisions made not to defend statutes that Congress has passed. But that is something that 

happens rarely. I have a list of 13 cases in which that has occurred 

outside of this Administration. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
52 

Our intent is to continue to defend wherever we can and with 

reasonable arguments statutes that Congress passes. The recommendation that I made and the decision that the President 

made with regard to DOMA is something that I think is unique. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Has there been any internal dissent from career 

Department of Justice attorneys regarding this shift of policy towards DOMA? And if so, can you give us some details on that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I generally don’t share internal Justice Department conversations, but I can say that we certainly had 

a fulsome conversation about this decision, all sides were heard. 

The recommendation was ultimately mine to the President, and the 

President made his decision having been fully briefed on both the 

pros and cons of the potential decision. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Attorney General. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

VOTING RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate you appearing before us 

today. In the time that I have got within this first round of questioning, I wanted to zero in on the right of the people of this country to vote. It is enshrined, of course, in the 15th Amendment, the 

right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or 

abridged by the United States. 

And, in fact, the very first Civil Rights Act to have been passed 

in the United States was the 1957 Voting Rights Act. And in going 

back over and thinking about your testimony today, I went back to 

my library and pulled out the wonderful Robert Caro series on Lyndon Johnson, which I highly recommend to anybody. It is a fascinating series of books and points out that when Johnson was majority leader, he discovered that the one area that the Southern 

Senators who had been consistently filibustering the passage of any 

civil rights legislation by Congress for 82 years—there had been 

this block of Southern Democrat Senators filibustering civil rights 

being granted by statute to minorities in the South—that Johnson 

found one gap that even the Southern Senators would be willing 

to permit. And that was the right to vote. Because in Johnson’s estimate, in the field of voting rights—quoting Caro, ‘‘even the most 

outspoken of white supremacists had a sense that there was something wrong with denying the right to vote. When the right to vote 

came up, he says the tone of voice of the Southern Senators was 

somewhat less defiant, sometimes in fact ashamed.’’ 

So Johnson zeroed in on that and recognized as the majority 

leader the one area where he could pass a civil rights act would 

be to ensure by statute the right to vote, and to ensure that that 

right was guaranteed by a right to trial by jury. Johnson realized 

if he was somehow able to get that part of the Civil Rights Act out 

of the bill, he would be able to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act and 

limit it to a single right, voting, and to guarantee jury trials to defendants in voting right cases. 

And it was really his proudest achievement. And I also went 

back and discovered, in another part of my library, the very first 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
53 

Newsweek magazine, introducing Lyndon Johnson to the nation 

after the assassination of President Kennedy. In his first speech to 

Congress, the new President gave his greatest emphasis to the 

most controversial measures, the civil rights bill and the tax cut. 

And, of course, the Attorney General is given the responsibility 

to enforce the Voting Rights Act, to enforce all of the laws that protect the rights of Americans to vote. And what I wanted to zero in 

on is the absolutely incredible and deeply disturbing evidence that 

the Department of Justice has been applying different standards to 

different groups of people in the enforcement of the Voting Rights 

Act and, in particular, in the Black Panther case. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to if I could, put in the record 

the report of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, the interim report that they entered on the U.S. Department of Justice in the 

New Black Panther Party litigation. I would like to make it a part 

of the record if I could, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Without objection. 

[See Appendix I on page 685.] 

Mr. CULBERSON. In the brief time that I have got, Mr. Attorney 

General, I won’t have a tremendous amount of time to go through 

it. But I would like to ask you, sir, if you would—and I will follow 

up with your office in more detail—respond to, there are apparently still a number of subpoenas, interrogatories, requests for production that you have not complied with yet that the Commission 

on Civil Rights has sent you. Have you fully complied yet with all 

of the requests of the Civil Rights Commission in this case? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You have got an iPad up there. You 

know, they wouldn’t let me bring mine. You have got yours. 

Mr. CULBERSON. They wouldn’t let you? Oh, sure you can. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. For the record, nobody asked. If you would have 

asked, you could have brought yours. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I was only kidding. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, I am a big iPad fan. 

Mr. WOLF. You are welcome to come next time with this. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry. 

With regard to the request that the commission has made, we 

have submitted I think 4,000 or 5,000 pages of testimony. We made 

available the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division who testified. We offered towards the end of the time before 

the report was issued a couple of other witnesses that they requested. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Have you fully complied yet with all of their requests? The report that they issued says you have not. And it is 

really distressing. 

Despite the subpoena, according to the report on page 41, despite 

the subpoena issued to DOJ, you have not, Mr. Attorney General, 

turned over the direct evidence regarding your management level 

communications and decision making about the national Black 

Panther Party litigation. You haven’t complied yet. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have turned over all of the information that we thought was appropriate with regard to the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
54 

quests that were made, and I think we did cooperate fully with the 

commission. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, I know that Mr. Wolf has also sent a letter with Lamar Smith last year. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like 

to work with you and your staff. And I hope, Mr. Attorney General, 

that you will be responsive to the chairman in supplying the committee and the commission with the evidence that they need in 

order to find out whether or not—for example, as Mr. Coates had 

testified that there are career people in the Department of Justice 

who feel strongly it is not the Voting Section’s job to protect white 

voters. The environment there is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas and you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance; you will not receive awards; and you 

will be ostracized. 

That is deeply distressing. And no matter who the Attorney General is, whether it is under the Bush administration, the Reagan 

administration, the Clinton administration or the Obama administration, you have got an absolute obligation to enforce all of the 

laws and certainly the Constitution, the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, in a way that is absolutely impartial regardless of 

who the defendants are. 

The nature of the charge, as the Commission found, paints a picture of a Civil Rights Division in the DOJ at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection under the law for all Americans. During the Bush administration, the press reported ideological conflict within the division. If the testimony before the Civil 

Rights Commission is true, the current conflicts extend beyond policy differences to encompass allegations of inappropriately selective 

enforcement of the law, harassment of dissenting employees and alliances with outside groups at odds with the rule of law. 

How do you respond to that? That is a devastating indictment. 

No matter who the Attorney General is and no matter who the 

President of the United States is, that is a devastating indictment. 

How do you respond to that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I want to assure you and the American people that the Justice Department under my leadership and 

as part of the Obama Administration enforces all of the laws without regard to the race, ethnicity or political persuasion of anybody 

who might be involved in a particular matter. The Civil Rights Division under my leadership, under Tom Perez’s leadership, has 

done a good job in making determinations about how it uses its resources. But those resource allocations are not made on the basis 

of the race of the complainant, the ethnicity of the complainant, the 

political persuasion of the complainant. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But in particular in this case, in the Black Panther case, I don’t know how you can say that. And it is just not 

accurate because the Voting Rights Section of the Department of 

Justice under the Bush administration was preparing to file a permanent injunction. The defendants in this case—I mean, they had 

them on videotape. The whole country saw those thugs; one guy 

with a billy club intimidating voters and running them off from the 

polling place in Philadelphia, and the defendants had even admitted liability. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
55 

The DOJ, under President Bush, had a permanent injunction 

lined up. They were prepared to file. The judge was prepared to 

enter it. And as soon as the Obama Administration came in, you 

withdrew that, settled for significantly less—withdrew the permanent injunction, got a temporary injunction against one of the guys, 

I think the guy with the billy club. And it simply doesn’t square 

with the facts. 

The United States Commission on Civil Rights has investigated 

this carefully and determined that you are not complying with 

their subpoenas or requests for documents. You didn’t respond to 

Chairman Wolf when he was in the minority along with Chairman 

Smith, who is now chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The Department is, I hope, going to comply with Mr. Wolf’s request for information. 

I mean, Mr. Coates, explained it very well when he said that 

imagine if a couple of Ku Klux Klansmen had stood outside a polling place in uniform—and these Black Panther guys are in some 

kind of a uniform—and the Ku Klux Klansmen had intimidated 

voters—one guy was carrying a billy club—wearing his white hood, 

can you—the Department of Justice would have been all over those 

guys. There is no difference between those two cases other than the 

type of uniform and the type of voters that they are harassing. 

Your job is to enforce the law without regard to race. 

Clearly in this Black Panther case, you basically reversed course, 

which is the first time that Mr. Coates had ever seen that happen 

in his 13 years with the Department. He never had seen an administration reverse course in pursuing one of these civil rights cases. 

And what is disturbing enough about the Black Panther case, but 

what I am driving at, sir—and I hope that you will be responsive 

to Mr. Wolf and Chairman Smith—is this case reveals a pattern in 

the Department of refusing to enforce the law if white voters are 

being harassed, or in the case of Pima County, the Civil Rights 

Commission points out you didn’t pursue a case of harassing Hispanic voters. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, the way in which this 

Department of Justice conducts itself is to enforce the voting rights 

laws and all the laws without regard to the characteristics that 

you—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But that doesn’t square with reality. How do 

you respond to the Pima County case and the Black Panther case 

and the evidence that Mr. Coates and I believe Mr. Adams—Mr. 

Adams actually resigned. You had a senior official at DOJ resign 

because one of your division chiefs, Mr. Perez I believe, had given, 

in Mr. Adams’ opinion, false and inaccurate testimony before—Mr. 

Adams resigned because the Assistant Attorney General had given 

inaccurate testimony to the commission. 

What I am driving at, sir—and just the generalities aren’t sufficient. We are going to really pursue this. This is not acceptable. 

These statutes—I mean, this is the greatest achievement—Lyndon 

Johnson considered the Voting Rights Act of 1957 his greatest 

achievement. He considered the Voting Rights Act of 1964 the signature achievement of President Kennedy. These laws lie at the 

heart of what makes this the greatest nation in the history of the 

world, that we are never going to deny anybody the right to vote 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
56 

or deny anybody the right to privileges within the Constitution 

based on their race. Yet there is clearly evidence, overwhelming 

evidence, that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the 

rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote. 

Mr. FATTAH. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is the evidence before the commission. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would disagree very vehemently 

with the notion that there is overwhelming evidence that that is 

in fact true. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Could you prove the Commission wrong, please? 

That is what I am driving at. 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield. I would like to enter 

something into the record—it might be helpful to illuminate this 

issue. This is by the Republican vice chair of the Civil Rights Commission. And she submitted this for the record, Vice Chair 

Thernstrom: I cannot support the majority report on this investigation. This investigation lacked political and intellectual integrity 

from the outset and has been consistently undermined by the imbalance between the gravity of the allegations and the strength of 

the evidence available to support such charges. I would like to 

enter this into the record. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. WOLF. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 122 67259A.014
58 

Mr. CULBERSON. We will put it into the record. 

Mr. FATTAH. The Attorney General has been asked this question 

and answered it four times, and I have the ranking member of the 

full committee, and I would like him to be—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. If I could, reclaiming my time. 

But I just would ask, Mr. Attorney General, if you could help us 

disprove these allegations. That is my concern, is that the evidence—and, Mr. Fattah—sure, Mr. Fattah. Absolutely. Put it in 

the record. 

Mr. FATTAH. I don’t want to cut him off. I just don’t want him 

to ask and have answered the same question four times. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But he is just not answering it. My problem 

is—— 

Mr. FATTAH. That is the answer you are going to receive from the 

Attorney General. We should—— 

Mr. WOLF. I have not cut anyone off and hope for the rest of this 

Congress—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I would never ask that you cut anyone off. 

Mr. WOLF. So I think we owe Mr. Culberson the opportunity to 

ask the line of questions. I hope I never have to test the gavel for 

the next two years. I think every Member who cares deeply about 

an issue ought to be able to talk about whatever they want to. 

Mr. FATTAH. I totally agree. And we can ask any question we 

want. We have to accept the answers that were given. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Absolutely. And forgive me, Mr. Attorney General. My time is limited. And forgive me for interrupting you, sir, 

but really, your answers are very vague and general and not responsive to what I am driving at. And that is, I am asking you specifically, would you help Mr. Wolf, Mr. Fattah and myself and my 

good friend, Adam Schiff, who I know cares about this deeply, as 

all the members of the Committee do, to disprove these very serious allegations of the Civil Rights Commission report? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Let me say, I think I have answered 

very directly the question that you have asked, and let me be very 

clear. This Department of Justice does not enforce the laws in a 

race-conscious way. Any allegation that has been lodged in that regard is simply false. Now, I think that directly answers the question that you have put to me. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. And you will help us prove that with documents, responses, interrogatories that the Commission has sent 

and you have not answered? You will answer all of those for our 

committee? 

Attorney General HOLDER. If the Budget Committee is going to 

be doing the oversight, sure, we will respond. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure, we do oversight. It is not just the authorizing committee, but we have a very important oversight role. That 

is why Mr. Rogers’ questions were so important. This isn’t just the 

funding committee. We are not just the money committee. We are 

a key part of oversight. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. Whatever committee in Congress, whether it is Judiciary or this committee, we will certainly 

respond and work with you in dealing with the issues that are of 

concern to you. I would be more than glad to do that because I am 

confident that a neutral and detached examination of the record 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
59 

will substantiate what I have just said in as clear and direct a 

fashion as I can. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I hope so. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I congratulate you on becoming the chairman of the committee 

and Mr. Fattah as the ranking member. Mr. Attorney General, we 

are glad to have you here today, and I think my questions are 

going to be a little less contentious, I hope. 

IMPACT OF DOJ BUDGET CUTS

A number of big cuts would fall on the Department of Justice: $581 million—this is in H.R. 1, the bill that we passed two weeks 

ago. A number of big cuts fall on the Department of Justice: $581 

million from State and local enforcement assistance; $191 million 

from the Office of Juvenile Justice; and the wholesale elimination 

of the National Drug Intelligence Center and the Weed and Seed 

Program, just to name a few. Even with the House vote to restore 

funding for the COPS hiring program, these cuts will surely lead 

to a loss in jobs, more than 3,800 by some estimates, at a time 

when the Nation can ill afford the additional unemployment. Can 

you discuss these cuts and your view of what would be the impact 

of them? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I understand the concerns that we all 

have about the budgetary constraints that we have. What we have 

tried to do is responsibly come up with a budget request that is 

mindful of the fiscal issues that our Nation has to deal with while 

also trying to make sure that the Justice Department has the capacity to do the things that the American people expect of it. Some 

of the cuts that have been proposed and a few delineated go too far 

and will hurt the Department and its ability to be a good partner 

to our State and local counterparts. That is a very, very important 

component and a part of our job. 

Mr. DICKS. Just to add to that point. At the same time, the 

States are under the enormous pressure—I think all the States are 

going to have to cut something like $125 billion from their budgets, 

and they have to do it. So this is going to have a double effect on 

the State and local governments. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is exactly the point I was going 

to make, given the problems that our State and local partners have 

and to the extent that we can help on the Federal side. It is not 

our responsibility to balance the State budgets. I understand that. 

On the other hand, to the extent we can help the law enforcement capabilities of our State and local partners and do it in a responsible way, which I think we have laid out in our 2012 budget, 

I think we should try to do that. 

Mr. DICKS. Additionally troubling are that these specific cuts are 

targeted at the criminal justice sector, meaning that we will have 

fewer police officers, prosecutors and other public safety personnel 

working to keep our constituents safe. It also means that there will 

be significantly fewer resources available for youth mentoring, 

after-school programs, programs to prevent domestic abuse, programs in which I know you have a personal interest, and all at a 

time when State and local, as I mentioned, State and local governVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
60 

ments are making severe cuts to their own budgets. Funding for 

many of these very important programs is disappearing before our 

eyes, and that will have very serious effects on all of our districts. 

So I hope that you can work with the leaders of—on both sides 

of Capitol Hill to try to make sure that when we get the final product here, that we have something that the Department can live 

with that won’t have a negative effect on law enforcement. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would hope that we have that ability, and I think in this hearing today we are having what I think 

is a good exchange. But hopefully it will just be the beginning of 

a process that will allow us to talk about our views of how we 

should construct this budget, obviously listening to the thoughts 

that the members of this committee have, and come up with a 

budget at the end of the day that will best serve the American people. 

We don’t claim to have all of the answers. What we want to do 

is to have interaction on this committee that, as I said, at the end 

of the day, produces a good budget for my Department. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. 

PRISON RAPE

Prison rape. I, along with Bobby Scott in the House, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Sessions in the Senate, passed the prison rape bill, which I think is very important. The fact is I hope to 

spend a little time on prisons and prison reform. But I want to 

begin with regard to this. 

Congress affirmed its duty to protect incarcerated individuals, 

and I have been disappointed that the Department has been very 

slow in acting, from sexual abuse when they enacted the Prison 

Rape Elimination Act. Since then, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has studied the causes of sexual abuse in confinement, developed standards for the reduction of such crimes, set 

in motion a process once considered impossible, the elimination of 

prison rape. On January 24th, the DOJ published the long-awaited 

proposed rules outlining national standards to prevent, protect and 

respond to prison rape. When do you expect the regulations to be 

finalized? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The rule is up for comment now. I 

would hope that this would be finalized by the latter part of this 

year, given all of the administrative things that have to happen, 

and the regulatory process it has to go through. 

Mr. WOLF. I have a letter from somebody who I know you know 

very well, Judge Walton. And I will just read a portion of it and 

perhaps you can answer as I get to that. He said ‘‘I write in my 

capacity as former chairman of the National Prison Rape Elimination’’—I assume you both served as judges together? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, we served together on the Superior Court. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. ‘‘We are aware of the upcoming House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. We offer the following short list of 

program items for your consideration. I note that our collective concern is predicated on more than your suspicion that interested parVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
61 

ties have pressured the Attorneys General’s PREA Working Group 

to alter the commission standards. The Attorney General apparently supports changing the commission standards, which in our 

view will weaken inmate protection and diminish institutional safeguards.’’ 

‘‘More importantly, the Department of Justice is currently using 

cost estimates that are unknown, unavailable. Everyone, especially 

the commission, needs to know the basis of the additional cost calculations and subsequent analysis, which has not been made public. Please inquire when this vital information will be released? 

When will you be releasing the information in time for the commission?’’ 

Attorney General HOLDER. Releasing the information—— 

Mr. WOLF. Information with regard to cost? Because he goes on 

to say, ‘‘it is essential that the data be available on an expedited 

basis for the commission and others who are present and preparing 

comments during April 4th. If the data cannot be properly released, 

please ask the Attorney General if the comment period will be extended to ensure an opportunity to review the crucial data before 

submitting comments.’’ 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I will certainly look into that. 

And to the extent that information has not been made available 

that would help in the formulation of good comments, I will do all 

that I can to make sure that information is made available. I just 

have to look into that. 

[The information follows:] 

RELEASING INFORMATION REGARDING JUDGE WALTON LETTER

The Department’s cost estimates were provided in the Initial Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (IRIA) that the Department made public at the same time as its proposed 

rule. The former commissioners requested additional information regarding the calculation of cost estimates contained in the IRIA. The Department subsequently posted to the regulatory docket in early March a set of worksheets that were used in 

preparation of the IRIA. 

Mr. WOLF. He went on to say, ‘‘please inquire if the Attorney 

General agrees with the commission that regular and independent 

audits are a bulwark against adverse court decisions and public 

criticism.’’ Do you agree with that? 

INDEPENDENT AUDITING OF BOP

Attorney General HOLDER. I certainly think there has to be some 

kind of monitoring of this to make sure that in fact the aims of the 

regulations that ultimately are adopted are in fact taking place. So, 

yeah—— 

Mr. WOLF. Who do you see to monitor that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Excuse me? 

Mr. WOLF. Who would you have monitor that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. These are things that will have to 

happen. I mean, we will have to work our way through that. I don’t 

know what the process would be. But my thought is that some kind 

of monitoring of the progress—— 

Mr. WOLF. I think the Department has been late in this. During 

this period of time, men and women have been raped in the prisons. We raised this with you last time you came before the committee. This is important. This is the responsibility of the Attorney 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
62 

General. And I thought this was one issue that you would embrace 

and be enthusiastic in working with the Congress to kind of deal 

with the issue. I am almost surprised that it has almost been like 

pulling teeth you almost can’t get out. I would like to ask that the 

IG audit this. Because if you have the corrections people auditing 

themselves, you will not be sure that it is really being done. What 

is your position with regard to asking the IG to audit it every year 

for the first 3 years and then 3 years thereafter? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I would say that first off the 

passion that you have for this, I think, is laudable. And the reality 

is that this is something that we have taken very seriously at the 

Department of Justice, something I have taken very seriously at 

the Department of Justice. The commission had five years to do its 

work. There were a number of extensions that the commission had. 

We got one year once the commission submitted its report to us to 

try to get a final rule done. We missed that deadline. It is going 

to take about 18, maybe 20, months in order to do that. The commission had five years, as I said, to do its work. 

The passion that you have is shared by the people who have 

worked on it at the Department of Justice. This is something that 

we are trying to eliminate. We want to do it in such a way that 

we put in place a regulation that will stand the test of time and 

ultimately will be effective in stopping these heinous practices that 

subject people to physical abuse. And that is what we have tried 

to do and also have been mindful of the restrictions that have been 

placed on us about costs. 

Mr. WOLF. The question here is who will audit whatever is done 

or not done? Who do you view as auditing it to make sure that the 

act is carried out appropriately? Who do you see as auditing this? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that is something we 

will have to work on. To audit the Nation’s prison systems is something that is going to be very substantial, and you are talking 

about something that could be cost-intensive. So how we do this is 

something that I would be more than glad to work with the committee on and with you in particular about coming up with a mechanism so that we make sure that the monitoring is done in an appropriate way. 

Mr. WOLF. By an objective group? I don’t think the people who 

are involved in it can audit themselves. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will have to make sure that the 

audits, the monitoring, is done in a way that is credible. And we 

will have to work on that, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Judge Walton goes on to say, ‘‘of cross-gender 

searches, DOJ’s standard is regressive on security pat-down 

searches. Virtually all State prison systems presently prohibit male 

staff from searching women inmates in the absence of other circumstances. This view is supported by a 1999 study conducted by 

the National Institute of Corrections, a DOJ component. We are informed and now confirming that a similar ban exists in most jails. 

Bureau of Prisons policy and practices, however, routinely permit 

cross-gender pat searches of female inmates by male correctional 

officers. Please inquire of the Attorney General why he opted to 

adopt BOP’s practice rather than the practice which is prevalent in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
63 

a majority of correctional institutions and supported by a robust 

body of case law.’’ 

Attorney General HOLDER. What is out there is a proposed rule, 

and there will be comments that will be made, among those obviously from Judge Walton and other members of the commission, 

members of the public, interested parties. And we will take those 

into account before a final rule is actually put in place. It would 

have been nice if Judge Walton had shared that with me. I didn’t 

get it from him. But I will take it into account and maybe you can 

share that letter with me. 

Mr. WOLF. We are sharing it. We will—it is underlined. I have 

notes that we will share this with you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. That is fine. And we will take 

into account all of the comments that come from a variety of 

sources and in particular from those people who are on the commission. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, the commission spent a lot of time, and I think 

we really want to—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Five years. 

Mr. WOLF. And it is done well. Well, they are not professional 

people. They were taken from different areas, and they spent a lot 

of time. And we want to make sure that it is audited very appropriately and this is very, very successful once it is completed. I 

think the Department has been very slow with regard to that. 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING—USA TASK FORCES

Human trafficking. Last year I asked you about what could be 

done immediately to institute greater cooperation between State 

and local governments, the FBI and the U.S. attorneys in order to 

close down the sites where trafficking is taking place, remove the 

victims of trafficking and finally prosecute the offenders. It would 

be beneficial for all of the U.S. attorneys to have task forces with 

regard to this. What are your thoughts about—particularly in areas 

where this is a problem, which unfortunately seems to be in most 

parts of the country. Do you think it is good idea that every U.S. 

Attorney have the task force to deal with the issue of Federal, 

State and local working together? And if you do, how many currently have task forces? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that there is a variety of ways 

in which we need to deal with this, and I think that is something 

that is worthy of attention by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and I 

think we need to work with our State and local partners in that 

regard. We have done things very quietly. We have had meetings 

with interest groups who have raised concerns about the use of 

various media and advertising that have been used to traffic, especially young women, girls actually. And as a result of those interactions and the pressure that we brought to bear, I think we have 

seen significant changes in the past year. Those efforts that we are 

doing, again quietly, are I think bearing results. 

Mr. WOLF. What I think the question was: do you think it is a 

good idea for U.S. attorneys in areas where this is a problem to 

have a task force whereby State and local and social services are 

working together? And Neil MacBride has one here in northern 

Virginia. I think they are bringing everyone in together. I believe 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
64 

they established it at our request, but I appreciate he moved very 

quickly on it. He felt it was a very important thing. How many 

other U.S. attorneys have a task force like Neil MacBride does? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That I do not know. But one of the 

things I have told all of the U.S. Attorneys is to look at one of the 

issues you have to confront in your district. How can you improve 

the quality of life for the people in your district? How are you going 

to protect the people in your district? And Neil has done exactly 

what you have indicated, and I think he has done it well. I think 

we can learn from what he has done there and see how we might 

extrapolate, learn from, replicate what he has done. 

Mr. WOLF. Could he be the only one that has a task force? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know, and I will check on that 

and get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

HOW MANY U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICES HAVE HUMAN TRAFFICKING TASK FORCES? 

There are currently 39 funded human trafficking task forces around the country, 

each of which has participation from the U.S. Attorney’s Office that covers the area 

in which the task force is located. 

TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

Mr. WOLF. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization 

Act requires DOJ to create a new model State law to further a comprehensive approach to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking and to do so by drafting provisions that criminalize sex trafficking without proof of force, fraud or coercion, and whether or not 

the victim is a minor. Where is the DOJ in the process of drafting 

this model legislation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will have to get back to you on that, 

Mr. Chairman. That is something that obviously I think is worthy 

of our efforts, and I will check and see exactly where we are with 

regard to the drafting. 

[The information follows:] 

TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT STATUS

The Department has drafted a model state law as required under the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008. The model state law is 

currently posted on the Department’s website at: http://www.justice.gov/olp/modelstate-criminal-provision.html. 

WILBERFORCE ACT

Mr. WOLF. Section 237 of the Wilberforce Act established a 

March 2009 deadline for the submission of a status report to Congress—that is March 2009—on the Department’s long-delayed 

progress in commissioning a full report on unlawful commercial sex 

in the United States. Without a complete understanding of the horrific nature of this criminal industry—you know, you should be the 

Attorney General that shuts this down. The work should go forth. 

Holder is against this. Holder will go anywhere, do anything and 

eliminate this. This could be your legacy, if you will. So that is why 

I think every U.S. Attorneys’ Office ought to do what Neil 

MacBride is doing. 

But to go back to the question, without a complete understanding 

of the horrific nature of this criminal industry, how can Federal, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
65 

State and local policymakers properly deal with what many have 

described as the slavery issue of our time? Can you give us an update on the status of this critical report? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. WOLF. Section 237 of the Wilberforce Act established a 

March 2009 deadline for the submission of a report. I am asking 

you to give us a status of where it is. It is late. Can you give us 

the status of it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Okay. This is different. I will get back 

to you with regard to where we stand in that regard. 

[The information follows:] 

WILBERFORCE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT STATUS

Pursuant to Section 201(a)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, OJP delivered the first biennial report on severe forms of trafficking in persons, sex trafficking and unlawful commercial sex acts in the United 

States to both houses of Congress on October 1, 2009. 

Mr. WOLF. The manager’s statement to the Wilberforce Act calls 

on the Department to review and report on the organization of its 

anti-trafficking prosecutions. Has this review been completed? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are in the process of trying to 

compile a nationwide anti-trafficking strategy and come up with a 

guide for use by the task forces that will be in place or that are 

in place—I will come up with a number for you—so that we have 

a robust enforcement effort with regard to this issue. And I will 

come up with, as I said, with the number of task forces that are 

presently in existence and also detail for you where we stand with 

regard to the report in the legislation. 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Mr. WOLF. An undercover video recently showed that Planned 

Parenthood clinics in New Jersey, New York and D.C. and Virginia 

all turned a blind eye to the conditions that clearly marked patients as trafficking victims. Moreover, the clinics advised the pimp 

on how he could avoid being caught by falsifying or omitting key 

information on the very paperwork that is required to ensure minors. As you know, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act defines 

severe forms of trafficking in a person that is, quote, sex trafficking 

in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud or coercion, in which the person induced to perform such act does not obtain the age of 18. Have these been looked at with regard to the 

trafficking law? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is my understanding that the FBI 

actually has looked at that matter. I believe this is true. If I am 

incorrect, I will send you something. But I understand the FBI has 

looked at that and a prosecution was declined in that matter. 

Mr. WOLF. I am going to end and ask some other questions that 

I am not going to go into. But I would really hope—because when 

you speak out, Mr. Attorney General, the U.S. attorneys, they listen. You are their leader. And I think for you to say this is a priority for Attorney General Holder and no young teenage person, no 

young person should be sexually trafficked, no one should be 

brought in from another country. You could—and we are prepared 

to help you any way we possibly can—really make a tremendous— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
66 

you could literally eliminate it for the next two years. If you put 

everything into it, you could literally break the back of this. And 

I would urge you—and the committee will do anything we possibly 

can to help you—to be the Attorney General that literally almost 

eradicates sexual trafficking from this country. 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I said, this is something that is a 

priority of the Department. It is a priority of mine. If you look at 

the fact that craigslist has dropped their adult ads, that is a significant thing. 

Mr. WOLF. That is. 

Attorney General HOLDER. And that happened as a result of 

meetings that occurred in my office and the work that some organizations we met with—— 

Mr. WOLF. I thank you for that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. And we have had other meetings 

about other publications that are continuing to do this. That is a 

prime way in which young girls are trafficked. Again, this is not 

something that we have done very loudly or sought any attention 

about—we only try to achieve results. I think you are right—the 

U.S. Attorneys are maybe a group of 90-some people who do tend 

to listen to me. Not many others do, and I hope that in my interaction with them I have made clear this is in fact a priority. And 

we will work to make sure that we have in place mechanisms that 

will effectively get at this issue. 

I think what Neil MacBride has done in the Eastern District of 

Virginia is very good. I am familiar with what he has done there, 

and we are in the process of developing ways in which other U.S. 

Attorneys can come up with mechanisms doing exactly what he has 

done or doing something that will respond to the unique needs of 

their districts so that we overall have a good national enforcement 

effort here. But as I said, we will continue doing the quiet things 

as well. 

HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP

Mr. WOLF. Sometimes the more public, the better. I am going to 

just ask you and then go to Mr. Fattah. It is about the High-Value 

Detainee Interrogation Group. I had over and over sent letters to 

the administration, and every one I talked to who is a career person thinks it is a good idea. I have asked that High-Value Interrogation Team be colocated at the Counterterrorism Center. Any 

comments with regard to that? Because if you are there when the 

information is coming in, you are more attuned and ready and 

know who you have to pick and pull. And to have them colocated 

there—they are not there. I know where they are. They are not 

there. Doesn’t it make sense to colocate the HIG at the Counterterrorism Center in McLean? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the key is to make sure that 

they are communicating in real time to the extent that that is possible. 

Mr. WOLF. But the purpose of the Counterterrorism Center was 

to bring everyone together so they would be face to face, the stovepipes would be broken down. That is the advantage of it. And I 

think Leiter is doing a good job. But to have the HIG team colocated there, would that not make sense? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
67 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think as I said, communication really is the key. I have seen the letter that you sent to Mr. Brennan, 

and I have seen his response back to you. And I would align myself 

with what he indicated. 

Mr. WOLF. That they don’t have space? Is that the reason? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That there is the need to make sure 

that, as I have said, it is as close to real time as possible and that 

communication exists between the HIG and NCTC. And I agree 

with you that Mike Leiter has done a good job there. And I think 

that the interaction that exists between the HIG and NCTC is actually good. 

Mr. WOLF. How many times has the HIG or the MIT interrogation team been deployed since Christmas day last year? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will have to check on that and get 

back to you. They have been deployed. I don’t know the exact number. 

[The information follows:] 

AMOUNT OF TIMES HIG/MIT HAS BEEN DEPLOYED SINCE THE CHRISTMAS DAY PLOT

That number is classified and will be provided under separate cover. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

I know that the U.S. Attorneys listen to you because I know that 

our U.S. Attorney in the Philadelphia area, Zane Memeger, was out 

last night in a neighborhood interacting in a community around 

issues to improve the quality of life there in terms of guns and 

youth violence. And it made a significant impact. 

VOTING RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

I want to get a couple of things in the record since this fiction 

about you making decisions about which cases to proceed with and 

which cases not to proceed with based on race. You decided to drop 

the prosecution for the late Senator Stevens. You were applauded 

by, I think, a lot of Members on the other side. You didn’t do that 

on the basis of his race, right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. 

Mr. FATTAH. And I want to make sure I enter this news story 

in the record about that decision. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
68 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 154 67259A.015
69 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 155 67259A.016
70 

Mr. FATTAH. And also you decided not to prosecute anyone in relationship to the destruction of the alleged videos of torture of prisoners by agents of the CIA or consultants or employees. That 

wasn’t done on the basis of race, was it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That was not. 

Mr. FATTAH. And you decided not to pursue a prosecution of 

former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and his ties to Abramoff. Was 

that done on the basis of his race? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. 

Mr. FATTAH. So, now, this fiction about the New Black Panther 

Party, these were two individuals at one polling place in the entire 

Nation on election day who were out there. And this fiction created 

by Fox News is that they were intimidating voters. There were no 

allegations by any voter that they were intimidated, number one. 

These people said they were out there to protect these voters so 

they could cast their vote. Now, they should not have been there. 

They were rightly arrested. And the Department dealt with the adjudication in this matter, as you dealt with all the other cases. 

But I think that the allegation—and I think the most unethical 

thing a person can do is make allegations based on absolutely nothing—that you would make a decision based on race flies in the face 

of all of the facts available. I think it brings the Congress into disrepute, in fact, to even raise it, without evidence. Now, if we look 

at what this holdover Civil Rights Commission has done, they ran 

this ridiculous investigation that the Republican vice chair says 

lacked integrity, to continue these allegations out in public. But the 

facts are as they are, and I think that the work of the Department 

in making decisions, and these are some fairly politically sensitive 

matters, without regard to race or political affiliation, just based on 

the facts—that is what we want prosecutors to do, to exercise their 

discretion and to do it on the side of justice. So I want to commend 

you for doing it. And I want to thank the chairman for allowing me 

to enter the Vice Chair’s—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Without objection. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Statement into the record. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
71 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 158 here 67259A.017
72 

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could just say one thing in that 

regard, and I appreciate your comments. The decisions made on the 

New Black Panther case were made by career attorneys in the Department. And beyond that, if we are going to look at the record, 

let us look at it in its totality. The Department, just last year, requested additional relief on behalf of white voters in a Voting 

Rights Act in Mississippi, the case of the United States v. Ike 

Brown, where the person we were suing was black. So we have 

done these kinds of things irrespective of the race of the person 

who is either the complainant or the person who has done the inappropriate thing. 

We have simply tried to follow the law, apply the law in a raceneutral way. And any assertions to the contrary are simply not 

consistent with the facts. 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Mr. FATTAH. Now, the reason why I love our chairman—Frank 

Wolf has done a great job—is in part because of the passion he 

brings to this question of human trafficking. And the Department 

has done some work in this area that I want to make sure we get 

in the record. Over the last two fiscal years, you have had a record 

number of prosecutions in human trafficking cases and particularly 

in this area of children, investigations related to 1,200 children. 

You have had over 600 convictions in State and Federal court with 

25 years to life sentences imposed. I went over and visited, in Virginia, the Center For Missing and Exploited Children, which is 

funded by your Department. And you have a number of agents colocated there, FBI, ATF and the like, working day in and day out, 

doing amazing work to recover children who have been kidnapped 

or who were being exploited or being used for child pornography 

purposes. So I really want to commend the Department. And this 

is some $30-plus million dollars being well spent. I don’t think the 

public is as aware as we should be about the number of children 

that go missing every day. 

And we talk about human trafficking as if they are just young 

girls being brought from some other place for untoward purposes. 

But in many instances, we have children right here in our own 

country, and it is terrible under any circumstance, but these children are being taken. And if it were not for the work of your Department to track them down and to prosecute the people who are 

violating the law and also rescue these children, it would not happen. So as a father of four myself, I want to thank you for that, 

and I yield back. 

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could, in that regard, I think what 

the ranking member is talking about is the Innocence Lost National Initiative. As of November 2010—and the statistics that he 

has are correct there. There are 39 Innocence Lost task forces and 

working groups around the country and have worked successfully 

to recover more than 1,200 children. Investigations have led to 600 

convictions with the multiple 25 years to life sentences that he indicates. And I think that is an indication of the kind of attention 

and resources that we have devoted to this issue. We always want 

to get better at it, and we want to work with the committee and 

in particular with the ranking member and with the chair so that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
73 

we make sure that all that we are doing is funded appropriately 

and that it gets the attention that it needs. It is a very serious 

problem. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Dicks. 

COMPUTER INTRUSION INITIATIVE

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from 

Texas for letting me go first. In your statement on page 3, you talk 

about you want to expand the Computer Intrusion Initiative to increase our capabilities to detect and counter cyber intrusions. I 

serve on the Defense Subcommittee and am heavily involved in intelligence oversight. This cyber issue I think is one of the most 

dangerous issues to face the country. 

Attorney General HOLDER. You are right. 

Mr. DICKS. And I just would like you to describe what the Justice 

Department is doing with your Computer Intrusion Initiative. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think you are right. This is one of 

the most dangerous things that we have to confront, both on a national security basis, where people are trying to hack into our computers, glean national defense information or where they might be 

used in an offensive way against our country. There is also the 

commercial side, where trade secrets are stolen, and intellectual 

property is stolen, as a result of computer intrusions. This is something that we have devoted a great deal of attention to. 

Cyber crime, in both the forms that I have described, is really 

something that requires 21st century enforcement efforts. It is 

something that we have devoted time and attention to. It is a priority for this Administration. This is something that not just the 

Justice Department is working on. This is something that we discuss in meetings that we have in the Situation Room with the 

President. We are really focused on the whole question of cyber 

crime. 

We have a very effective part of our Criminal Division, the Computer Crimes Section, which I think does a very good job. Our 

budget for fiscal year 2012 asks for an increase of $318 million and 

42 positions to enhance the FBI’s ability to direct and investigate 

cyber terrorism matters and also to strengthen the National Cyber 

Investigative Joint Task Forces and also to improve our forensic capabilities in this regard. This is an area that really is important, 

and I think that your characterization of this as very serious and 

something we need to do is exactly right. 

Mr. DICKS. One thing I would mention, I saw a recent report. 

And some people say this isn’t—it is still understated that cyber attacks and taking people’s intellectual property has reached over $1 

trillion worldwide. Now, that is a big number when you talk about 

that kind of an impact. And we worry about our financial institutions, our utilities. I think the Defense Department is doing a pretty good job. The major concern I have is with the Department of 

Homeland Security and its coverage of the rest of the government 

besides defense and the business community in the country and 

working with the Administration on what they are doing. 

And do you think there is a need for a regulation here so that 

the government—I am told by the Department of Homeland Security that they cannot direct a company to take certain actions, like 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
74 

a utility, for example, if they were vulnerable to a cyber attack; 

there are certain things they could do, and if they didn’t do it, that 

the Department of Homeland Security can’t do anything about it. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think one of the things we need to 

do is try to work with partners on the private side and establish 

relationships such that when we identify a threat, they take action 

consistent with that threat. I think that is probably the best way 

to do it. 

But I think the point that you make about the commercial side 

is, again, exactly right. I went to Hong Kong to give a speech about 

that a few months ago and then went to China to talk to the Chinese authorities there about the problems, the issues that we have 

with them about the way in which these cyber intrusions are occurring and the theft of our intellectual property. They announced a 

program of short duration to deal with the issues that we raised. 

But I think working with people in private industry—having a good 

interaction between government and those on the private side, to 

allow them to come up with ways in which they are responsive to 

the issues that we identify—probably the best way to do it. 

If ultimately there is the need for regulation, that is certainly 

something that we would want to work with Congress on. But I 

think your identification of this issue and all of the ways in which 

you have described it is something that really has to be focused on. 

As we have made tough choices with regard to our budget, it is one 

of the reasons why we have sought the pretty substantial increase 

in this area because I think this is an area that is deserving. Even 

in hard budget times, this is an area that is deserving of more resources. 

Mr. DICKS. And I will just end on this. Sometimes people don’t 

even know that they have been intruded on, and this is—and you 

don’t know necessarily where it is coming from because the way 

they set these things up can be very deceptive. So I just think— 

and I think the vulnerability has not been publicly stated as much 

as it should, so the people will take it and the companies will take 

it serious. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Culberson. 

VOTING RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fattah said—I want to make sure I understood, Mr. Fattah. 

I hope you weren’t referring to my questions as bringing discredit 

to the Congress, I hope. 

Mr. FATTAH. Never. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, my friend. Because we do work arm 

in arm on this. But these are not—I think I heard you say madeup allegations or something. 

Mr. FATTAH. I said they were fiction. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Fiction. Well, they are on videotape, and you 

have sworn testimony from a whole variety of witnesses. And I 

know you are upset in Philadelphia. This happened in your backyard. But this is on videotape. You have got sworn testimony from 

a whole variety of witnesses. And in particular—and this is now a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
75 

part of the record. I want to bring to your attention—this is sworn 

testimony in a litigation brought the Department of Justice under 

President Bush, a gentleman by the name of Bartle Bull, who 

worked in the Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law in 

Mississippi in the 1960s, and was publisher of the Village Voice. He 

was the New York campaign manager for Bobby Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1968. This guy goes way back; Charles Evers’ 

campaign for governor of Mississippi. The guy’s civil rights credentials are impeccable. And he was interviewed by Department of 

Justice personnel about what happened on election day. He 

watched these two uniformed men confront voters, attempt to intimidate voters, position themselves in a location that forced every 

voter to pass in close proximity to them. They brandished a nightstick, were wearing uniforms. He says, ‘‘in my opinion, these men 

created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll.’’ Direct 

sworn testimony in the litigation that was going to lead—until you 

dismissed it—to a permanent injunction against these guys. This 

is testimony, sworn testimony: ‘‘In all of my experience in politics 

and civil rights litigation and in all my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi, I have never heard or encountered another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location. Their clear 

purpose and intent was to intimidate voters. To me, the presence 

and behavior of the two uniformed men was an outrageous affront 

to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an 

election.’’ 

His sworn testimony is, Mr. Fattah and Mr. Attorney General, 

that this would qualify as ‘‘the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns and many 

States, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 

1960s.’’ So it was on videotape. You have got sworn testimony from 

all sorts of witnesses that these guys were intimidating and 

harassing people. They admitted liability and were ready to accept 

the judgment of the court. The Civil Rights Division had actually 

prepared a permanent injunction. 

And as soon as the new administration came in, they withdrew 

it. And that in itself is a terrible affront to American justice and 

the Civil Rights Act that was the greatest achievement of President 

Lyndon Johnson and President Kennedy, the Voting Rights Act. 

What I am really driving at and what is most disturbing to me, 

to Mr. Wolf, and to a lot of Americans, is the double standard. 

There is a pattern of a double standard here that Mr. Adams, Mr. 

Coates, that a number of people in the Department have testified 

to. And on the Ike Brown case, Mr. Attorney General, you mentioned a minute ago that you said—I am flying through my iPad 

here. You have got to get one of these. Frank is about to get one. 

They are spectacular. 

On page 52—if I can get to it quick enough by flying through— 

I don’t think I can pick pages. They talk about the Ike Brown case, 

Mr. Attorney General. You mentioned a minute ago that it was 

your belief that it was professional people and the career attorneys 

that had handled this. And as I recall, on page 52, that the attorneys who actually—at the time, the attorneys who made this decision—and I will find it here in a second—that they were—that you 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
76 

say they were career attorneys general. But by the time they made 

the decision, they were actually political appointees. 

So there is a lot of conflict between the official position of the Attorney General and the Department and the sworn testimony of attorneys who work in the Civil Rights Division and that there is— 

that we have got sworn testimony that there is a pattern of behavior of refusing to enforce the law in a race-neutral manner. This 

is a big concern to the committee. 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for one second. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Certainly. 

Mr. FATTAH. I don’t want you to take any personal offense for 

what I said earlier. I was not saying you were bringing the Congress to disrepute. I am saying that the allegation that the Attorney General is acting on the basis of race is fiction. If you look at 

all of the decisions to decline prosecutions, the ones I just named, 

Tom DeLay, former late Senator Stevens and so on, that they are 

not based on race. The only race involved here—the only issue of 

race is the singling out of this particular decision. Right? 

Now, I happen to know—and I know you are from Texas. This 

is pretty close in for me. This happened in Philadelphia. Is that the 

essence of the allegation that among a million polling places, there 

was one where this took place. That this rises to national significance is bogus on its face. Secondly, that anyone was intimidated— 

as I told you, no one has alleged that they were intimidated. But 

they should not have been at a polling place. It was a Federal election, and the Justice Department took appropriate action. I totally 

agree. 

Now, I am willing to yield you back your time because the committee has dealt with a lot of issues today. If you think this is the 

most significant one, I want you to better pursue it. I am just telling you, I am not making any personal affront to you. I know that 

you are sincere. I just think that to anyone who believes that the 

Department of Justice is operating on a basis of race, I just think 

this is without foundation. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. 

And I appreciate that very much, Mr. Fattah. And we all work 

together arm-in-arm on this committee, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Attorney General, in a cordial and friendly way. And we all are committed to making sure our laws are enforced in a racially neutral 

way, in a way that is fair and blind. No matter who the President 

is or who the Attorney General is, I would be pursuing these questions. But I would hope that this committee will pursue in greater 

detail and in more depth and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, in a separate 

hearing, these very, very serious allegations of a pattern of behavior at the Department of Justice. Sworn testimony indicates there 

is a pattern of behavior of refusing to enforce the laws in a racially 

neutral manner, ignoring the voter intimidation in Pima County, 

Arizona; ignoring voter intimidation in Philadelphia; the Ike Brown 

case, where attorneys in the Department were harassed. We have 

got sworn testimony. And the reason it is relevant, if I could in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, point out that the Department of Justice is 

asking for a $145 million increase in the Civil Rights Division 

funding for this year, Mr. Chairman. And that includes funding for 

815 staff positions. That is a 14 percent increase in manpower and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
77 

an 18 percent boost in spending. I want to make sure American 

taxpayers are getting their money’s worth, Mr. Chairman; that 

that money is being spent in pursuit of cases in an absolutely blind 

and racially neutral manner. No matter who it is, if they are intimidating voters, if the voter registration rolls—that is another 

question, Mr. Chairman—section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. We have got sworn allegations that it is not being enforced. The States are being allowed to keep garbage lists, and the 

DOJ is charged with cleaning up those lists. 

I think it is worth very careful inquiry, Mr. Chairman, to determine whether or not these—Mr. Fattah says it is false. We have 

got sworn testimony it is true. We need to pursue that in great detail. 

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could speak on just a couple of 

things. First, the people in the Black Panther case did not admit 

to guilt. They did not appear and a default judgement was entered 

against them. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But they did not contest liability? 

Attorney General HOLDER. When you say admit, that is an affirmative action. 

Mr. CULBERSON. They did not contest it. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that the quote that you read 

from that gentleman, that this was the greatest affront in the history that he had ever seen, that—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Personal opinion. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Think about that. When you compare 

what people endured in the South in the 1960s to try to get the 

right to vote for African Americans and to compare what people 

were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which 

was inappropriate; it is certainly that—to put it in those terms I 

think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the 

line, who risked all for my people, like my wife’s sister, who went 

to the University of Alabama. When George Wallace stood in the 

door and said that she as a State resident could not attend the 

University of Alabama, Vivian Malone, who I am proud to say was 

my sister-in-law, persevered. To compare that kind of courage, that 

kind of action and to say that the Black Panther incident, wrong 

though it might be, somehow is greater in magnitude or is of greater concern to us historically, I think just flies in the face of history 

and the facts. 

And I just want to assure again the American people that the allegations that somehow, some way this Justice Department does 

things on the basis of race is simply false. It is simply false. Anybody who makes that contention is not telling the truth, is not familiar with the facts or has a political agenda. It is simply not true. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am very glad to hear it, Mr. Attorney General. 

And I know the chairman is as interested as I am, and as Mr. 

Fattah and all the members of the committee are, to ensure that 

is not true. I am glad to hear you say it, and I am confident that 

you will provide proof to the chairman of the committee that everything Mr. Coates and Mr. Adams and these other folks said in 

sworn testimony, that everything they said is false. I am confident 

that you will prove that they are—I hope that you can prove that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
78 

your statement is accurate, and I hope that the committee will pursue it. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the statement of 

the Republican vice chair who was involved in this supposed investigation that keeps being referred to here. She says that this investigation lacks political and intellectual integrity from the outset 

and has consistently been undermined by the imbalance between 

the gravity of the allegation and the strength of the evidence available to support such charges. 

I just want to put that again in the record because this is—it is 

obviously an important issue to my colleague. I think it would be 

important for the committee in that the Attorney General has no 

burden to disprove allegations that even the hearer of these supposed statements says are weighted and imbalanced and lacked integrity from the outset. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
79 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 175 here 67259A.018
80 

Mr. WOLF. Before I recognize, Mr. Serrano, I do want to comment, though. 

I think Mr. Culberson makes a legitimate point. Mr. Fattah and 

I both are from the City of Philadelphia originally. My first year 

of college I went to the University of Mississippi in Oxford. I saw 

discrimination. I saw segregation. I saw things that I didn’t like. 

I was the only member of the Virginia delegation to vote for the 

Voting Rights Act, and there were many editorials criticizing me 

from the Richmond Times Dispatch and other newspapers. And I 

think it is important—we are not looking for finding punishment 

to go through the Justice Department to find out who did this but 

going future, going future. And that is why I think it is important 

and I appreciate Mr. Culberson raising this. Going forward there 

ought not to be any discrimination based on race. Period. I will tell 

you that we have had telephone calls from career people at the Justice Department who do not want to come forth with their name. 

I am not so anxious to go back to find out what took place a year 

ago, two years ago and who is to blame and who puts this right. 

But going forward from here on end, from this day forward—because I believe in the Voting Rights Act strongly; not by rhetoric 

or by words, but by deeds. And we will make sure that it is enforced in an appropriate way. So I think what Mr. Culberson did 

was appropriate. We are looking forward, and with that, let me just 

go to—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. I just want to say there have not 

been, there is not and there will not be any enforcement of the civil 

rights laws on the basis of anything other than the facts and the 

law. Race does not, has not, will not enter into those considerations. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Attorney General—you are a man of character 

and I take you at your word, period. But I will also sometime sit 

down with you off the record—because we are not looking to kind 

of ferret out and hurt somebody—and give you some of the things 

that I have been told by telephone calls from career people at the 

Justice Department. So let us work at a time whereby I can tell 

you that—I just ask that you protect their—because some are feeling intimidated that if they come forward, that they are going to 

be punished with regard to that. 

Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. I apologize for the fact that 

I was here this morning, that I left to be ranking member on a 

hearing. That hearing has long finished, and you guys are still 

going. So, congratulations and thank you. 

I had a very totally different question, but one cannot help but 

think that we Americans have a responsibility. We are living during a time—I have been around long enough, both politically and 

personally, to remember the 1960s, and it has been a while since 

I have seen the anger driven, not necessarily by Members of Congress or elected officials, but by nonelected officials, who obviously 

don’t know that Hawaii is a State, otherwise they wouldn’t question birth; who won’t take a man at his word as to who he is or 

what he is; and who somehow have just gotten used to the fact that 

there have been some historic, dramatic and very important 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
81 

changes in this country that give rights and opportunities to a lot 

of folks. 

I have no doubt, Mr. Attorney General, that you take your job 

seriously because I know where you come from, not only because 

you are from New York City, but I know who you are. I have dealt 

with you for many, many years on other issue, some of which you 

took a lot of heat for during your confirmation, but which I knew 

indicated to me that you were looking for what was right to do and 

to do it correctly. 

And I think the danger we run at times as elected officials is 

that we make statements and not knowing that there is a crowd 

out there that listens to those statements and begins to believe 

that there is a problem beyond the question being asked. So you 

can bet your life that tonight there are a couple hundred thousand 

and millions of Americans who are angry at government who believe that the Justice Department is functioning under the issue of 

race only and in an unfair and improper way. 

So I just would hope that as we continue to move forward in this 

country—and we will move forward—that we get over some of 

these situations. I take very seriously your comment about your 

sister-in-law. I take that seriously because I lived that time. I am 

old enough to remember that time, how painful that was, how difficult it is. Now it is hard for people to remember that. 

Everything happened and you are here and I am here, and Mr. 

Fattah is here. So it was all simple. It wasn’t simple. It was very, 

very difficult to register. I remember the Justice Department you 

head now under other leadership, dealing with the fact that people 

in New York were not allowed to vote because they didn’t speak 

English, only to have Paula Dwyer and other folks go to the courts 

and say, well, you taught them how to be American citizens in 

Spanish in a territory, how can you deny them the right to vote 

now because they don’t speak English the way you want them to. 

And those seem now—seem to have simply happened, but they 

didn’t. They were long fought battles. 

And I know in closing that you are too serious a man and too 

humane to take that history not seriously and do anything that 

would be improper or allow anything knowingly to be improper and 

that would be against the best interest of this country. And I know 

that and I just felt that I had to say that for the record. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you, Congressman. I really appreciate your comments. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now to a local issue. 

9/11 HEALTH BILL

You know that one of the biggest issues we all participated in 

and there was a lot of pressure on is the James Zadroga Health 

9/11 Bill which allows folks to be covered who were there at 9/11. 

The budget that you presented after saying all these nice things 

about you, in my opinion may not allow for the reopening of that 

account properly to service all of these folks, the appropriated 

amounts. 

We understand that the appropriated amount I believe is $6 million. It took about three times that the last time that something 

similar was done. So my question to you is having fought such a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
82 

difficult battle on behalf of people who really deserve help, how do 

we now deal with the fact that we may not implement it properly? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We certainly need Congress’ help in 

that regard. The money is there and appropriately so, after a great 

deal of struggle for money to be paid to the victims. We need Congress’ help so that we have an appropriate amount of money to 

start up and run this program. We want to work with Congress to 

make sure that we have the appropriate amounts and do that as 

quickly as we can so that people who for too long have been denied 

relief for heroic actions that they took on the most traumatic day 

in the history of my hometown, so that they will receive the benefits that they deserve. And we want to work with Congress to come 

up with those amounts and come up with a process that makes real 

this promise that we have all made by putting this fund together. 

Mr. SERRANO. I hope so and I stand ready to assist you in any 

way that I can. 

REDISTRICTING

One last question and one that is dear and near to all of our 

hearts on this panel, it should be to the American people, redistricting. Is everything in place for the fact that I suspect with everything that we are hearing out there and with the growth of certain communities and loss of key seats, New York is losing two, 

Florida is gaining two, as an example, the Hispanic population’s 

growth, the African American population, other groups throughout 

the country, do you feel confident that everything is in place for 

what I suspect will be a lot of challenges that will somehow end 

up with your Department? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are mindful of the role we play in 

a variety of contexts in the redistricting effort and I think we are 

prepared for what I think you are saying correctly could be something that I think certainly would be contentious in a lot of places 

and may have legal implications in many, and we are ready to proceed. We have configured the Civil Rights Division and other parts 

of the Department in a way that we are going to be prepared to 

deal with the issues that we will have to confront. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. And once again, thank you 

for the job you are doing on behalf of our country. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS

Mr. WOLF. Prisons, an area that you really have a unique opportunity to do some fairly dramatic things that can make a big difference. The Bureau of Prisons is nearly 40 percent over capacity, 

and the Federal prison population is expected to grow by an additional 14,000 inmates over the next year at the cost of $27,000 per 

inmate per year. The Federal system—we are actually number one 

in the world, which is not a good thing you want to be number one 

in with regard to the number of people that are in prisons. 

Most State correction systems began their reform process by providing outside experts with correction data to conduct comprehensive analysis. I believe it is imperative that experts at the Bureau 

of Prisons and others outside government fully understand that the 

drivers are population, cost, and recidivism so we can address overVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
83 

crowding, improve reentry programs, reduce the recidivism rate, increase public safety and control costs. I asked the Bureau of Prisons if they would make available the BOP data that will be necessary. And it is important that we get it early because we, 

through the efforts of Mr. Mollohan of this subcommittee last 

year—we were able to convince Pew and others to put together 

that forum. They came up with other really good ideas that the 

States are moving out on, but the Federal Government is not. So 

it is important that we get that data quickly so we can apply whatever the recommendations were for the States for the Federal Government. 

Can you tell us—we have asked the Bureau of Prisons to give it 

to us, that we get it as quickly as possible with as much information as they have. They are now saying, well, they have to go to 

U.S. Attorneys, and we need something quickly to deal with this 

issue so that Pew and State governments can look at that data and 

come back and make some recommendations. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, we will endeavor to get that information to you as quickly as we can. I will see what the nature 

of the information is. And if there are any holdups, I will try to 

make sure that we streamline the process and get the information 

to you because I think the contention that you have just raised, the 

concerns that you have expressed, certainly throughout your career 

and certainly in my interaction with you, I think are appropriately 

placed. 

[The information follows:] 

INFORMATION FOR PEW AND COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has compiled a data file with the information and 

is prepared to transmit it pending the resolution of issues regarding access to the 

data by outside consultants; BOP staff is working with your staff on such resolution. 

BOP is prepared to work with your staff and outside consultants to formulate the 

relevant questions, develop appropriate parameters, and then write the programs to 

run against the data. The BOP has social science researchers who have many years 

of experience working with the data and are familiar with the latest sophisticated 

statistical methods needed to ensure that any conclusions drawn from the data are 

well founded. 

We really have to look at ways in which we can use our prison 

system better than we are doing it. This whole question of reentry 

is something we have tried to focus on. We have worked with you 

in that regard. We have asked for a 10 percent increase with regard to the capacity issue. But we want to do more than that. We 

want to try to work on the prevention side. We want to work on 

the rehabilitation side. And we also want to work on the whole 

question of reentry programs and to try to cut down the recidivism 

rate, which ultimately and obviously protects the American people. 

It is a very interesting thing that I don’t think too many people 

understand, but you all do and we need to get it out there, is that 

we can actually save money and increase public safety at the same 

time through the use of these rehabilitation and reentry programs. 

And so we look forward to working with you and the other members of the committee in that regard. 

Mr. WOLF. Texas is doing it, and Mitch Daniels from Indiana is 

doing it. I am going to have some questions with regard to work 

on that. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
84 

FEDERAL INMATE GOOD CONDUCT TIME CREDIT

But let me follow back to where we were. Congress mandated 

that Federal prisoners serve 85 percent of their time. BOP supports 

a change in the Federal Inmate Good Conduct Time Credit, which 

provides inmates clear incentives that encourage positive behavior. 

The change would increase good time credit availability by 7 days 

a year. I understand that your hope was that this proposal would 

be enacted by Congress. In fact, you have assumed, I understand 

from the staff, such a change will occur before October 1. That is 

in your budget request. Have you submitted a formal legislative 

proposal? 

Attorney General HOLDER. If not, we will submit one as quickly 

as we can. We believe that will save us about $40 million by having 

the good time credit set at the level that we have indicated. It is 

an interesting thing, what I was saying before, about how we can 

save money and increase public safety. And this is one of those examples, what you have seen in the States, as you have indicated 

especially, where you make available to people who are in prison, 

vocational programs or the opportunity to get out of prison sooner 

if they will avail themselves of drug treatment programs, vocational programs, educational programs. It saves money in terms of 

time that they serve in jail, and actually it decreases the recidivism 

rate. So we will work on getting you an appropriate proposal in 

that regard. 

PRISON REFORM

Mr. WOLF. I think the earlier, the better. I am not sure—I hope 

this committee—I would be open to carrying something, and I 

think the gentleman would, the authorizers obviously would have 

to tell us that it is okay. But I think the earlier you get something 

up, I think the better it is. 

There is an area that I think we can make a tremendous difference in, having a robust work program in our Nation’s prisons 

is an important priority, quite frankly, of mine. The statistics I received from the Bureau of Prisons tell us that inmates who participate in work programs are 24 percent less likely to offend again, 

14 percent more likely to find work outside prison, and 23 percent 

less likely to have misconduct in prison. 

What are you doing with regard to prison reform? And in the interest of time, we ought to be boldly moving out. I have a proposal—I think you have the authority to do it—of putting industry 

into the prisons, the prison industry, to get products that are no 

longer made in the United States, which unfortunately are a lot of 

products. So you are not competing with organized labor. You are 

not competing with the furniture manufacturers. You are competing with somebody in Bangladesh or China or Mexico. I call it 

repatriation, bringing back, if you will, whereby then the men 

maybe can recreate that industry back in the United States. 

For instance, years ago, if you were a judge in the District of Columbia—Lorton was the armpit of the Nation. It was brutal. I used 

to go down to Lorton. I was in a program then. It was brutal. Brutal. We tried to bring in a television manufacturer. Emerson was 

somewhat a little interested in it. It was the last manufacturer of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
85 

an American television set. They have since left. I think they are 

now down in Mexico. They were a little open to it. So we came in 

and said, let’s manufacture Emerson television sets or portions of 

the television set in Lorton. The pushback from the District government and others was significant, and you know what happened in 

Lorton, the men would be so afraid—I have had some men tell me 

at Lorton, they couldn’t sleep at night; they were afraid somebody 

would have put a shiv in them and kill them. 

Why don’t you do something and be bold and bring back in industries that are no longer operating in the United States so you 

won’t get across the breakers with the labor unions, you won’t get 

across the breakers with the people that are manufacturing furniture or something like that, and really energize prisons—because 

you can’t put a man or woman in prison for 15 or 20 years and give 

them no work. Very few people in the Federal prisons are working 

now. In fact, what has the loss been with regard to Prison Industries? How many jobs have you dropped in the last four years in 

prisons? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t have those numbers, but the 

program is not nearly as robust as it once was, and I think that 

is something that is ultimately really short-sighted. 

The ability to provide work opportunities, skills to people, 

through the Federal Prison Industries is something that I have 

supported, you have supported, and I think that over the long term 

is good for our Nation. 

Just one thing here. I was handed a note with regard to that proposal, that legislative proposal that you talked about. I was indicated you should get that this week, that we talked about in the 

previous question. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, you have an opportunity. I assume you are 

going to be here for the next 2 years. You have an opportunity 

to—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. I didn’t mean that in a—— 

Mr. FATTAH. It sounds like a sentence almost. 

Mr. WOLF. No, I assume there is an opportunity. 

Attorney General HOLDER. He is talking about my two years 

more here in this job as a sentence. 

Mr. WOLF. I see from that—you can be like Esther for such a 

time. You can literally transform, if you are going to be here for 

that period of time, would it not make sense to bring back some 

of the work that is being done now abroad and put it into the Prison Industries? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I wouldn’t disagree with you. To the 

extent that we can come up with employment opportunities, workunit opportunities for people who are incarcerated in the Federal 

systems, State systems as well, those are the kinds of things I 

think that we need to encourage. 

Mr. WOLF. Will you make it a priority? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have tried to make this a priority, 

that is to work in ways in which we deal with rehabilitation, reentry, prevention, all of these things apply to it. But with this one 

in particular, I will do what I can and work with you in that regard. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
86 

As you know, this is not something that is universally supported. 

But it is something that I think we should be behind and something that we should be putting resources and opportunities in. 

Mr. WOLF. What is the law now—when you access income from 

the Prison Industries? Is that returned to the Treasury or can you 

use that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know. I will have to check on 

that. I hear some whispering behind me. 

Mr. WOLF. Maybe they can whisper louder, and we can hear 

them. 

Mr. LOFTHUS. Prison Industries income stays with Federal Prison Industries for the benefit of Federal Prison Industries. 

Mr. WOLF. So, therefore, the more prison industries you have, 

the better: One, you lower the recidivism; two, you have revenue. 

But I would really hope that, in addition to eliminating sexual trafficking, this would be one of your legacies with regard to the prisons and with regard to the prison reform issue. Do you want to—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure which one I just got. 

I will have to work on it. 

COUNTER-RADICALIZATION

Mr. WOLF. Okay. The last two questions, and I will go to Mr. 

Fattah or then Mr. Schiff if he has a question. What should we be 

doing with regard to radicalization? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is an issue that is of great concern. As one looks at the threat that we have endured these past, 

12, 18 months or so, we have seen an increase in the number of 

American citizens who have for whatever reason decided to try to 

do harm to their country and to their fellow citizens. We try to determine what is it, what are the common factors that we see there 

that change people? The guy who was going to do the Times 

Square bombing, Shahzad, what happened to him? Ostensibly, he 

was just a normal guy who kind of goes off the deep end. 

We have substantial outreach efforts that the Department of Justice has done through its United States Attorneys Offices so that 

communities, Muslim communities, do not feel isolated. We talked 

to our British counterparts about the issues that they have dealt 

with there and ways in which they are trying to have a robust and 

effective counter-radicalization program. Our FBI is doing a really 

substantial amount and I think a good job in reaching out to Muslim communities. 

I have certainly tried to use the soapbox that I have to talk about 

these issues and to go to Muslim groups and make them understand that they are American citizens; they are a part of our American community. And it seems to me that one of the things we have 

to do is not let these communities become isolated, feel that they 

were being set upon, that they are being pointed at, to understand 

that they are just like the rest of us. They want the normal things 

for their kids. They want to feel safe in their homes. And we have 

to deal with those concerns. We also have to deal with the use of 

the internet in a way that is being used to radicalize people. But 

this counter-radicalization effort is something that the President 

has focused on and has told his national security team that he 

wants an effective robust program, and he has tasked a variety of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
87 

us with that responsibility. John Brennan is the one who on a 

weekly basis—we meet with him on Tuesday afternoons with the 

President—is constantly bringing that up. 

Mr. WOLF. Your answer triggered it. Did it trouble you or did you 

speak out on the issue when CAIR ran those posters urging people 

not to cooperate with the FBI? Did you see that poster? It was really kind of shocking. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is the kind of thing—— 

Mr. WOLF. Did anyone speak out at the Justice Department criticizing CAIR for that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have had a troubled history with 

that organization. And we have to counter that by countering—or 

saying negative things about those kinds of posters. But then also 

doing things on the affirmative side. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. That was I thought a very counterproductive 

thing for CAIR to—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. It clearly is. It is counterproductive, 

and it is not in the interest of the Muslim community for that to 

be seen as the way in which they are going to interact with Federal 

law enforcement. 

INTERNET RADICALIZATION

Mr. WOLF. One other issue, too, that you triggered. What is the 

connectivity of all of these cases? Do all of them involve to a certain 

degree the internet? Is the internet—I know it is a difficult issue, 

but just on the surface, has there been an internet connection on 

100 percent, 50 percent? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure I can give you a percentage, but a substantial number of them, when you look back 

and then do the things we are capable of doing—I don’t want to 

go into too much—the things that we can do, you can kind of see 

attempts by these people to touch base with or to look at these 

jihadist web sites. 

Mr. WOLF. Would it not make sense to take down al-Awlaki’s 

site. He is preaching hate. Major Hasan was radicalized by that. 

We have 13 people who were killed. His name has come up in other 

cases. Would it not make sense in that case to take that site down? 

Because the 13 families who will never have a loved one return to 

the house, and we know what he is preaching now. I think he has 

crossed the line. Would it not make sense to take al-Awlaki’s site 

down? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We try to do what we can with the 

tools that we have. And cyberspace is huge. And if you try to knock 

down a site here, people pop up over there. And so what we are 

trying to do is come up with ways in which we are identifying those 

sites that are problematic, trying to counter the message that you 

see on those sites and then take physical action where we can. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, my sense is from talking to people, there are 

ways of taking his site down. They could perhaps go back up again, 

but there are different degrees. But certainly the hatred that he 

has been spewing and the death that we have seen as a result of 

that, I think the administration should take down the site. I know 

that some are going to say that we gain information from it, but 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
88 

that would make it very difficult to meet with the families of the 

13 who would say that he was radicalized through that site. 

EQUIPPING FEDERAL AGENTS WITH WEAPONS IN MEXICO

The last issue before I go to Mr. Fattah and Mr. Schiff, are you 

considering having our law enforcement people carry weapons in 

Mexico in light the attack on two U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement agents on February 15th. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think we have to consider—— 

Mr. WOLF. I saw you at the funeral if my memory serves me. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I went to Texas. We have to take 

into consideration everything so that our people are protected while 

they are doing the great work that they do. And that is one of the 

things that I think we have to look at and talk to the Mexican government about. 

Mr. WOLF. So that is under consideration? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is something I am certainly considering, and I want to hear from the people who are there. We have 

to protect our people. And the information that Mr. Fattah shared 

about the guns that were used in the death of ICE Agent Zapata 

is of great concern. So we have to make sure that those kinds of 

incidents are not repeated. And to the extent that that involves the 

potential arming of them, I think that is something we have to consider. 

Mr. WOLF. Do our DEA people in Colombia carry weapons? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure about that. I am not 

sure. I think they do, but I am not sure about that. I don’t want 

to answer the question not being sure. 

Mr. WOLF. And I assume if they did, that would be because of 

the permission of the Colombian government. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. So that is the determining factor—whether or not the 

government of Mexico permits? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is something we would have to 

work with the Mexican government to try to address. What happened, what tragically happened two weeks ago—I think potentially has changed the factual situation that we have to confront 

and may require a different policy. 

DEA—COLOMBIA BEST PRACTICES

Mr. WOLF. Have you looked at the success in the Colombian situation, the DEA and try to replicate that in the country of Mexico? 

Are there any similarities that this was successful because of this, 

this and this? And therefore, if we applied it, because 34,000 or 

35,000 individuals have been killed in Mexico, and I am sure every 

family down there lives in fear. Have you—has anyone looked at 

what was done in Colombia with regard to the DEA and the comparable training and different things like that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, we have. In fact, that is one of 

the templates that we try to use, given the success we encountered 

over a long period of time, and it was not easy. But given the success that we ultimately achieved in Colombia, we have tried to see 

if there are lessons that we learned there that we can apply in 

Mexico. We have tried to do that through a variety of means, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
89 

through the way in which we deployed our people through the 

Merida initiative and the ways in which aid goes to Mexico. We 

have talked about and we have examined and shared with our 

Mexican counterparts what occurred in Colombia. 

Mr. WOLF. Have there been any meetings between DEA and 

Mexico and Colombia, perhaps down in Colombia to show what was 

done and what worked and what didn’t work? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure if there had been meetings in Colombia, but I know that certainly the lessons that we 

learned and the experiences that we had in Colombia, certainly 

have been shared with our Mexican counterparts. There have been 

briefings in that regard of which I am aware. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am going to yield to Congressman Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

VOTING RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

I didn’t want to interrupt earlier in the discussion of the New 

Black Panther issue, but I did want to make a brief comment on 

it. And I will be economical in my comments. I know it has been 

a long morning for you. But having spent part of this weekend visiting the Martin Luther King Museum in Atlanta, I am struck by 

the incongruous nature of this whole discussion. 

One of the things I found most kind of shocking about the exhibits I saw there was the long list of laws in the 50 States that were 

discriminating against Americans based on their ethnicity, denying 

them their ability to vote, denying them their ability to enjoy all 

the other attributes of citizenship. And to look at that history and 

then consider the discussion we have been having to me seems a 

little shocking in its disproportionality. 

It seems to me the commission investigation has been highly politicized, and my colleague, Mr. Fattah, read the vice chair’s statements. I also would like to read briefly from a couple of the other 

commissioners, Arlan Melendez and Michael Yaki and ask that 

their statement also be included in the record. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 201 here 67259A.019
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 202 here 67259A.020
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 203 here 67259A.021
93 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 204 here 67259A.022
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 205 here 67259A.023
95 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 206 here 67259A.024
96 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 207 here 67259A.025
97 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 208 here 67259A.026
98 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 209 here 67259A.027
99 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 210 here 67259A.028
100 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 211 here 67259A.029
101 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 212 here 67259A.030
102 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 213 here 67259A.031
103 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 214 here 67259A.032
104 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 215 here 67259A.033
105 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 216 here 67259A.034
106 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 217 here 67259A.035
107 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 218 here 67259A.036
108 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 219 here 67259A.037
109 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 220 here 67259A.038
110 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 221 here 67259A.039
111 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 222 here 67259A.040
112 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 223 here 67259A.041
113 

Mr. SCHIFF. They introduced their dissenting opinion by saying 

the commission’s investigation into and this report concerning the 

New Black Panther Party has been a tremendous waste of scarce 

government resources. They wasted our own resources at the commission and those at the Department of Justice as well. In addition 

to squandering time, money and attention, the majority has further 

squandered the reputation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

as it has spent more than a year on an Ahab-like quest to hobble 

the Obama administration and to attempt to rehabilitate the disgraced record of the previous administration’s Department of Justice. 

That record they are referring to, the previous administration, 

included findings by the Office of Inspector General that under Mr. 

Schlozman, the Civil Rights Division had been highly politicized 

with career attorneys being replaced with people of ideological 

pedigrees rather than people of experience. In fact, the OIG found 

that people were hired with no background in civil rights, with no 

experience in it or in prosecuting cases for that matter and with 

no interest in it. 

And I am very proud of how that Department has been turned 

around in this administration. And the claim that the Department 

now is going to intervene in some way on behalf of a racist hate 

group because it is a black supremacist group instead of a white 

supremacist group strikes me as beyond credulity. In any event, I 

think the Department has been a sea change for the better, and I 

wish you continued sailing in the right direction. 

MIRANDA DECISION

One of the issues I wanted to raise with you involves Miranda 

and the intersection between criminal law and the national security environment. And I wanted to ask you, obviously, the Miranda 

decision is one of constitutional import that we have only a limited 

ability to influence. It is the court-drafted doctrine. Do you think 

it would be useful for the Congress to set out its understanding of 

how broadly the public safety exception to Miranda should be interpreted? Would it be useful in a Department’s advocacy before the 

court to be able to point to the Congress believes that this ought 

to be interpreted broadly, as not only protecting a police officer in 

a grocery store, like in Quarles, but also protecting citizens in New 

York City in the event that there was a bomb in a vehicle or even 

that it also extends to vital emergency information that may be acquired that can protect the lives of troops out in the field? Would 

it be useful in should the case arise where you would have to argue 

about how soon Miranda was given for the Congress to weigh in 

and express its view that it should be interpreted broadly? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You are right, Miranda is of constitutional dimension, and ultimately it would have to be the courts 

that would have to decide in a particular case whether the government had exceeded what it is allowed to do under the public safety 

exception to the Miranda rule. 

I think that an expression by Congress, however, about its view 

of what the Miranda limits are, given the nature of the threat that 

we face and the need to use the public safety exception for interrogation purposes and, as you say, dealing with this new threat. And 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
114 

it is not a grocery store robbery. It is a question of you know, 

Abdulmutallab, are there other planes that have other people with 

bombs on them. Given the nature of the threat, I think an expression by Congress is something that Congress might consider, and 

I think that would be useful for the courts to have but obviously 

has to be put before Congress to decide. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you one related question and that is in 

my view something that may be of more significant import in this 

context than Miranda matters, the presentment requirement, the 

requirement to bring a suspect before a magistrate within so many 

hours. I know there is disagreement in this subcommittee and indeed in the Intelligence Committee where I serve about in what 

circumstances someone should be Mirandized at all or somebody 

should be processed through the criminal justice system as opposed 

to the military tribals. But there are going to be cases I think that 

we can all agree that are going to be handled in the criminal justice system. 

You know, a future Timothy McVeigh situation is more likely to 

be handled in the criminal courts than in Gitmo or in a brig somewhere. Given the fact that some terrorism cases are going to be 

handled criminally, would it be useful for the Congress to revisit 

the kind of rigid requirements that are present in the clause and 

provide that in terrorism cases, there is a longer period of time; if 

the Attorney General or your designate certifies certain requirements are met, that you can make an ex parte application of the 

court to get a greater period of time before you are required to 

present a suspect to a magistrate? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is an issue that I think is worthy of examination. I would be reluctant to say that we commit 

ourselves to one course of action or another, but it is something 

that I think we can look at and see whether or not there is a way 

in which we can have something that is consistent with our values, 

consistent with the constitutional obligations that we have, that 

makes us more effective in the fight against terrorism. But, again, 

given the tools that we now have, and restrictions we have with regard to Miranda and the presentment time period, we have done 

a pretty good job, as you correctly say, in dealing with those who 

have been brought into the criminal justice system. 

Military commissions cannot handle cases involving American 

citizens. And what we have seen over the last 12 and 18 months 

are increasing numbers of American citizens who are engaged in 

these terrorist activities. Those will have to go into the criminal 

justice system, and I think we have to make sure that the system 

is capable of handling those kinds of cases. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Mr. SCHIFF. I look forward to working with you on that. And let 

me turn to a couple other quick areas. One is of deep interest to 

my constituents. And that is intellectual property. I have a lot of 

the studios and post-production, preproduction work in my district, 

and we lose countless, tens of thousands of jobs as a result of IP 

theft. This subcommittee over the last several years has increased 

the budget for the FBI to bring on new agents to work on IP cases. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
115 

I think over the last couple of cycles, we have added about 50 

agents in this area. 

One of the internal analyses, though, indicated that there is a 

DOJ study that although there was a substantial increase in the 

number of agents devoted, there wasn’t a substantial increase in 

the number of hours that the FBI was devoting. In other words, 

there was more manpower; same amount of hours being devoted to 

the problem. And I think the FBI responded in part that they needed time to train these new agents. But at the same time, it also 

pointed to the fact that these IP dedicated agents were sometimes 

being used for other investigations. That is a concern given that 

this was really a focus of why these slots were funded. And I would 

ask you if you could look into this. I don’t know if you have anything you would like to comment today, but given the magnitude 

of our economic challenges right now, this is an opportunity to 

crack down on the loss of American jobs and intellectual property. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is right. This is a priority. The Vice President is leading the task force. DHS is involved. 

The Justice Department is involved. Victoria Espinel at the White 

House is involved. And this whole question of the theft of intellectual property is something that I went to and gave a speech about 

in Hong Kong. I went to China to talk to the Chinese officials there 

about the concerns we have about what is happening in China. We 

have in the budget request from fiscal years 2009 and 2010, 51 

agent positions in the FBI that were supposed to be dedicated 

strictly to IP enforcement. 

[The information follows:] 

MANPOWER AND WORK AT FBI REGARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Through prior year appropriations, the FBI has received agents for the purpose 

of investigating cases involving Intellectual Property (IP) Rights. While some of the 

previously reported numbers have shown fewer agents working cases than appropriated, as Congressman Schiff noted, it did take some time to hire and train the 

agents. The FBI measures Special Agents dedicated to a program by counting agent 

work-years, the equivalent of one agent working full time for an entire year on one 

particular program or case classification. The FBI is now utilizing 50 Special Agents 

in support of IP investigations. This includes 45 field agents utilized in support of 

IP investigations and an additional five agents assigned to the National Intellectual 

Property Rights Coordination Center. Additionally, the FBI is taking measures to 

ensure the appropriate use of PRO–IP Act resources by providing guidance to all 

field offices detailing the importance of IP matters. 

And I think that given the job-killing capacity or impact that this 

IP theft has it is wrong, it breaks the law, but there are also economic consequences to it—for that reason, I think it is a very legitimate concern. And it is a reason for us to prioritize this. It is what 

occasioned my trip to Hong Kong, to China and occasioned the Administration to set up a task force that is led by the Vice President. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If you could take a look into the use of these agents 

to make sure that if they haven’t been dedicated to IP, that they 

focus on IP. I think that would be welcomed. 

ICE has been very aggressive in this area, and I want to applaud 

what they are doing. I know they are getting some pushback. I 

know they have been actively involved in seizing the domains of 

web sites that are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the 

trafficking. I raise this because I don’t want the Department of 

Justice to be discouraged from undertaking similarly aggressive acVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
116 

tion against pirates—I am not talking about the Somali variety, although I agree with that as well—by the pushback that ICE is getting, because there are many of us who completely support what 

ICE is doing and would love to see the Department of Justice 

equally aggressive in these actions. 

PROJECT HOPE

Finally, I know you are familiar with Project HOPE out of Hawaii. This is the effort Judge Steven Alm is using, employing graduated sanctions to try to attack recidivism and have been very successful at it. I know there is a grant program, the SMART Probation Program in your budget, $7 million. And I wanted to see 

whether Project HOPE and similar efforts like that are the kind of 

thing you are contemplating with this SMART Probation effort. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, it is. I am familiar with Project 

HOPE. I know Judge Alm from the time we served together as U.S. 

Attorneys. He actually came, all the way from the State of Hawaii, 

here to Washington to share with me what he is doing. It is very 

impressive. And those are the kinds of things that we are trying 

to replicate. This whole notion of graduated sanctions really has 

made more effective the probation efforts that they have there, and 

those are the kinds of things that we want to try to replicate. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think in this case—I know the chairman has 

worked on it for many years—to the degree the Justice Department 

can help pilot and lead some of the most effective attacks on recidivism, it not only is better for society, but a lot of the States like 

my own have such phenomenal budget problems in part because 

their corrections costs are going through the roof and have for the 

last two decades. And I think part of putting our economy, both nationally and at the State level, back on a sustainable trajectory is 

trying to figure out a better way to deal with corrections and deal 

with recidivism and deal with public safety generally, because what 

we are doing now just hasn’t worked when you look at how many 

people leave custody and then go back in. It has now become the 

exception rather than the rule, people not recidivating. 

And I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will ask my last question for the record. 

10TH AMENDMENT ISSUES

There was a recent Supreme Court case in which some challenge 

has been made to utilizing the 10th Amendment. It is a Pennsylvania case arguing that Federal arrests in a particular case may 

fall outside the scope of what would be constitutional given the 

10th Amendment prohibitions to Federal action. I know there has 

been a lot of discussion on the 10th Amendment in health care. If 

you could furnish the committee with what it would mean if the 

court decides that people can raise these 10th Amendment issues 

in criminal cases, how that would affect ongoing issues and even 

cases that may have already been decided. 

I know it is a hypothetical, but given some of the comments from 

some of the Justices, I think it is at least a reasonable question to 

ask about what effect this could have if there is a ruling that alVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
117 

lows 10th amendment issues to be raised, such as Federal prosecutions of criminals. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will formulate a response to that. 

[The information follows:] 

TENTH AMENDMENT IN FEDERAL PROSECUTION CASES

In Bond v. United States, No. 09–1227, petition for cert. granted October 12, 2010, 

the defendant argued that Congress exceeded its Article I authority and violated the 

Tenth Amendment in enacting the chemical weapons statute (18 U.S.C. 229) under 

which she was convicted. In his Supreme Court merits brief, the Acting Solicitor 

General agreed that defendant Bond had standing to raise her enumerated-powers 

claim, argued that her Tenth Amendment argument was the mirror image of her 

enumerated-powers claim, and noted that federal defendants regularly contend that 

Congress has exceeded its enumerated powers in enacting the statutes under which 

they are convicted. Because the courts of appeals have regularly decided these challenges, if the Supreme Court confirms that defendants have standing to raise enumerated-powers and parallel Tenth Amendment challenges to their convictions, we 

do not expect the decision to have a significant effect on federal criminal prosecutions. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED

I have one last question. On several occasions, maybe two or 

maybe three, when asked about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, you 

said decisions would be made within a week. It think it was within 

several weeks I think is the exact term. I think you said that about 

a year ago, and I think you said it again in the middle of the year, 

and I don’t know if you said it again. I think you did. What is the 

status and what are your plans for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Obviously, I cannot predict timing 

very well. That is a matter that is under active review. We are trying to work our way through that, given a whole variety of things, 

among them the congressional restrictions that were put in place 

under the defense authorization bill and that are being considered 

with regard to the continuing resolution. And so we are working 

our way through that. And as soon as we have an ability to announce the decision, we are going to do so. I am not going to get 

into the business anymore of trying to predict time. 

Mr. WOLF. I was going to say, do you think it will be in a few 

weeks, but I won’t. 

Attorney General HOLDER. My record in that regard is not a good 

one. So I am not going to add to it. 

Mr. WOLF. Anyway, we appreciate your testimony. And with 

that, the hearing is adjourned. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
118 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 238 here 67259A.042
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 239 here 67259A.043
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 240 here 67259A.044
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 241 here 67259A.045
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 242 here 67259A.046
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 243 here 67259A.047
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 244 here 67259A.048
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 245 here 67259A.049
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 246 here 67259A.050
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 247 here 67259A.051
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 248 here 67259A.052
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 249 here 67259A.053
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 250 here 67259A.054
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 251 here 67259A.055
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 252 here 67259A.056
133 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 253 here 67259A.057
134 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 254 here 67259A.058
135 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 255 here 67259A.059
136 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 256 here 67259A.060
137 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 257 here 67259A.061
138 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 258 here 67259A.062
139 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 259 here 67259A.063
140 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 260 here 67259A.064
141 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 261 here 67259A.065
142 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 262 here 67259A.066
143 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 263 here 67259A.067
144 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 264 here 67259A.068
145 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 265 here 67259A.069
146 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 266 here 67259A.070
147 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 267 here 67259A.071
148 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 268 here 67259A.072
149 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 269 here 67259A.073
150 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 270 here 67259A.074
151 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 271 here 67259A.075
152 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 272 here 67259A.076
153 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 273 here 67259A.077
154 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 274 here 67259A.078
155 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 275 here 67259A.079
156 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 276 here 67259A.080
157 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 277 here 67259A.081
158 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 278 here 67259A.082
159 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 279 here 67259A.083
160 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 280 here 67259A.084
161 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 281 here 67259A.085
162 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 282 here 67259A.086
163 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 283 here 67259A.087
164 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 284 here 67259A.088
(165) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

WITNESS 

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

Director Mueller, you are here this morning to testify regarding 

the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

As you are coming before the committee perhaps for the last time 

as director, I would like to take this opportunity to personally express our deep appreciation for your outstanding service over the 

last ten years. 

You took over as director immediately before 9/11 and since that 

time, I think you have done a magnificent job of guiding the FBI 

into the new and expanded role at the forefront of protecting the 

Nation from further terrorist attacks. There is no doubt in my 

mind that you will be remembered as one of the finest directors in 

the history of the FBI. 

As we understand, your ten-year term will expire in early September of this year. I personally wish you could stay on. But, 

again, we acknowledge and congratulate you on your outstanding 

record. We thank you. 

I want to thank you and your family, because of the time away 

from your family for your service. I wish you the best as you move 

on to new challenges. The Nation owes you and owes all the men 

and all the women of the FBI a debt of gratitude for their tireless 

efforts over these very difficult ten years. 

For 2012, you are seeking an appropriation of $8.1 billion, an increase of $177 million or 2.2 percent. 

I 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 the key domestic counterterrorism and intelligence agency. 

This year, you have been operating under a series of Continuing 

Resolutions. The FBI along with the rest of the department is 

under a funding freeze and a hiring freeze. 

I would like to hear how you are managing under these circumstances and what effects they are having on your operation. 

Your request for fiscal year 2012 includes a number of important 

increases in the areas of national security, computer intrusion, surveillance, and weapons of mass destruction. The committee will be 

interested in hearing about the details of these increases and obviously we will have a number of questions. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
166 

We should all be clear, though, on the overall fiscal climate in 

which we are operating. The debate we are having in the House 

on the spending reflect a realization that our country must reduce 

spending and significantly scale back our deficits and debt in order 

to get our economy back on the right track. 

The FBI’s mission is certainly among, I believe, the most important activities that this subcommittee funds, but we will need your 

assistance in finding ways to economize as we mark up for next 

year’s budget. 

Before you proceed, I want to recognize my friend, my colleague, 

Mr. Fattah, for any opening statement. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Let me join in the chairman’s remarks that you have had an extraordinary tenure as director of the FBI, I think unparalleled to 

any other director’s service. And part of that is because of the time 

in which you served. 

Post 9/11, our country has faced very significant challenges and 

the FBI has undergone extraordinary change from an agency focused on apprehending criminals domestically to now a very significant role in national security and protecting the country against 

terrorist threats. 

And we have had a remarkable period in which even though 

these threats have been real, the FBI really has been at the forefront of protecting Americans and in dealing with this very new responsibility, at least in terms of the scope and breadth of it and the 

threats that face the country. 

So I want to thank you for your service. We know that there is 

a point in time at which you will be moving to your next act. But 

in terms of our country, we want to thank you for your service and 

welcome you. I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Your full statement will appear in the record. Proceed as you see 

appropriate. 

DIRECTOR’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah, thank you for having me here today, but thank you also for your generous remarks 

and comments. I appreciate them as does the Bureau. 

Today the FBI faces unprecedented and increasingly complex 

challenges. We must identify and stop terrorists before they launch 

attacks against our citizens and we must protect our government, 

businesses, and critical infrastructure from espionage and from the 

potentially devastating impact of cyber-based attacks. 

We must root out public corruption, fight white collar and organized crime, stop child predators, and protect civil rights. We must 

also ensure we are building a structure that will carry the FBI into 

the future by continuing to enhance our intelligence capabilities, 

improve our business practices and training, and develop the next 

generation of Bureau leaders. 

And we must do all of this while respecting the authority given 

to us under the Constitution, upholding civil liberties and the rule 

of law. And we must also do this in uncertain fiscal times. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
167 

The challenges of carrying out this mission have never been 

greater, as the FBI has never faced a more complex threat environment than it does today. Over the past year, the FBI has faced an 

extraordinary range of threats from terrorism, espionage, cyber attacks, and traditional crime. And let me just for a few moments 

discuss several examples. 

Last October, there were attempted bombings on air cargo flights 

bound for the United States from Yemen and directed by al-Qaeda 

in the Arabian Peninsula. 

Last May, there was the attempted car bombing in Times Square 

aided by TTP in Pakistan and these attempted attacks demonstrate how al-Qaeda and its affiliates still have the intent to 

strike inside the United States. 

In addition, there were a number of serious terror plots by lone 

offenders. Their targets ranged from a Martin Luther King Day 

march in Spokane, Washington, to a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, to subway stations in the Washington, 

D.C. Metro system. The motives and the methods for these plots 

were varied, making these among the most difficult threats to combat. 

The espionage threat persisted as well. Last summer, there were 

the arrests of ten Russian spies known as illegals who secretly 

blended into American society in order to clandestinely gather information for Russia. And we continue to make significant arrests 

for economic espionage as foreign interests seek to steal controlled 

technologies. 

The cyber intrusion at Google last year highlighted the potential 

danger from a sophisticated internet attack and along with countless other cyber incidents, these attacks threaten to undermine the 

integrity of the internet and to victimize the businesses and persons who rely on it. 

Lastly, in our criminal investigations, we continue to uncover billion dollar corporate and mortgage frauds that weaken the financial system and victimize investors, homeowners, and ultimately 

taxpayers. 

We also exposed healthcare scams involving false billings and 

fake treatments that endangered patients and fleeced government 

healthcare programs. 

I should mention the extreme violence across our southwest border, which continues to impact the United States as we saw with 

the murders last March of American consulate workers in Juarez, 

Mexico, and the shooting last month of two Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Mexico. 

Throughout the year, there were numerous corruption cases that 

undermined the public trust and countless violent gang cases that 

continue to take innocent lives and endanger our communities. 

And as these examples demonstrate, the FBI’s mission to protect 

the American people has never been broader and the demands on 

the FBI have never been greater. To carry out these responsibilities, we need Congress’ continued support more than ever. 

The support from this committee and the Congress has been an 

important part of the ongoing transformation of the FBI. A key element of this transformation has been the ability to recruit, hire, 

train and develop the best and the brightest agents, analysts, and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
168 

staff to meet the complex threats we face now and in the future 

and the ability to put in place the information technology and infrastructure needed to perform every-day work. 

I am concerned that our momentum built over the past several 

years with your support is going to be adversely affected due to the 

constrained fiscal environment. 

The FBI strives to be a good steward of the funds Congress provides and we continually look for cost-saving initiatives and better 

business practices to make us more efficient. 

However, addressing the major threats and crime problems facing our Nation requires investments that cannot be offset by savings alone. If funded for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at prior 

year levels, the FBI will have to absorb over $200 million in operating requirements and will have over 1,100 vacant positions by 

the end of the year. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget that we are discussing today would 

actually provide a lower level of resources than the fiscal year 2011 

request submitted last year and will leave unaddressed gaps in our 

investigative and intelligence capabilities and capacities in all programs. 

I do note that the proposed Continuing Resolution that is currently being discussed would fully fund the Department of Defense 

while all other agencies would be extended for a period of time. 

I ask that you consider fully funding the FBI in the CR. I have 

raised this with numerous persons up on The Hill. I can only say 

that under the proposed CR, the FBI would be the only major partner in the Intelligence Community that is not fully funded. And 

while our Intelligence Community partners would be able to proceed with planned initiatives and programs, the Bureau could not. 

Approximately 58 percent of the Bureau’s budget is scored under 

the defense-related budget function. Today FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, and professional staff stand side by side with 

the military in Afghanistan and elsewhere, working together to 

keep our country and our citizens safe from attack. 

Full funding of the FBI—for which both the House and the Senate were in agreement on their respective marks—would enable 

these critical dependencies and collaboration to continue without 

interruption. 

Lastly, we simply cannot afford to return to the pre-9/11 days 

where hiring and staffing in the FBI was a roller coaster that left 

most field offices under-staffed to deal with the terrorist and other 

threats we faced nor can we afford to return to the pre-9/11 days 

where funding uncertainty led to a degradation of the FBI’s physical and information technology infrastructure, which contributed 

to shortcomings in our capabilities. 

I again thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues 

with you today, particularly discussing the FBI’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
169 

Let me finish by thanking this committee, Mr. Chairman and 

Congressman Fattah, for your continued support on behalf of the 

FBI but most particularly on behalf of the men and women who 

make up the FBI. We appreciate the support you have given over 

the years and look forward to that continuing support. 

Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
170 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 296 here 67259A.089
171 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 297 here 67259A.090
172 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 298 here 67259A.091
173 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 299 here 67259A.092
174 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 300 here 67259A.093
175 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 301 here 67259A.094
176 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 302 here 67259A.095
177 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 303 here 67259A.096
178 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 304 here 67259A.097
179 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

With the markup on the CR, we directed the staff to make sure 

that if there is one agency that was protected, it was the FBI. And 

we will continue to do anything we possibly can to make sure that 

continues. 

Mr. MUELLER. I appreciate that. 

KILLINGS ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. WOLF. And also before I get into the—we have a lot of questions—there was a killing yesterday I saw where two Americans—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Were coming across the border. Do you 

know much about that? Can you tell us—— 

Mr. MUELLER. It is still under investigation. We are still investigating the circumstances, so we are not certain. There are varying motives that need further investigation before we could comment on the circumstances of that particular killing. 

Mr. WOLF. But they were American citizens, correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. They were. And my belief is it was south of Tijuana. 

Mr. WOLF. They were in line at the border crossing? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that to be the case, and they were American citizens. 

Mr. WOLF. You have presided over one of the most sweeping organizational changes probably in the history of our government and 

a change that had to be immediately responsive to an absolutely 

critical national need, preventing further terrorist attacks. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE FBI’S TRANSFORMATION

Your testimony focused mainly on current programs and requirements, but I would like to ask you to step back. Give us an assessment and accounting of the FBI’s transformation under your watch. 

What has been the success and what needs more work? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me start with what I believe has contributed to the change in the Bureau. In the wake of September 11th, 

one of the principal steps that we took in my mind was prioritizing, 

and I mean really prioritizing. We identified the ten major priorities in terms of programs and ensured everybody understoods that 

our success was dependent on working with state and local law enforcement and everybody in the organization had to become proficient with technology. 

The prioritization required we immediately move 2,000 agents 

from criminal programs to counterterrorism, our number one priority. And then the number two priority is counterintelligence, 

third is cyber. 

And we have gone back and looked at those national security priorities and the criminal priorities each year, and believe that we 

have set up a structure so that the funding and the increased personnel goes to those priorities. And that was tremendously important. 

I think the other substantial pillar of the change has been understanding that we had to develop the intelligence capacity to prevent not only terrorist attacks but gang activity and espionage beVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
180 

fore the acts occurred. And that is somewhat different than utilizing our investigative tools for investigating an incident after it 

happens. 

In developing those tools, and developing those tools within the 

Constitution and the applicable statutes, bringing on 2,000 additional analysts and changing the way we think about approaching 

the threats that we face in the future with the advent of the intelligence program was the second pillar of growth. What needs to 

continue, is build up that intelligence capacity and capability. 

In the future, I look at threats. I think the counterterrorism 

threat will remain there, certainly the theft of secrets threat will 

remain but what will be increasingly important is to become adept 

at responding to threats in the cyber arena and building up the intelligence capacity to address that cyber threat which requires 

human resources. But also the technical savvy and expertise will 

be a challenge for the next several years. 

Mr. WOLF. Have any of the areas such as organized crime, sex 

trafficking, different areas like that been neglected—I mean, if you 

look at it knowing you had to prioritize but knowing when you 

prioritize there are some things you would like to do, you cannot 

do, what has been—maybe the word neglect is not the best word— 

what has been pushed behind that you would have liked to have 

kept forward? 

Mr. MUELLER. One of the hard decisions we as an organization 

had to make in the wake of September 11th is where do we move 

2,000 agents from? Ultimately, we took them from the drug program as well as from smaller white collar criminal cases. 

And in each case, we sought to work with other federal agencies, 

like DEA, to pick up where we had left off, and when it came to 

smaller white collar crimes we had to work with local district attorneys and state’s attorneys general to cover that. And those are the 

areas that we had to draw the resources from initially. 

When it comes to gang activity and violent crime, I was firmly 

of the belief that we needed to enhance our efforts in these particular areas because of the devastating impact on the communities 

which are affected by these type of activities. 

Particularly, having prosecuted homicide cases here in the District, I became familiar with the adverse impact of violent crime on 

our communities. And so we have built up. We have way over 100 

gang task forces around the country. That has been a priority. 

We have not had a backfill of the 2,000 agents that we moved 

from the criminal programs to the national security programs, but 

I think we have done a better job prioritizing our criminal programs and focusing on those areas where there is a substantial 

need for the Bureau to operate. 

Mr. WOLF. I guess today coming in, they had a report out that 

drug use among high school students is going up. We are not going 

to say that is because the FBI or someone has taken their eye off 

the target, but, I mean, it has gone up. 

People living in inner cities are impacted by gang violence almost 

to the degree that it would be a terrorist attack equivalent. I saw 

the headlines the other day in one of the local papers, I think in 

Prince George’s County, the number of deaths have been going up. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
181 

If you are living in the inner city, living in a neighborhood that 

is impacted by whether it be MS–13 or whatever, that is an act of 

terrorism for you, particularly if you have children and you are 

worried about them. 

We have even seen in my congressional district MS–13 as you 

know. So that is not meant as any criticism, because God bless you 

all. Your men and women. And you have been focused on the number one issue. 

But do you think there has been as a result of the fact that this 

has been such a priority for the Nation, that maybe perhaps areas 

of drug use and drug violence and gang violence have been able to 

get out of control a little bit? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not familiar with the latest figures on usage 

by, what is it, high school students? 

Mr. WOLF. It was high school students. 

Mr. MUELLER. High school students. I know that it fluctuated 

some. It had gone down for a period of time. I had not realized it 

had gone up. 

Mr. WOLF. It was in today’s paper. 

Mr. MUELLER. As we both know and understand, gang activity 

has increased over the years and not just within the United States. 

I know you are very familiar with MS–13, a gang that originated 

in Los Angeles, spread throughout the United States, and now is 

an international operation involving not just the United States, but 

El Salvador, since it originated there, Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Mexico. 

It has grown beyond the capabilities of any particular localized 

jurisdiction to become an international problem. That is one where 

we have addressed it with gang task forces around the country and 

also put resources down in El Salvador where we work with our 

counterparts there on fingerprint capabilities. We have got agents 

that are stationed down there that work solely on MS–13 and we 

also work with our counterparts in Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Mexico. But that type of gang activity has gone from a neighborhood to a city to a state to the United States, and is now international. Our focus now has to be on that area where we have 

unique jurisdictional capabilities and addressing those gangs that 

have spread over the last five to ten years, not just domestically 

but also internationally. 

Mr. WOLF. We were told by DEA that most of the gangs in Mexico have operations here in the United States; is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe many of them do, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And I think the FBI is uniquely set up in such a way 

to deal with that because they go from state to state. 

As you know, we did the northern Virginia task force because 

they were leaving Arlington, going to Fairfax, leaving Fairfax, 

going to Prince William. Same thing holds true, leaving Arizona, 

going to Pennsylvania, leaving Pennsylvania, going to Virginia. 

And so I just wonder if at times because if you are living in a 

neighborhood and you are impacted by gang violence, that is really 

an act of terrorism. 

Okay. As we go through the budget, we will certainly look at 

that. You want to say something? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
182 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me just add one thing. We have 164 Safe 

Streets Task Forces, which I am sure has probably doubled since 

September 11th because it has been a focus for us. 

The other thing that I believe that has benefitted us is looking 

across state and FBI jurisdictional lines to have an intelligence picture of not just northern Virginia but northern Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Maryland. The crooks do not care where they 

commit their activity and, yet, we are divided jurisdictionally by 

states and also by FBI field offices. 

What we have done in terms of developing intelligence capability 

and regional intelligence centers, which still is a work in progress, 

is to have a regional and intelligence focus. So if you have a source 

that is working in D.C., there is no reason why that source cannot 

also be working in northern Virginia or Maryland across jurisdictional lines. And that will, in my mind, benefit us and our operations and win us a much broader picture than perhaps we had 

had before. 

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE V. CRIMINAL CAREER TRACKS

Mr. WOLF. Are you disadvantaged in the FBI if you have spent 

most of your time in organized crime or in fighting gangs and, 

therefore, not involved in the counterintelligence area and not involved in the terrorism area? 

Is there any career track that is negatively impacted by the fact 

that you have had more time in one than the other? Is there any 

kind of you have to touch the bases to kind of move up and move 

ahead or can you just continue or if you are really good fighting 

gangs, MS–13, et cetera, but you have not had the time working 

with regard to al-Qaeda? Does that hurt you in the bureau? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, I don’t think so, although I think because the 

emphasis in the Bureau prior to September 11th was principally on 

its criminal program—— 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. And deservedly so. We still have the 

emphasis on those programs, but there has been the consequent 

emphasis on counterterrorism in the meantime. And counterterrorism and the national security branch I think has been elevated 

because of the funding and personnel that have gone there. 

But the heart and soul of this organization, and has been for 100 

years, and the talents and capabilities that enabled us to be good 

criminal investigators, and are the same talents and capabilities 

that enable us to address the other priorities. 

Mr. WOLF. I agree. I am just a little bit concerned, though, that 

if someone is emphasizing gang violence or organized crime and 

they have not spent enough time in counterterrorism that there not 

be a career negative for them, that they can still—— 

Mr. MUELLER. No, I do not think that is the case. And I will tell 

you that some of our best investigators on the counterterrorism 

side have had a tremendous amount of time on the criminal side. 

And—— 

Mr. WOLF. But does it go from criminal to counterterrorism and 

al-Qaeda work or do they go from al-Qaeda work, counterterrorism 

to gang work? I mean, are there more coming from the criminal 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
183 

area into counterterrorism and fighting terrorism or are there more 

coming from counterterrorism and does the road go both ways? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well in the past, since September 11th, it has 

gone from the criminal to counterterrorism—— 

Mr. WOLF. So—— 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. As we build up the counterterrorism. 

Mr. WOLF. So if you look at an agent’s career track, it has gone 

from here to there. What I am concerned about is I would not want 

to have it be a negative. 

I mean, it is a criminal, gang, terrorism activity for someone who 

lives in the inner city to be threatened by a gang. I mean, the fear, 

whether it be in Philadelphia and Virginia, wherever, to be able to 

walk your children to the school—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. It is fear. But I just would not want it 

to be, and there may be somebody who is so committed, dedicated 

that if you have not punched your card over here for some time, 

that you hurt yourself career wise. 

And if you look at the overall budget, knowing administrative 

costs, but looking at raw expenditures, how much of the Bureau’s 

budget is going for counterterrorism and counterintelligence versus 

crime and the traditional FBI work before 9/11? Is there a percentage? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I would tell you that in September of 2001, 

I would say, and these are rough figures, approximately 7,000 of 

the agents in the field were working criminal cases and 3,000 national security. Now it is approximately 50/50. And it has been that 

way for the last three or four years. 

Now, one of the challenges we face is that we will bring in agents 

who have particular career paths coming in to be cyber agents or 

intelligence agents, criminal agents or counterterrorism agents 

based on their background. And they spend some time in a small 

or medium sized field office where you are doing a number of 

things, but then they, because of the necessity to gain expertise in 

a particular field, may be in the field for a period of time. 

But as an agent you rise in the structure, we need people who 

are able to supervise, not just the cyber, but all aspects of an office 

Assistant special agent in charge have to be able to supervise. You 

may have come up in counterterrorism but you will have to supervise different programs. So the challenge is giving them the training and leadership skills across all of the various programs that we 

have. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. To leave this subject, but to kind of wrap it up, 

in 2006, the committee had CRS do a review of the fundamental 

strategic objectives and performance measurement plans for your 

intelligence program. 

I personally think the time is right for an updated look by outside experts, particularly with you leaving and the great job you 

have done. 

Would you agree to work with the committee in pursuit of a 

quick snapshot updated evaluation of how the FBI is doing in the 

area of foreign intelligence collection and implementation of post9/11 intelligence reforms? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
184 

Mr. MUELLER. Certainly I would work with the committee to look 

at it. As I think you are aware, I encouraged outside reviews so 

that we get a separate perspective. And I would be happy to work 

with the committee on such a review. 

Mr. WOLF. Good. 

DOMESTIC RADICALIZATION

Domestic radicalization: in your testimony, on the growing concern about the threat from homegrown extremists. According to the 

Congressional Research Service, there were 43 homegrown Jihadist 

terrorist plots and attacks since 9/11, more than half of those occurring since May 2009. So the pace is accelerating. 

What are you doing differently to understand and respond to 

this? 

The Christmas Day bomber, al-Awlaki was involved in the influence. He was at a mosque here in northern Virginia. Al-Awlaki 

radicalized the major at Fort Hood. 

We have the Metro one that you just referenced. That person 

came out of northern Virginia. The other five Pakistani students 

who were from the Fairfax County area. You have al-Amoudi who 

is in jail with regard to his terrorist activity. You also have the valedictorian at the Saudi Academy for the plan with regard to the 

assassination of President Bush. 

So what are you doing differently to understand and respond to 

this? And I stress again you have seen a tremendous uptick since 

May of 2009. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me speak for a moment about the uptick 

and the factors contributing to that uptick. There are two principal 

ones in my mind. 

One is what used to be called core al-Qaeda as a centerpiece of 

the threat activity in the world operating out of Pakistan and the 

Pakistani-Afghan border has migrated now to other areas, particularly al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, including where al-Awlaki 

is now in Yemen as well as Somalia, al-Qaeda, and Maghreb. 

Consequently, you have different focal points of terrorist activity. 

Some are more eager to attack the United States homeland than 

others, particularly those operating out of Pakistan and those operating out of Yemen. 

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the growth of the 

internet as a vehicle for radicalizing, and to a certain extent training, for operational capabilities that, in my mind, has brought the 

sermons of somebody like al-Awlaki into the bedroom of a teenager 

anyplace here in the United States without the necessity of a person traveling to a place to hear al-Awlaki or actually having to go 

buy a tape or get a tape of al-Awlaki. 

So what we are seeing is a profusion of individuals who have 

been radicalized, not person to person, but on the internet. Our response has been to undertake differing activities to try to determine who is utilizing the internet to radicalize and who is being 

radicalized on the internet, some of which we could go into in 

closed session. 

But it also goes back to the necessity for developing sources— 

sources who are in a position to identify those persons who are 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
185 

being radicalized and are seeking the weapons, explosives, or other 

items in order to carry out their intentions. 

Both with addressing the internet and also reallocating and reorienting our source coverage, we are attempting to address what 

is a phenomenon that has been growing over the last two or three 

years. 

Mr. WOLF. A recent report by Bruce Hoffmann and Peter Bergen 

warns of complacency and the possibility that, ‘‘an embryonic terrorist radicalization and recruitment infrastructure has been established in the U.S. homeland.’’ And I do not know what your comments or your feelings about that are. I think both of them are 

pretty competent people. 

But do you in certain circumstances have the capability and the 

authority to take down certain websites or block certain internet 

communication channels if you are able to prove that they are 

being used by terrorists or for terrorist purposes? And I guess the 

word is capability. Do you have the capability, number one, and, 

secondly, do you have the authority? And maybe you could kind of 

split them out, both capability and authority. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say capabilities, yes, generally depending 

on the circumstances. There are a number of ways that persons 

using the internet are trying to avoid both scrutiny and attacks 

from others. But generally, I would say, yes. 

In terms of authorities, there are, as we all know, First Amendment protections that one has to be cognizant of in addressing 

these cases. 

There also is the circumstance where if you actually do take 

down an internet site on a particular server, because of the ubiquitous nature of the internet, it is nothing for a person to migrate 

that website to another website that may be elsewhere. 

I would say to get more of the details, it would require a discussion perhaps not in the public arena. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I would like to have that with you because I 

think al-Awlaki’s website ought to be taken down. And I am concerned that there are some companies in the United States that are 

providing the servers that are allowing al-Awlaki to do what he is 

doing. 

I mean, can you feel the pain and the suffering of someone who 

lost a loved one at Fort Hood? 

Mr. MUELLER. I have thought long and hard about that. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. And some of the comments that came out of the Department of Army with regard to that and some of the data, knowing what they had, and al-Awlaki basically in essence fired the 

weapon. He fired the weapon. And so I think he ought to be taken 

down. 

And to have American companies providing the servers, being 

the servers that allowed that to take place because the first person 

if something happens to one of them, they are not going to call the 

Interpol. They are going to call the FBI if something happens to 

them. 

And so there are going to be a number of these things. I know 

you are going to want to say we cannot get into it in an open setVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
186 

ting, but I would like to almost take an afternoon to just kind of 

go through it. 

I think you ought to take those sites down. I know you cannot 

take every site down, but I have talked to people out there. The 

high-tech community is fairly prevalent in my district. And they 

say you can take sites down. Now, they can come back up again, 

but the guy is operating in Yemen and if you keep taking him 

down and taking him down and taking him down. 

And I went to the Peter King hearing and I saw the 

radicalization that took place of those families and the pain of the 

Somali families that saw their kids drawn into this partially because of al-Awlaki. And so if you have the capability, then I guess 

it is the authority. 

And what I worry about—and God bless you—I think you have 

been the best director the FBI has ever had period. And I put that 

comment in the record about your wife and your family. I mean, 

you have done an amazing job. 

I worry that there is not anyone who has the responsibility. State 

Department says, well, we have got to be careful what our relationships are abroad and Defense says this. And you are sort of caught 

in the middle here. But there ought to be a policy of this Administration. And maybe we can write something in the bill that these 

sites ought to be taken down. 

I know you cannot take every single site down, but that magazine is out there. It ought to be taken down. And that is like saying 

there is a house of prostitution and we know bad things are taking 

place or people are being—and I want to ask you some questions 

about sex trafficking that you know I care deeply about—but to 

say, ‘‘we know there is sexual trafficking taking place in that room. 

But if we go in there, they are just going to move to another place. 

So why bother?’’ I mean, hit them there, hit them there, hit them 

there, hit them there. 

Just do everything you can because for the good of the families 

and both those whose kids are being radicalized, my sense is in 

talking to a number of people, the parents did not even know the 

children are being radicalized. And so they get a bad rap. 

So I would urge you and we are going to look at it to see if we 

can say take them down, take them down because if we have the 

capability, then I think to sort of punt this thing and say because 

of this or that or we may offend somebody. 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me if I—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just say, first of all, we would be happy 

to sit down and go through with you and the committee the considerations that go into taking down a site. 

The only other thing I would say in generally talking about this 

area of mutual concern, we share exactly—— 

Mr. WOLF. I know you do. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. The concern. There is intelligence 

considerations as well. 

Mr. WOLF. I understand. 

Mr. MUELLER. And what I want to do is identify those persons 

who have the intent and seek or have the ability to undertake terrorist attacks. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
187 

Mr. WOLF. But al-Awlaki has taken it beyond—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. I mean, he has—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. I have some others, but I am going to go to Mr. 

Fattah. But I am going to come back to this subject. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BENEFITS OF INVESTMENT IN THE FBI

Mr. Director, I want to make sure that we put this on the record, 

that you have had an extensive career in public service from your 

days as a United States Marine leading a rifle platoon in Vietnam, 

winning the Bronze Star, your service as a U.S. attorney, and now 

as the head of the FBI. 

And you are getting ready to leave in September. And somewhat 

like Secretary Gates, you are in a position to be maybe even more 

forthright on some of the challenges facing the country going forward. 

So, when we look at the budget for the FBI, we cannot look at 

it in my view in isolation. We have to look at it opposite, for instance, the financial and human costs of the 9/11 incident. You 

know, it cost our country a great deal, thousands of lives and it 

cost our economy and was a real jolt to the airline industry, to New 

York. I was just there to see Freedom Square and what is going 

on there. 

So I think that the Congress should not be looking at just the 

cost of additional agents. I mean, you are requesting some 40 additional agents in this national security space. But it is really the 

cost versus the exposure. We have to look at this in terms of the 

exposure that the country faces. 

And this is not the FBI that you are going to be leaving. I mean, 

as we go into the 2012 fiscal year, you will have retired. 

So, I think it would be helpful for you to talk about how we 

should be looking at our investment. You know, there is a lot of 

talk around here that spending in and of itself is wasteful. I think 

some spending is necessary and obviously so when it comes to protecting lives and protecting our economy. 

So are you aware of some of the estimates of the cost of the 

9/11 event financially to the country even though obviously the 

human cost was even more? But if you could share about the economic impact of that to the Nation. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think everybody would agree that the human 

cost was unbelievable. But in addition to that, as you point out, 

there was a blow to the economy that cost the United States billions and resulted in lost opportunities. And you can never put a 

value on the persons who lost their lives and would have contributed for many years after that. 

Going to the Bureau’s budget, one of the frustrating aspects of 

this job has been the fact that we were expected to and needed to 

have built up an intelligence capacity that is absolutely essential 

to protect the public from attacks in the future. 

But when it comes to the budget and the budget discussions, because of the history of the Bureau being perceived as a law enforceVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
188 

ment agency and lumped in with other law enforcement agencies, 

we have had to take the funding to build up the intelligence capacity out of the criminal justice side. And, there has not been a backfill. 

So a number of the priorities that you and others wish us to pursue on the criminal side have, in our prioritization, unfortunately 

taken a back seat when it comes to the budget crisis. 

And at a time like this when we are talking about a Continuing 

Resolution where each of the agencies within the Intelligence Community because, they are part of the DoD budget, gets their 2011, 

we are still stuck going back to pre-2010. So that has been tremendously frustrating. 

I do think it is shortsighted in the sense that the terrorist attacks on the United States are for a variety of reasons—the loss 

of lives, number one—one of the most devastating things that can 

happen in the United States in this day and age. 

And we, Homeland Security, and the Intelligence Community 

need to be at the forefront in defending our country here from such 

attacks. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, for instance, you mentioned in your opening 

testimony the attempted bombing of, or bombs at least being transported on cargo planes. Now, that incident centered in significant 

respect on the Philadelphia International Airport where one of the 

planes was and one of the others had moved through. That cost the 

industry a great deal of money. 

So these issues of investing now on the prevention side and the 

intelligence side through your work can save us money on the other 

side. I wanted to mention that. 

I do want to take some time and walk through a few areas. I 

sent you a letter probably about a year and a half ago about mortgage fraud. There has been a very significant ramp-up of focus on 

mortgage fraud, and there have been major arrests across the 

country including in the Philadelphia area. The mortgage foreclosure crisis had to do with the economy and unemployment, but 

there were also problems in the industry. 

The FBI has had a very positive impact I think in cleaning up 

some of what it has cost lots of Americans, their homes and their 

piece of the American dream. 

I want to thank you for that and I want to thank you for your 

work in closing these very old but still relevant civil rights cases, 

particularly in the south where civil rights workers were killed and 

these cases have languished for decades and you closed out them 

on your watch. I want to thank you for that. 

I was over visiting the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children over in Virginia and the work of your team there with 

other entities has been remarkable. I do not think that many people in the country know that we have more than 1,000 kids who 

go missing every day in our country and the amazing work that the 

FBI and some of the other agencies have done, including the interactions with Interpol in recovering some of these young people who 

end up in other parts of the world. So I want to thank you for that. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
189 

FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

But I do want to get into some of the budget issues. You have 

a request, one of the smallest requests, but I think one of the more 

important ones. You have a request in the President’s budget of 

$16 million for education benefits. The CR has it at around nine. 

We think that there is a way to fix that problem. 

I want you just to illuminate on what that small number represents in terms of benefits to agents. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I believe you are talking about the sums requested to help persons with their education and retiring their 

bills? 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. One of the programs I think that is beneficial to 

the workforce is to help persons who are striving to better themselves. I know over the years that the chairman and others on this 

committee have pressed hard for us to provide additional educational opportunities to our workforce in the same way that the 

military does for their workforce. 

Those sums reflect, if I am speaking about the sums that you are 

talking about, our desire to do exactly that—to reward those persons who want to better themselves, and by bettering themselves 

better the organization. 

Every dollar that we spend to provide additional education or to 

provide a relief to those who already have bills is a dollar very well 

spent. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, you talked about the 1,100 positions that you 

want to deal with that the President has not provided funding for 

you to backfill. 

In terms of what this would mean in terms of programs, as you 

refer to them, on the criminal side or on the national security side, 

these are positions in which agents have retired and you are attempting to now backfill them? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me, if I could, give you an example. In 2010, 

there was a supplemental that gave us additional resources to address the mortgage fraud crisis. We obtained 200 additional positions in a one-time supplemental. Those individuals are brought on 

board. We were up to 98 percent in terms of our hiring ability 

which we had striven to meet for a number of years. 

We had sought recurring funding to sustain this one-time funding that we received in the supplemental. And the $200 million 

that we are going to lose, the numbers of bodies we are going to 

lose, part of them is attributable to the fact that we are not getting 

the recurring funding to fund these bodies that were given to us 

to address the mortgage fraud crisis. 

In 2011, we sought additional individuals to fight the mortgage 

fraud crisis in the budget. We are probably not going to get that. 

When we started the 2012 discussions a year or so ago, we did 

not put additional resources in our request for additional resources 

for mortgage fraud because we had already been given those resources in the past and expected to get them in 2011. 

So when I say that we are backsliding in terms of our budget position, that is an example of the problem we face where additional 

resources have been given to us in the past to address this crisis 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
190 

and, yet, we are not going to have them in the future and, in fact, 

have to cut back. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. And the last question for this round. Mr. 

Director, you have over 30,000 employees. You have 12,000 agents. 

What is the average salary for an agent? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

AVERAGE SALARY OF AN FBI AGENT

The average cost of a field agent, including benefits and availability pay, is $169,000. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE FBI OVER DIRECTOR’S TENURE

Director, thank you so much for your life-long service to our 

country and for your stewardship of the FBI during a pretty challenging decade I think by any analysis of that. And that is kind 

of where I would like to start the conversation. 

Since you became director, the word terrorism has probably been 

rewritten, at least in the dictionary definition of it, certainly the 

terrorist attacks on 9/11, the cyber terrorism, the escalated concern 

on the border, the illegal drugs that have come in, which is a form 

of domestic terrorism. 

At the end of all of our careers, we have the opportunity to look 

back and think, well, if I could have it to do all over again in our 

routine for the day and could get anything done that needed to be 

done, I would like to do this to change my legacy of service. 

Have you had an opportunity to look back over the last decade 

and think if we could have just done this differently, if we could 

have not had the controversy over Guantanamo or Patriot Act or 

whatever, then perhaps we could have made the country safer or 

done something different? 

And I say that not with criticism because I started out with admiration for your service, but you will be leaving a legacy of service 

during probably one of the most challenging decades in the life of 

our country and, yet, the next director may well want to have the 

benefit of your experience. 

Mr. MUELLER. There are two areas. I generally look forward, not 

back, but people are asking the same question. I would say there 

are at least a couple of areas where I would have done things differently. 

One is understanding the challenges of developing information 

technology in an organization that is information driven. 

The first efforts at developing a case management system failed. 

And in part in my mind, it failed because I did not ask the tough 

questions to understand the track that the technologists were going 

down and make certain that I understood what they were talking 

about and used common sense to question what they proposed 

doing. 

So if I had it to do over again, I would recognize that on the one 

hand you have those who understand the business practices of an 

institution like the FBI and then you have those who understand 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
191 

technology. Getting these together to upgrade your technology and 

modernize your business practices at the same time is a very difficult exercise that requires weekly, if not daily, management and 

assuring that the purported experts explain to you in English what 

is happening and how it is going to happen and so that you make 

certain that it is done the way it was drawn up. That is one area. 

The second area, I was slow to understand that developing intelligence is not just developing databases or hiring analysts. It is a 

way of thinking about your mission in the sense that as important 

to knowing what is coming in through the door, it is important to 

know what we call your domain. Whether it be in your field office 

or in your state knowing what the threats are, determining what 

you know about those threats, but as important is determining 

what you do not know about those threats, and using sources and 

intercepts to fill those gaps so that you have a fuller picture of 

those threats before an incident occurs. 

It took me a while, because I come from the background of being 

a prosecutor and I am used to getting a case in, investigating it, 

trying it, and hopefully convicting the person, to understand that 

we have to address the threats, analyze the threats, identify what 

we do not know about those threats, and fill in those gaps in order 

to prevent an attack. 

The statistics we have used in the past, the number of arrests, 

indictments, and the like, do not give you the picture of what the 

threat is. By gaining the picture of the threat, you then do a much 

better job in allocating the resources and getting ahead of the 

threat in the future. 

I would say the last thing, and one of the great things about 

being associated with this organization, is the men and women of 

the FBI in the past, in the present, and I am sure in the future. 

The hardest decisions you make are personnel decisions. I have 

made some good ones and I have made some bad ones. But overall, 

the quality of the people that serve in the FBI today is unmatched 

in any other institution. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you for that reflection. Now I am going to 

give you an opportunity to give us some constructive criticism. 

Based on your service, what can Congress do? It is not always 

about money. That is what the purpose of this hearing is about, but 

it is not always about money. What can we do to be a stronger 

partner with the bureau because we all share the concern about 

terrorism? 

There is not a person in Congress, Democrat, Republican, north, 

south, east, west, that does not have the same love of country and, 

yet, sometimes the people back home watch us kind of like stepping on an ant bed, just scrambling all over and fighting with each 

other and using a war of words at times. 

What can we do to be a better ally of the FBI in combating some 

of the challenges, whether it is cybersecurity or homegrown terrorism or other things? What can we do from your experience over 

the past decade? 

Mr. MUELLER. I come to realize painfully sometimes that organizational structures, as traditional as they may be, need to change 

with the changes in the world around us. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
192 

An example would be that the way we organize to address crimes 

as a bureau has been very localized because most crime in the past 

100 years has been local crime. Consequently you can have a dispersed, distributed organizational structure that gives deference to 

the Special Agent in Charge in a particular region. 

When it comes to counterterrorism on the other hand, that does 

not work because the threat is to the United States as a whole. I 

cannot look at one Special Agent in Charge, whether it be New 

York or Houston or what have you, and say you are responsible for 

preventing terrorist attacks. 

So our structure that was built for the criminal side has had to 

change over the last ten years by building up the coordination and 

the intelligence capabilities in counterterrorism to not only give 

oversight in the country but also to be able to intersect and interchange information with CIA, NSA, and the others. 

In the cyber arena, our organization is going to have to change 

as well for a variety of reasons, where victims can be in all 50 

states at the same time, but you do not know who the contributor 

is. 

When it comes to Congress, I do think that one should reflect 

upon the organizational structures and determine whether that 

structure fits the growth in the times. 

You mentioned financial. As I mentioned before, we proceed as 

a law enforcement agency, although we are now an intelligence and 

national security agency and, yet, the same persons who looked at 

us from the criminal perspective for the past number of years are 

the ones looking to the financing and the context of our law enforcement responsibilities without necessarily taking in the broader 

understanding that we are a national security agency and need to 

have a firm foundation for our funding over the years. 

Mr. BONNER. And I want to just ask one more question this 

round. From your testimony, you mentioned the elimination and 

the consolidation of the FBI Violent Crime and Gang Task Force 

and, yet, I assume that is not to suggest that the bureau is not still 

concerned about that. 

Are these functions being taken up by other areas of the agency? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we are looking at our gang task forces. We 

have no intention of eliminating the gang task forces around the 

country or the violent gang task forces around the country or violent crime task forces around the country. 

What we are looking at is overlap between our task forces and 

other task forces, whether it be Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security, to see where there are places that we 

could be better, more efficient in pulling together two or three task 

forces. 

But the number three priority on the criminal side after public 

corruption and civil rights is organized criminal activity, which includes gangs. Since September 11th, that has been our number 

three criminal priority and will continue to be our number three 

criminal priority. 

The number of gang task forces, I think I indicated before, there 

are something like 160 odd around the country, will continue. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you so much. 

Thanks, Chairman. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
193 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for 

the good work that you do. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

MIRANDA WARNING ISSUES

Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate you have a hard job. I wanted to discuss 

with you the FBI guidance on Miranda warnings, and from a couple of perspectives. The first is that I think it is sound guidance, 

and but I think it is constrained by the presentment requirements 

under current law. And I have legislation that I introduced last 

year that I am going to be reintroducing to allow a delay in presentment in terrorism cases for up to forty-eight hours upon certain conditions subject to another renewal for an additional fortyeight hours. I would like to get your thoughts on that. 

And also the potentially greater importance, I think, of the presentment issue even than the Miranda issue. I think presentment 

has a greater effect on potentially ending an interview than does 

the Miranda warning itself. And I would love to get your thoughts 

on that. 

The second question on that issue is under the guidance you 

state where the desire for intelligence outweighs potentially the 

evidentiary use of the information. Under the right circumstances 

they should continue an unwarned interrogation. Have you given 

any guidance to your agents or discussed the possible need to wall 

off agents that are doing the interrogation for intelligence purposes 

from the agents that will carry forward with the criminal investigation? Because I would think you would have a potential problem 

segregating the fruit of the poisonous tree if you do not have that 

kind of a separation. 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me address the latter point first and then go 

to the presentment point. I think you focused on, in terms of, what 

happens during an interrogation, particularly an intelligence interrogation, may well be important in certain cases where there is 

overwhelming evidence of guilt and you do not need whatever 

statements are given. 

But yes, there is always a consideration given. This happens a 

great deal overseas, to have what is called a clean team. You do 

an intelligence interview. It is understood to be an intelligence 

interview. It will be an unwarned interview. And then you have another team come in, give the Miranda warning, and then make the 

argument in court that this clean team has been untainted by the 

information that was obtained in the intelligence interview and 

hope that the judge will allow that in. So that is always a consideration. We have done that around the world any number of times, 

that particular scenario. 

I will point out that there is often a debate between the prosecutor, who wants to try the case, and others who are more concerned about the broader picture and the intelligence. That debate 

goes on, as you can well understand given your history as a prosecutor, in cases, not across the country but in the more important 

terrorist cases that we take down. 

Going to the presentment issue, yes—— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
194 

Mr. SCHIFF. You know, before you do that though, what would 

your legal sense be? Let us say you have one team that comes in. 

They interview the suspect with a criminal investigation. At a certain point they decide this person has such intelligence value that 

they are willing to sacrifice, potentially willing to sacrifice, the evidentiary information. They step out. There is no Miranda warning 

yet. The clean team is brought in to continue the interview. Where 

do you think that puts you in a legal footing? In other words, if the 

violation of Miranda, the violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs 

when the information is introduced, not from the continuing interrogation itself, even though you have the clean team walled off do 

you think a court may find that because the interrogation by the 

clean team went on that even the statements that might have come 

in by the criminal investigative team, via Quarles or elsewhere, are 

tainted by the fact the interrogation went on after that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I guess I would, say if there is a period of time 

where the case agent gets in and does an initial interview looking 

for a criminal case. Unmirandized because they want intelligence 

and they are within the Quarles exception. Then that will stand or 

fall depending on the applicability of the Quarles exception to the 

questioning that was done under that exception. Then if another 

clean team comes, and Mirandizes him, and there are additional 

statements, then the court will look, in my mind, to those additional statements and determine whether or not there was sufficient attenuation that the statements that were Mirandized should 

come in, even though there had been statements given prior to the 

clean team coming in. That I think will be dependent on the case 

law in a particular jurisdiction. I am not familiar with all of the 

cases that come down one way or another in that scenario. I am 

not certain there have been that many cases where that has been 

tried. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And you mention that overseas it happens frequently, have a clean team. Have you given any guidance to your 

agents about the necessity in a domestic arrest situation of having 

a clean team come in? 

Mr. MUELLER. In the course of our training, yes sir, there is discussion about that. Often there is discussion with the prosecutors. 

Often the prosecutors may well want at least to discuss the possibility of a clean team. I will tell you the one thing that is troublesome in that, though, is particularly with our agents, that building 

rapport over a period of time is absolutely essential. If you have 

different teams you risk losing that rapport that may get you the 

information you need, particularly on the intelligence side. That is, 

in my mind, a weighty consideration. 

I also believe that it is the people on the ground who are dealing 

with the individual who are often in the best position to know the 

way forward, as opposed to others a thousand miles, or two thousand, or even three thousand miles away trying to ascertain what 

is happening between a particular agent on a case who is knowledgeable of not only the case but the individual, and can respond 

to the individual. These decisions, in my mind and in some large 

part, should be driven by the input from those who are on the 

ground actually doing the interrogation. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
195 

Mr. SCHIFF. I wonder in that context, and I could see the point 

you are making about the importance of having an ongoing team, 

whether it might make sense to have a, you know, you have two 

people conducting an interview. One who steps out once you have 

reached the point of the end of the public safety exception. And 

then one who persists and is no longer part of the criminal case. 

Then at least you have some continuity. But I think that points up 

the importance of addressing the presentment issue. Because that 

seems to me the greater impediment. And how would you feel 

about under appropriate circumstances legislation that would 

lengthen the period of presentment? 

Mr. MUELLER. As you are aware, I have to defer to the Justice 

Department in terms of a views letter and the Justice Department 

views. I would say more generally, to the extent that we can have 

more flexibility in these very difficult circumstances, I am in favor 

of flexibility. 

FAMILIAL DNA SEARCHES

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. Do I have time for another question, Mr. 

Chairman? Shifting gears, familial DNA, which two, now I think 

three states with Virginia, are now adopting policies to provide for 

familial DNA searches. In LA it was of great benefit to us in apprehending the Grim Sleeper. I would like to see, and I have legislation on this as well. I do not know whether it will require legislation. But I would like to see the federal government through 

CODIS have the capability of doing a familial search in the right 

circumstances, or responding to a state request for familial search. 

And I think we would want to make sure that there are privacy 

protections in place. 

But in the Grim Sleeper case we were fortunate because all the 

DNA hits went unanswered. The DNA searches went unanswered. 

All the other crime leads went unanswered. We had a serial killer 

out there, and we did the familial search. It turned up the son of 

the suspect that led us to the suspect. We were fortunate, though, 

that the son had been in custody in California, in the same state 

where we were doing the search. Had he been in custody in a different state the Grim Sleeper would still be at large. Which I think 

points out the importance of having the capability under certain 

circumstances to do a national familial search. So I wanted to ask 

your opinion about, not necessary whether you support this form 

of the legislation, but whether you support having the capability of 

doing familial searches at the national level? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, certainly with the appropriate balance to 

privacy concerns, any additional tools that will enable us to identify a person, such as the Grim Sleeper, very few would be against, 

including familial searches. My understanding is that California 

and Colorado have legislation adopting it, and now as you indicated 

Virginia may be adopting it as well. There are two states, Washington, D.C. and Maryland, who have legislation opposing it, as I 

think you are aware. So the privacy concerns are triggering discussions. 

As you sort your way through that, there is also the concern in 

terms of the software that enables CODIS, not being capable of 

doing the type of familial searches that one would want to do. My 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
196 

understanding is both in Colorado and in California, the DNA laboratories have adopted a software package that enables them to do 

it. In addition to the issues, in terms of privacy concerns, there 

would be the funding factor as well. But in my mind we ought to 

have, and we are, having discussions on this. But we ought to try 

to sort our way through these issues so that under certain circumstances we make use of that capability. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Austria. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Director, thank 

you for your service to our country and your commitment as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We appreciate very 

much your hard work and I thank you for being here for this committee. And I apologize for walking in late. We have other committees going on, as I am sure you are well aware. 

You know, this week we are obviously going through a very difficult time from a budget standpoint, as we look at our current situation with CRs, and a possible government shutdown coming this 

week. And we, you know, certainly want to assure that the FBI has 

the ability to meet its mission to protect and defend the United 

States. And you have listed I think ten priorities that you have 

with your mission, with the FBI. And I want to just ask you as we 

go through these short term CRs, and there is a lot of uncertainty 

as to what is going to happen at the end of this week as far as a 

government shutdown, how does the FBI ensure that these priorities are being met? Or do you prioritize? Is there areas that are 

a bigger threat, maybe cyber, or terrorism, that you prioritize your 

dollars during these difficult time periods? And if that is the case, 

are you taking away from other areas? And let me ask you, you 

know, how you manage those ten priorities and are assured that 

you are meeting those ten priorities during this difficult time budget wise? 

TOP THREATS TO U.S. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we would start from the top and continue 

prioritizing. Counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, and the 

national security arena, and public corruption, civil rights, 

transnational, international organized crime, white collar crime, 

and violent crime on the criminal side. And we would be taking 

from the lower priorities and try to leave unaffected the counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber. 

But often Congress gives us dollars for particular positions. As 

with the example I used to address the mortgage fraud crisis. We 

obtained that funding, we brought additional people on for that 

particular purpose, and then we do not get the recurrence in the 

next budget. Then we most likely would have to cut back there. So 

it depends on what is happening in a particular budget cycle. In 

some part we are dependent on 2010 because that was the base. 

Then you have to look at 2011 that is going through the CR process 

now. And then we are here talking today about 2012. But a great 

deal of what we all want or need in the 2012 budget may now be 

determined by what happens in the CR for 2011. 

So while we still apply the priorities, Congress’ interest in particular areas, such as the mortgage fraud crisis, cyber, and terVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
197 

rorism, may dictate particular reductions in programs regardless of 

the prioritization. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. And certainly we want to ensure that you are able 

to. And also I think, you know, a concern we have is the families 

as well of the folks that are working under your agency, and the 

impact that this is having both on your agents that are out in the 

field, your folks that are working for the FBI, and their families. 

And I do want to continue to monitor that because we want to assure the safety of this country. 

SENTINEL

Let me specifically talk if I could about your case management 

program, the Sentinel. 

Mr. MUELLER. Sentinel, yes. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. In February the Acting OIG testified that Sentinel, 

the case management system currently being developed by the FBI, 

was behind schedule. And I believe it was two years, at least two 

years, behind schedule, and $100 million over budget. Can you give 

us an update on the FBI’s efforts to implement Sentinel? And what 

is your target completion date, if you have one? And do you expect 

any additional cost overruns? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the overview is back in I think 2004/2005 

when we entered into a contract with a contractor to produce the 

case management system. Given our previous experiences we divided it up into four phases. We went through phase one and it 

completed on time, on schedule, and under budget. Phase one was 

successfully deployed. Then we had problems with phase two when 

it was delivered due to coding errors and a number of things and 

we could not accept it on schedule. 

We have since completed phase two, which was the foundation 

for the system. And we had approximately 10,000 users out there 

using it now. Phases three and four we put a partial stop order on 

because we were not satisfied with the performance on phase two. 

We then determined that in order to complete this on budget and 

at least close to schedule we needed to change our development approach. So we developed what is known in the field as an ‘‘agile’’ 

development approach which cut way down on the monies that we 

were spending on contractor’s services. We are still using the contractor but we have cut way down and are utilizing an agile development process that is much less expensive, and in my mind much 

more respondent to the needs of the workforce. 

My expectation now is that either in the fall or the beginning of 

next year we will complete this project and we will have, I cannot 

say every one of the original requirements done, but certainly a 

substantial amount of the requirements that we need to service the 

FBI as a whole. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. AUSTRIA. And one last question, Mr. Chairman. Just to kind 

of follow up a little bit on Mr. Bonner as far as what we can be 

doing, you touched a little bit on working with the other agencies, 

Homeland Security and other agencies. Obviously we have had testimony here in this committee and other committees about what is 

going on with the Southwest border as far as the drug cartels and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
198 

so forth. Are you able to brief our committee on, you know, the 

ability to work with other agencies? What you are doing and your 

assessment as to what is happening on the border? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well in terms of working with other agencies let 

me, I will start and give just a brief response to an issue that periodically raises its head, is our relationship with the intelligence 

agencies, CIA, NSA, and the like. And I will say since September 

11th that has developed, I could not ask for more in terms of development of those relationships. The number two person in our National Security Branch is a person from the agency. We have hundreds over working at aspects of the CIA, or National Counterterrorism Center, and the like. And we have a number from the various agencies working with us and I think our relationships are 

terrific. 

On the law enforcement side, I am a great believer in task forces. 

Our success is in large part dependent on our relationship with 

state and local law enforcement. And the best vehicle for that is 

sitting side by side with somebody from another agency addressing 

a common threat. 

On the southwest border we have a very close relationship with 

DEA, where we focus principally on the kidnappings, on public corruption in agencies and the like, where DEA focuses on the narcotics traffickers. And we also have a very good relationship with 

Customs and Border Patrol in terms of operational activity. We 

also have established an intelligence entity down in El Paso that 

encompasses our offices along the border, our headquarters, and 

our legal attache’s office in Mexico City. And that is colocated with 

and in the same area as EPIC, the El Paso Intelligence Center, 

which is populated by DEA and the rest of the law enforcement 

and intelligence communities. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. What areas can we be improving on or be more efficient? 

Mr. MUELLER. There are overlaps, with some agencies, traditionally. When it comes to ATF, for instance, there have been overlaps 

in terms of our investigating explosives incidents here in the 

United States and that is an area in which the Deputy Attorney 

General resolved the issues and has given guidance to both of the 

agencies where I think we are eliminating some of that overlap. 

But there are other areas where there are overlaps that we all are 

trying to avoid. I do not see many benefits in the budget crisis but 

one of them is that you really have to prioritize, and consequently 

you may lose some of those overlaps when all of us are straining 

under our budgets. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

RADICALIZATION

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Austria. Back to the terrorism issue, 

I do not believe that our government has a comprehensive policy 

to prevent radicalization. We have a number of questions we will 

submit for the record. But I plan to introduce legislation either late 

this week or next week to create a team B to bring fresh eyes to 

our nation’s counterterrorism policies, including those intended to 

combat radicalization. Bruce Hoffman supports the proposal. Jane 

Harman supports the proposal. She is not here now, but we were 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
199 

working with her just before she left to go to the Woodrow Wilson 

Institute. 

It will be a strategic reevaluation of threat intelligence, possibly 

leading to a new way of disrupting terrorism by preventing the 

radicalization and recruitment process that sustains it. The work 

of a team B would not be meant to replace the analysis currently 

done by our intelligence agencies, but rather provide competing 

analysis. And again, and I know you have created a quasi-mini 

team Bs, I am talking about team B that looks at, almost similar 

to what was done in the Ford administration with regard to communism. Pipes led that from Harvard. They looked across the 

board. They had the exact same information that everyone in the 

government had and they looked at the evaluation with regard to 

the threat of communism. 

So I know, just to take away one of your answers, I know what 

you have done in the Bureau and I commend that. But I am talking about a government wide policy that Bruce Hoffman thinks 

may be a good idea. What are your thoughts about that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to look at it. I am certainly not opposed. It sounds like an idea that is worthy of study, depending on 

who, how, when, funding and the like. 

Mr. WOLF. Addressing funding, it would have the adequate funding. 

Mr. MUELLER. Addressing radicalization is at the heart of the 

issue. We need to on the one hand to prevent persons from being 

radicalized but also on the other hand identify those persons who 

have been radicalized so that you make sure that you catch them 

before they are able to undertake a terrorist incident. What we 

have found over a period of time is that radicalization occurs in so 

many different ways. It can occur on the internet, it can occur by 

a peer. There are so many ways that people are radicalized. There 

is a great deal of work that has been done in terms of the variety 

of ways that people are radicalized, and a great deal of work has 

been done on the radicalization process. But any guidance that we 

can get to enhance our abilities to stop the next terrorist, I would 

welcome. 

Mr. WOLF. Good. Well we are going to put the bill in next week. 

We may try to put it on this committee, or I do not know what we 

are going to do, but we are going to push it. And I think people 

who have looked at it, I think each agency has done some outside 

work. But I think if you bring it together in a comprehensive basis. 

Last May I read of your concern in a Fox News report about the 

Bureau’s October, 2002 decision to release Anwar al-Awlaki from 

custody upon his return to the U.S. despite an outstanding warrant 

for his arrest at that time. Several of the former 9/11 Commission 

members have publicly stated that the information from alAwlaki’s arrest warrant and October, 2002 reentry to the U.S. was 

not shared with them despite al-Awlaki’s appearance in the 9/11 

Commission Report as a possible supporter of the 9/11 terrorist 

cells. Former Senator Bob Graham said that the fact that this was 

not provided to the Commission was very unusual, and again it is 

one of the unanswered questions of 9/11. Could you discuss, now, 

or if it is inappropriate we can do it in a private sessions, why the 

information was not shared with the 9/11 Commission? And proVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
200 

vide the committee with a detailed accounting in an appropriate 

setting? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am vaguely familiar with this issue. I think it 

was perhaps a complaint out of Denver, if I am not mistaken? 

Mr. WOLF. Correct. 

Mr. MUELLER. And some time ago, a couple of years ago I think, 

I remember looking at the issue and believing that there was, certainly not much more at this time to be done. I will say that alAwlaki in the meantime has taken on a significance that he certainly did not have way back when, although he was significant, 

number one. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we 

opened up to and gave the 9/11 Commission access to everything 

we could find that was related to terrorism, and particularly those 

persons responsible for 9/11. So if this was not provided to the 9/ 

11 Commission, it was certainly not by intent. It may well have not 

been in one of the files that we provided to the 9/11 Commission. 

But I think you will find that the 9/11 Commission was appreciative of all the work we had done to provide them just about everything that we had in our files. 

Mr. WOLF. Well the gentleman, and his name escapes me. He is 

at UVA now. He was Executive Director of the Commission. 

Mr. MUELLER. I know who you are talking about. 

Mr. WOLF. He has expressed some concern about it, also. And I 

think he later went on to be an advisor to Condoleezza Rice. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, it is Zelikow. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. And he also had expressed some—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Well I would be happy to look into the matter. I 

can tell you that we tried to provide everything that we had that 

would be responsive to the interests of the 9/11 Commission at the 

time. 

Mr. WOLF. If you can look into it, and maybe when we talk about 

that other thing we can go into it. In April, 2009 a letter from the 

FBI Assistant Director Richard Powers to Senator John Kyl the 

Bureau announced that it had severed its relationship with the 

Council of American Islamic Relations, CAIR. Mr. Powers wrote, 

‘‘Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection 

between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view 

CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.’’ 

I strongly supported this decision in part because CAIR was 

found to be a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The 

Foundation’s founders were convicted in November, 2008 on 

charges of, ‘‘providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization,’’ according to a Department of Justice 

press release. Hamas is recognized by the United States and the 

European Union as a terrorist organization. It is publicly committed to the destruction of Israel. Its 1988 covenant says, ‘‘The 

day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight Jews and kill 

them.’’ 

On June 12, 2009 I spoke on the House floor for nearly an hour 

laying out in great detail my concern about CAIR and sent the Bureau and others copies. I believe I sent you a copy, also. Since that 

time CAIR’s troubling behavior has continued. In January, 2011 

CAIR’s California chapter found an old poster displayed on its 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
201 

website stating, ‘‘Build a wall of resistance. Don’t talk to the FBI.’’ 

Have you ever seen that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Poster? Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. The poster? This is a telling example of how CAIR 

has sought to prevent individuals from cooperating with law enforcement, or at the very least to present themselves as the only 

legitimate channel for doing so. 

Last month before the House Homeland Security Committee Mr. 

Bihi, the uncle of Burhan Hassan who was killed in Somalia, testified about the disruptive actions of CAIR in the Somali-American 

community in Minneapolis following the disappearance of several 

Muslim Americans in 2009. Mr. Bihi states, ‘‘CAIR held meetings 

for some members of the community and told them not to talk to 

the FBI, which was a slap in the face for the Somali-American 

Muslim mothers who were knocking on doors, day and night, with 

pictures of their missing children asking for the community to talk 

to law enforcement about what they know of the missing children.’’ 

According to FBI estimates approximately ten of these missing 

men, these are Americans living here who have now gone back to 

Somalia, have joined al-Shabbab, have died in Somalia. CAIR’s actions were, I think, counterproductive for the families of these men. 

For all of these reasons I continue to believe that CAIR is not 

an appropriate partner for the FBI or any other federal agency. I 

would assume that the Bureau’s policy of not working with CAIR 

on a non-investigative, and I stress that, non-investigative matters 

remains in effect. Can you confirm that, please? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have no formal relationship with CAIR. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. Recent reports indicate that in 

2009 from CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad to Libyan dictator, Libyan dictator. And I have the letter here which I would 

like to give you before we leave, which I will submit for the record. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
202 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 360 here 67259A.098
203 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 361 here 67259A.099
204 

Awad appears to be soliciting money for a CAIR project. Long before Qaddafi’s brutal and murderous assault on his own people, 

which has dominated the news in recent weeks, his deplorable 

human rights record was well known. Political parties are illegal. 

Organizing or even joining a party can result in death. He has publicly executed dissidents. Freedom of the press is non-existent. According to various respected NGOs he has employed arbitrary arrest, political killings, and disappearances to maintain his grip on 

power. 

In addition to human rights abuses against his own people 

Qaddafi has engaged in international acts of terrorism against the 

United States, including the 1986 attack on a discothe`que in West 

Berlin, killing several U.S. servicemen and injuring over 200 others. Two years later was the infamous attack on Pan Am Flight 

103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people. In 

2003 after denying Libyan involvement for years Qaddafi’s regime 

formally accepted responsibility for the attack. It was this same 

Qaddafi that CAIR, Mr. Awad, wrote, ‘‘I am pleased to send Your 

Excellency in my name the most solemn assurances of thanks and 

appreciation for the efforts you exert in the service of Islam, Muslims, and all mankind through your initiatives to teach Islam, 

spread the culture of Islam, and solve the disputes for which you 

are internationally known.’’ He went on further with details to set 

up a Muslim peace foundation, discusses the need to raise $15 million, and thanks Qaddafi for his general support. 

Although CAIR’s website states CAIR’s operational budget is 

funded by donations from American Muslims, it is my understanding that Awad has made repeated attempts to solicit funding 

from Qaddafi and other foreign sources. Is the Bureau aware of 

CAIR’s outreach to Qaddafi? And do you know if CAIR has at any 

point received any funds from the Libyan regime? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. I am not 

familiar myself at this point, but we may. 

[The information follows:] 

CAIR FUNDING FROM QADDAFI

The FBI can provide this information in a closed setting. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. In the same vein, is the Bureau aware of any 

attempts by CAIR to solicit funds from any government currently 

on the U.S. state sponsored list of terrorism? Sudan, which has 

been involved in genocide. Cuba, which we see has religious leaders 

in prison. Iran, which aids Hezbollah, which is responsible for the 

bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. And Syria, who was 

also responsible. Or any other terrorist organization that would 

similarly be prohibited under the law? Do you have any indication 

that they have made any? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not to my knowledge. I have to get back to you. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, if you would I appreciate that. And on that last 

issue, with regard to CAIR, I believe that engagement with a group 

like CAIR has the perverse effect to giving legitimacy to the very 

elements in the community that are being most counterproductive 

by discouraging cooperation with law enforcement to prevent terrorism. But we need the active engagement of the Muslim community. And so I have encouraged you and the FBI to meet with and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
205 

involve a large element of the American Muslim community. Bring 

them in, who have been outspoken in condemning terrorism. Can 

you tell us how the FBI is reaching out to all of the groups, to 

bring them in? Because somehow when CAIR is the only one given 

a dominant power, and I appreciate the fact that the FBI will not 

meet with them, I think it is important to empower the other Muslim groups to include them. And can you sort of bring us up to 

speed on what the Bureau is doing with regard to that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Since September 11th every one of our fifty-six 

field offices and the leadership of those offices have had outreach 

to the Muslim community, as well as other communities. But in the 

wake of September 11th, especially the Muslim community. Understanding that the worst thing that could happen to the Muslim 

community in the United States would be another terrorist attack. 

And that we need the support of that community, and our business 

is basically relationships. So we have had outreach to all elements 

of the Muslim American, Arab American, Sikh American communities in our various field offices since September 11th. I, on a 

number of occasions, have met with diverse leaders from the Muslim communities over the years. We will continue that outreach for 

the future, and generally the future, not just the foreseeable future, 

anything but for the future. It is part of the way we operate and 

work, and it is absolutely essential to not only the Muslim community but to the United States that we continue that process. 

Mr. WOLF. I had sent some names over asking that you and top 

people meet with them. Do you know if those meetings ever took 

place? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I would have to get back to you, but I did 

look at the list of requests. I believe we have responded. In certain 

circumstances we absolutely are meeting with the people, and 

there may be occasions when we are not but it may be because 

they are out of the country or some other reason. But—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, could you have your people tell us who? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, absolutely. I would be happy to do that. My 

understanding is that we have tried to keep your staff apprised of 

what is happening in each of the cases that you have raised and 

we will continue to do that. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. The High-Value Detainee Interrogation 

Group. The Interrogation Task Force created by the executive order 

led to among other things the creation of a High-Value Detainee 

Interrogation Group, or HIG. This function is housed administratively at the FBI and led by an FBI agent. Could you briefly describe the HIG concept and the FBI’s role? 

HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTEGRATION GROUP

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. We have believed in the Bureau for any number of years that we are successful in questioning and interrogating 

individuals by building a rapport over a period of time. But not everybody is successful at that. I do believe, and have often believed 

by my time as an Assistant United States Attorney, you have those 

who are good at doing questioning and those who may be not so 

good. So the effort in the HIG is to make certain that when we 

have a person who has a great deal of information relating to terrorism, that we have the best possible team that is doing the interVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
206 

rogation. That means somebody who is a professional. It may well 

be someone in the Bureau who spent a lot of time as a homicide 

detective on the street and has done this for years. A person who 

is a professional in terms of this is all he or she does. Others who 

may be knowledgeable about this individual and the case, and others who have the background in terms of religion or region, and the 

like can additionally give context to the interviews. So you develop 

a course of interviewing this person that maximizes the opportunity of getting the information you want. We have had this concept for over a year now. It was formally encompassed in a directive from the President. Even before then we had put together 

these teams. They can be from the FBI, DOD, or individuals can 

be from the FBI, DOD, or CIA, where we get the subject matter 

expertise, and put together those teams to do interrogations of persons who have substantial information on terrorism. 

There are two other areas that are important to the HIG. One 

is in developing and pulling together all of the literature and experience on interrogations. Remarkable as it may seem there is a 

dearth of material on what may well be the most effective of legal 

interrogation techniques. Pulling that together in the sense of having a body of persons who are looking at this and developing new 

ways of addressing interrogations is essential. 

The third area that the HIG focuses on is training. Training for 

those who are going to be doing interrogations and how to do the 

most effective interrogations. So those are the three pillars. And it 

has been operating well, I think, over the last year. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I think it makes a lot of sense. And I commend 

you and the administration for doing that. As you know, I have 

suggested over and over and over, and over and over to the National Security Council and others that you consider relocating the 

HIG staff with the National Counterterrorism Center. I know the 

reason has said, ‘‘You know, Wolf, this is a really good idea but we 

do not have the space.’’ I drove by there. That is in my district. I 

mean, if you do not have the space and cannot find enough space, 

take out a couple of vending machines. But do you think it would 

be a good idea? Has every one, every expert— and I am kind of setting you up here. But every expert that I have spoken to, every single one says it makes sense to colocate the HIG at the Counterterrorism Center because when the information is coming in, and I 

think the people at the Counterterrorism Center are doing a very 

good job. There is no criticism meant here at all. But they are 

drinking out of a fire hose, the number of contacts that are coming 

in there per day. So by having the HIG team here, that was the 

purpose of the Counterterrorism Center, to get the stovepipes out 

and bring everybody together. Would it not make sense to colocate 

the HIG at the Counterterrorism Center? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I have said that before, and I have over and 

over, but not maybe the third over, requested and sought to colocate. And I will continue to push to do that. I know we had to, 

absent the ability to move in, find alternative space and we have 

done that. We are all together. But I will continue to press that. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, thank you. And maybe we can carry language 

in this bill to, Director, but I appreciate that. What is the level of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
207 

the FBI resources devoted to the HIG this year? How many positions does the FBI—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you. I think it is approximately thirteen including detailees in terms of the staffing. 

And in the 2012 budget we are asking for eighteen positions and 

$16 million. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well I am pretty sure we will be able to meet 

that need. And I do not want to get into too much detail, but I 

think you are right and the FBI is right and the administration is. 

It is critically important to quickly, effectively acquire this useful 

material. To what extent in an open forum can you express some 

of the experiences that HIG has gone through within the last year? 

Is there anything that you feel comfortable sharing in an open 

forum? 

Mr. MUELLER. No probably I should not. But I will tell you that 

we have had teams both domestically as well as overseas where we 

may be doing the interrogation, but participating in it in some way 

are the agency, DOD, and others, where we have brought subject 

matter experts together to make certain we have the most effective 

interrogation team that we can or could put together. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Maybe during the recess I could stop out? If 

you could have the HIG people contact staff and we can just stop 

by, and just talk to them? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely, or I would be happy to have them 

come up to give you a full briefing. 

Mr. WOLF. No, that is okay. I will be out and I will just stop. 

FOREIGN ESPIONAGE/CYBER THREATS

Mr. MUELLER. Okay. Happy to do it. 

Mr. WOLF. One other area. And then I am going to go to Mr. Culberson. Can you just, without me getting into the question, sort of 

explain to the committee the threat, the cyber threat that we face? 

And secondly, can you explain to the committee in an open session, 

and also to the American people, and to the business community, 

what threat the Chinese government is insofar as cyber, and with 

regard to intelligence? And we are going to go to Mr. Fattah next, 

and then Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. MUELLER. With regard to the last portion of the request in 

terms of a particular country, I would prefer to discuss that off the 

record. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. How dangerous is the overall threat? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well the overall threat is exponentially growing 

each year. And the threat comes from many levels. You have government actors who are seeking to steal secrets from the departments of various government entities. You have the same government entities from other countries who are attempting to steal information from contractors or from the financial institutions and 

the like. Then you have individuals who are located in foreign 

countries who may have some loose affiliation with the government 

services or maybe not, depending on the time of day or their interests. They may be interested in robbing banks, and utilizing cyber 

capabilities, or assisting government agencies. You have a growing 

threat from terrorists who want to use cyber capabilities to disrupt 

the electrical grid and various infrastructure. And then you have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
208 

got the high school student across the street who becomes very 

adept at hacking into a particular business or a particular company, has the skills at a very young age, and does it for nothing 

other than fun or proving that he can do it, will move in and hack 

servers or databases in the government or large companies. 

That is just stating a very small piece of the cyber threats that 

we see out there. And for us in the Bureau, our main role in this 

is determining attribution. You can have victims in every one of 

the fifty states, but you do not know where the player is. Is the 

player in Russia? Or China? Or Morocco? Or Turkey, where we 

found in years past individuals who are undertaking cyber attacks. 

Our challenge is at the outset. We do not know whether it is economic espionage, espionage, or a crime, so we must come together 

with those who handle this in the intelligence community, such as 

NSA, CIA, and the like, and put together a team like we have done 

at the NCIJTF so that at the outset we look at a cyber attack and 

try to determine attribution. We then determine whether it is a national security issue or a criminal issue, and then pursue the investigations thereafter. 

Mr. WOLF. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah. But just to end, do 

you think we need almost the Counterterrorism Center, if you will, 

for cyber? Because there is so much in defense. There is so much, 

obviously, of what the Bureau does. You are also impacted with regard to banks, and impacted with regard to the private sector. And 

I know there was one person who came in and worked at the National Security Council. That person left. There seems, it just 

seems so spread out. Would it make sense, I do not know what, to 

have an agency? To have a, where is the NCIJTF? 

Mr. MUELLER. It is in Northern Virginia. What I would welcome 

is—— 

Mr. WOLF. Is every agency there? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I would welcome you to visit the NCIJTF and 

I think you will be impressed in terms of the cooperation that you 

see for all of the agencies and the exceptional work they do. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. And the NCIJTF reaches out depending on expertise in NSA, or other elements of DOD, or FBI, or Department of 

Homeland Security. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well maybe I will do both of them. Do you have 

somebody from the Federal Reserve there? And somebody from—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain that we would have somebody 

from the Federal Reserve but I know we know who in the Federal 

Reserve to call and talk to. 

Mr. WOLF. But all of the agencies in the government who have 

an interest—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Are all—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Well we will take a look at that. Mr. Fattah. 

INDIAN COUNTRY

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Part of your budget request is for additional support in Indian country. Native Americans, Alaska natives experience a much higher rate of crime. And 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
209 

I should note that crime in totality has decreased over your tenure, 

over this decade, even though when you started we had about 280- 

some million Americans and now we have something slightly over 

300 million. The population has grown but the amount of crime per 

capita has decreased in all of the violent crime categories that you 

monitor. 

I know Indian country, is a priority for the entire Justice Department, and you have some additional requests. Would you like to 

comment for the record on those? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. On 9/11, 2001, when we looked at 

prioritization, we understood we could not reduce our personnel assigned to Indian country. We maintained the same level, which was 

somewhat over 100 agents, which was inadequate then. It is, to a 

certain extent, inadequate today. We are requesting an additional 

forty personnel or positions in the 2012 budget, of which twentyfour of those positions would be for Special Agents. And again, it 

is realizing that this is an area in which additional resources will 

result in additional justice for those who are victims of crime in Indian country. So, that is part of our request. 

Also, as we look at the future of addressing crime on Indian 

country, I have been of the belief that other elements of the government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other elements should also 

be funded and trained to pick up some of the work that is currently 

done by FBI agents. For a variety of reasons that has not happened. So as a result of the burden still being with us, and maybe 

appropriately so, that is why we put in the request for an additional forty bodies. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well let me congratulate you for the arrest that was 

made in the Martin Luther King Day parade case in Spokane. Is 

there anything that you can say about that case? Do we think it 

is one person, just the person that has been arrested? Or is there 

some broader concern here? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the persons who worked on that did a remarkable job in identifying the individual and when the story 

comes out it will be an interesting story. It is still in litigation so 

I cannot—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I do not want you to compromise your position in 

any way. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Specify the work that was done by 

the agents in order to identify that individual. But there was one 

individual arrested but I cannot say at this juncture because the 

investigation is continuing. 

DNA BACKLOG

Mr. FATTAH. Now the DNA backlog. I know you testified in the 

Senate I guess a couple of days ago about how that is being worked 

through. But if you would like to make some brief comment for the 

record today on the DNA backlog? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we have reduced the backlog in terms of the 

samples from over a hundred thousand, to almost negligible 

amounts now, as a result of two factors. One is the additional resources from Congress to hire additional examiners for the DNA 

lab which handles the taking of the samples and putting it into 

CODIS. And secondly, technological advances enable us to much 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
210 

more efficiently process the samples. So we have reduced that to 

negligible figures. 

When it comes to forensic DNA, we still have backlog there. But 

our expectation is by certainly 2012, and hopefully the spring, that 

will be reduced to almost nothing. We have made substantial inroads into that backlog as a result of shifting some of the personnel 

from the injection of the samples over to working on the forensics 

aspect of the DNA process. 

HEALTH CARE FRAUD

Mr. FATTAH. The Attorney General and you concluded at least 

the initial portion, and the arrest, and the indictments related to 

the largest Medicare fraud in the country’s history a few months 

ago. There was a major announcement on this. And there has always been I think a blatant acknowledgment by everyone who has 

looked at Medicare that there was a lot of fraud there. But this 

was a very significant effort, I guess coupled with one that followed 

after that with the round up of people involved in Oregon. This is 

what we would think about as traditional organized crime. But 

these were two major operations. Healthcare is a big issue here in 

the Congress. This is an area where there are billions of dollars 

that could be saved dealing with fraud. And you have started to 

really aggressively focus in on this. Is this another area where 

there is more opportunity to pursue wrongdoers? 

Mr. MUELLER. There is. And again, it gets down to a certain extent to resources. We leverage our capabilities by working with a 

number of healthcare fraud task forces around the country. The 

two incidents you have mentioned are just an example of the work 

that has been done by these task forces. I do think there is one significant figure, and that is for every one dollar in enforcement cost, 

you return seven dollars to the government in terms of forfeited 

funds. So it is worthwhile for the government to fund this because 

you get seven dollars back for every dollar that you give to us. 

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. FATTAH. And two last things. One is that I know you spoke 

to the chairman in response to an earlier question about these 

gang task forces that have had very successful operations, particularly in the suburbs of Philadelphia, an area that you are familiar 

with—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Because you were raised there, in the 

Villanova area. But in the entire Philadelphia suburbs there have 

been very significant activities by one of the gang task forces that 

led to significant arrests. And that is to be appreciated. 

And the last question is, there has been a lot of talk about planes 

and challenges related to maintenance of planes. We had a plane 

leaving Philadelphia, and the FBI has now determined that the 

hole in that plane was a bullet hole. And obviously I am not sure 

that there is much else that can be said about it. I know that it 

is being investigated. But it is obviously of concern, and this goes 

to the protection of our whole civilian aviation program. We have 

a lot of activities to check passengers going on planes. But whether 

it is lasers at the pilot’s eyes, or whether it is in this instance a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
211 

bullet hole in the plane, activities from the ground in and around 

planes obviously are a concern. So if you have anything to add 

about this issue? It is a localized one, but one of national importance. 

Mr. MUELLER. No, that is something we are following. I know 

there was some, but I have not gotten briefed in the last couple of 

days. I know we were investigating and there was some question 

about the trajectory—whether it was from up into the plane or otherwise. So the trajectory, and the possibilities in terms of where it 

may have occurred, whether in Philadelphia or was it Charlotte, I 

think, on the other end? I know we are investigating those aspects. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Mueller, we 

admire you all immensely. It is a real privilege on this committee 

to help you in your work, and your agents. It is a great source of 

pride to all of us. We thank you for your service, sir. At the height 

of the Cold War—Director Mueller I am sorry I do not have your 

biography here with me—but at the height of the Cold War in the 

eighties if you think about the level of espionage directed against 

the United States by the former Soviet Union. Think about the 

scale of the penetration, the agents, you know, there were only big 

mainframe computers I guess at that time. So you think about the 

scale of espionage the Soviet Union was directing against the 

United States. How can we compare the level of espionage for hostile purposes, the espionage that hits the United States by the Chinese today? To follow up on Mr. Wolf’s question? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, as I responded to Mr. Wolf, I would really 

have to discuss that off the record. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. We would very much like to do that. And 

Mr. Chairman I would be, if there is an opportunity for me to join 

you? 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In a briefing like that? Or frankly for the committee, I would like to do so. It is a source of great concern, the 

level of attacks on the United States by the Chinese. And I know 

by other countries, too. Not just cyber attacks, but also individuals 

attempting to get into the United States to commit another 9/11 attack if they can do so. And in prior years I have talked to about, 

and I want to thank you again for the work that the FBI is doing 

in particular watching the northern and southern Borders. And I 

know several years ago had congratulated the FBI’s office in San 

Antonio for some work they had done in intercepting I think members of Hamas, is that correct? They were coming across the southern border? 

BORDER SECURITY/TERRORIST THREATS

Mr. MUELLER. I think several years ago we had a discussion 

about an incident where we believed that there may have been persons associated with Hezbollah that had come across the southern 

border. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Hezbollah? That the FBI office in San Antonio 

had apparently taken the lead in catching those folks? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain which office. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
212 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER. That may well have been. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Talk to us if you could, sir, about the, to the extent you can do so in an open hearing, that has, about the number 

of individuals from countries, special interest aliens from countries 

with known connections to terrorism that the FBI has, is aware of 

that have been apprehended by any federal law enforcement agency crossing the southern or northern border? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can’t give you here any figures. I think DHS will 

have to get back to you on the numbers. I can tell you that we are 

concerned about special interest aliens coming across the southern 

borders and the northern border as well. One tends to focus on the 

southern border, but we have to be aware of the challenges in the 

northern border, as well. In both borders we cooperate closely with 

Customs and Border Patrol, in terms of identifying these individuals and making certain that they are interviewed and evaluated, 

and then I have some say in what happens after they have been 

apprehended and where do they go after that. With a close relationship, we have agents that are stationed along the border whose 

principal responsibility is to, once identified, either by us or by others, to then interrogate and gather what intelligence we can and 

then perhaps weigh in on what should happen to the individuals 

in the future. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The Eastern Chronicle just reported that there 

are 900 special interest aliens from 35 nations with suspected ties 

to terrorism that have been apprehended along the southern border 

between Texas and California, at least in the last 17 months, and 

quoted an independent analysis by a Vanderbilt political scientist, 

Carol Swain, and it found a 67 percent increase in arrests of border 

crossers from suspect nations that they had, border patrol has 

picked up. Could you just give us some examples to help heighten 

the awareness of the country and the Congress to (a) the scale of 

the problem, and (b) the type of people that are crossing. Are there 

any examples that come to mind? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I don’t think I have any in mind. Not one 

I could talk about in open session. I will tell you that we’ve had 

examples of individuals coming in from Somalia. We’ve had examples of other individuals coming in from suspect countries, but 

when you sit down, you interview them, you find that they may be 

from clans that are really, the persons are seeking asylum. They 

may come from a country that has been designated as a safe haven 

for terrorism, but the individuals once they come in, may well have 

no association whatsoever with terrorism. Nonetheless, they come 

from that same suspect country. 

Mr. CULBERSON. What I’m searching for is some ammunition 

that you can talk to us about publicly and we can use in the debate 

to help heighten the awareness in the country, the importance of 

securing the border in, not only to keep out the drugs and the 

gangs and the violence, but terrorists. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, you know, what I can perhaps do, but it 

would have to be off the record is talk about specific incidents. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. All I can tell you is that, needless to say ourselves, the Department of Homeland Security, and other intelVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
213 

ligence agencies are concerned about the possibility of special interest aliens coming across both borders, and we have had incidents 

where, apart from identifying the persons coming through, we’ve 

had some intelligence that there has been discussion about 

operatives coming from Pakistan or Somalia or Yemen, in utilizing 

the southern border to come into the United States. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Has that happened yet? 

Mr. MUELLER. There’s been intelligence out there. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But it has? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, off the, I can’t—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. We’ll talk off the record. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir, talk about incidences. 

MURDER OF JAIME ZAPATA

Mr. CULBERSON. Could we also, and forgive me, Mr. Chairman, 

for running late with multiple hearings on top of one another, if 

you’ve already discussed the murder of the federal agents in, ICE 

agent Jaime Zapata who was slain north of Mexico City. Have we 

talked about that yet? I wanted to ask what progress the FBI is 

making in hunting down his killers. His partner was wounded. I 

see that the FBI just arrested, charged and arrested ten alleged 

Mexican gang members with murdering the two Americans, a U.S. 

Consulate employee and her American husband, and a Mexican 

man who had U.S. ties to a U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Jua ́ rez. But 

in particular, Special Agent Zapata. 

Mr. MUELLER. That investigation is ongoing and working from 

the moment it happened, our Legal Attache ́ Office was on the scene 

very shortly afterwards and has been working with our Mexican 

counterparts to make certain that those who are responsible seek 

justice. We have had access to the evidence from the scene. We 

have had access to the scene itself. We have been working with the 

Mexican authorities to make certain that everyone involved in that 

sees justice. 

Mr. CULBERSON. We have in the, Brandon Analysis has, was had 

to help me calculate the number of deaths per thousand during the 

Mexican Revolution 100 years ago and today on a level of violence 

it’s far worse today than it was at the height of the Mexican Revolution 100 years ago, and it appears as though there is literally a 

full scale war going on right across the border in northern Mexico, 

and the level of violence is just unprecedented, an extraordinarily 

dangerous situation that in addition to the threat from terrorists 

crossing the border, individuals with connections to, individuals 

from countries with connections to known terrorist organizations, 

the, talk to us about the scale of the violence. It certainly appears 

to be a war going on right across the border, and give us some 

sense of the level of violence that we see going on in northern Mexico. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think the homicide statistics speak for themselves, in places like Jua ́ rez and elsewhere. I would not call it a 

full scale war. I would say there are full scale warring factions that 

utilize homicide as a mechanism of retaliation, staking out one’s 

turf and retribution, that have contributed substantially to the 

number of deaths in Mexico, even though the military and the police, have undertaken substantial efforts to address it, and it’s cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
214 

tainly not under control at this point. I know we are providing substantial support, particularly intelligence support to our counterparts in Mexico, and everybody’s hope is that we’ll see reductions 

down the road. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is the level of violence unprecedented? It’s got 

to be—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it’s fair to say it’s unprecedented. You 

know the last couple of years have been particularly bad. Yes, I 

would say it’s probably unprecedented. Now I can’t go all the way 

back to the earlier wars, but I would say the violence is very difficult. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Director, for all that 

you do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Sorry that I was late. I was at another hearing. 

I understand that this is probably your last hearing before this 

Committee. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SERRANO. And I just wanted to tell you that I value the service you’ve given our country, and the way in which you handled it, 

and as I said to you when I first met you, and I’ve said to colleagues of mine throughout the years that I’ve been in Congress, 

I represent a District in the Bronx, but I also have great interest 

in what happens in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and in the 

Commonwealth the FBI has had a mixed history. You’ve been very 

fair in maintaining an open dialog on Puerto Rico, and for releasing 

many of the documents that you were able to make public about 

a difficult time, the relationship between the FBI and the independence movement in Puerto Rico, and I want to thank you for 

that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SERRANO. I think there’s much more information. It’s a desire to, not to repeat history, and you played a major role in it. 

Also, I don’t know if anyone asked you, but I know you continued 

a program, which was very impressive to me, of taking new agents 

to the Holocaust Museum. I don’t know if that was brought up, but 

that’s very impressive that you continued, then you grew, and you 

expanded that program to show people what happens when government misuses its power. 

Mr. MUELLER. Louis Freeh deserves the credit for that, and 

he—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Tell him every time I see him on the, you know, 

but I wanted to thank you, sir, again and I’m so tempted to tell 

about our running day after election joke, but I don’t know if you 

want me to say that or not. 

Mr. MUELLER. You can go ahead. 

Mr. SERRANO. I’ve got to tell you. This is great, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman. So I’m the most Nervous Nelly about doing 

things right, and not only do I do things right, but then I worry 

that somebody thinks I didn’t do things right, you know? And I get 

a call from the Director the day after election. He says, ‘‘Congressman, I just think it’s fair to inform you that we’re starting an investigation on you.’’ Of course, I had a heart attack. I fell down off 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
215 

the chair. I said, ‘‘I didn’t do anything wrong. What did I do? 

What’s the issue?’’ ‘‘Just anybody who wins with 95 percent should 

be investigated.’’ 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t recall it exactly that way, but—— 

Mr. SERRANO. All I know is I fell off the chair and it’s become 

an ongoing tradition, and he called me when I went to 94 percent. 

What was going on. It is a great story, but it shows that the FBI 

Director can have a sense of humor. But I do want to thank you 

and I want to ask you a question here. I’ve asked you this question 

before. You’ve given us the right answer, but it needs to be asked. 

You, after 9/11, and I was on the Committee then, we, in many 

ways Congress asked you, the FBI, to refocus your attention to terrorism, and we always wonder what happens to the ongoing investigations on white collar crime and drug issues and so on? Has that 

suffered at all, or has the FBI been able with its resources, to do 

that which has to be done in the area of terrorism, which is top 

priority, but also not have, you know, major drug dealers celebrating and saying, ‘‘They’re not after us now.’’ 

TRANSFORMATION OF THE FBI SINCE 9/11

Mr. MUELLER. Well, as I think I’ve testified before in the wake 

of September 11th, we moved 2,000 agents from the criminal programs to the national security programs, principally counterterrorism. Of those, approximately 1,500 came from the drug programs. Another 500 came from doing smaller white collar criminal 

cases throughout the country. I met with Special Agents in Charge 

because I was relatively new. They were much more knowledgeable, but we had to prioritize, so we did. We have not had a back 

fill those 2,000 criminal bodies. Currently we have 50 percent doing 

national security and 50 percent doing the criminal programs. At 

the time, we worked closely with DEA so that no investigations 

would be dropped, and we worked with State and local law enforcement to set up programs, to the extent possible, for them to address smaller, white collar criminal programs. Over a period of 

time, when we had the variety of threats whether it be cyber or 

health care fraud or the mortgage fraud crisis, the Madoffs of this 

world, counter terrorism, or the Russians who we picked up last 

year who were living clandestinely here in the United States, we’ve 

had to prioritize and some things have suffered, and some things 

quite probably have fallen through the cracks. But I think where 

we are today is where we should be for the foreseeable future, and 

that is 50 percent doing the criminal programs, 50 percent doing 

the national security programs. 

FY2011 CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS

Mr. SERRANO. Well that’s, I think it’s again, in keeping with my 

respect for you, that you would admit that some things may have 

fallen through the cracks, but there is a move to make sure that 

doesn’t happen in the future or we continue to tighten up on it. 

You know, an issue that of course you don’t discuss but there is a 

possibility of a government shutdown, assuming there is one and 

it lasts longer than, there should be no government shutdown but 

if it lasts longer than people think it will last, how will that affect 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
216 

you? I mean, do you have to then with less resources concentrate 

just on some issues and then others stay aside? 

Mr. MUELLER. We’re going to have to look at it day by day. I can 

tell you that it is already adversely affecting morale at the Bureau 

because a number of our people don’t know whether they will be 

here on Monday, don’t know whether they’ll get paid, and it is tremendously disruptive to somebody who has given their service to 

a place like the Bureau. I do expect that our investigations will 

continue unhindered. We will do everything we can to support that, 

whether it be training or coordination. New initiatives, will all 

have to be put on the back burner if there’s a government shutdown, and we’ll have to evaluate it day by day. It is taking a substantial amount of effort from our administrative people today to 

try to anticipate what will happen if there is a government shutdown, and that effort which could be spent elsewhere, will continue 

to have to be spent as a result of whatever shutdown there is in 

the days and weeks to come. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yeah, and I can understand that because one of 

the issues that we’re facing here is there’s no such thing as unessential members of our staff. I mean, in your case, how do you tell, 

you look at a group of 100 agents and say, ‘‘You 50 are essential, 

and you 50 are not.’’ Imagine what that does for the 50 who are 

not essential. 

Mr. MUELLER. It’s difficult. 

Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask you a quick question on my other District. The FBI is building a new facility in Puerto Rico, and I understand the GSA, which we just had a hearing with GSA in the 

Subcommittee that I’m Ranking Member on, has $145 million dollars for the construction of the facility. Did the FBI consult with 

GSA about the funding, and is this—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I’m sure. Actually, I’m going to be down in Puerto 

Rico visiting that office in the near future, and that’s one of the 

things on the agenda to talk about. But yes, I’m sure we do not do 

anything without GSA. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. I can understand. 

Mr. MUELLER. When it comes to buildings, I mean. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. I have some budget questions here. You’ve included a new increase request to establish the 

Domestic Communications Assistance Center. Other Department of 

Justice agencies have also requested FY 12 increases for this effort. 

What is this center, and why is it needed? 

Mr. MUELLER. This goes to one of the issues that I should have 

mentioned in response to one of the earlier questions that we have 

to look forward to in the future, and that’s what we call ‘‘going 

dark’’. By that I mean that we face an inability to intercept or obtain the results of interception of conversations given the growth 

in technology. Back in the 1990s, the statute was passed that required communications carriers to provide communications to the 

federal government pursuant to a court order and then you had 

people like AT&T, Verizon, and the like, who are the only commuVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
217 

nication carriers around. Today you have Google, Facebook, Microsoft chat and you have any number of ways that you can pass communications. We will go to court and get an order directing a company to provide us those communications. A company will say, ‘‘We 

don’t have the capability of doing that.’’ What we are looking for 

is legislation to address that increasing gap where companies do 

not have the capability of providing those communications to us, 

pursuant to a court order. This particular entity that is being established would have state and local participation, along with other 

federal agencies to address this particular issue of how we can assure that when there is a legitimate court order, whether it be from 

the FISA court, a Title III court, or from a State court, the companies that provide communications capabilities to persons have the 

ability to respond to those court orders. 

Mr. WOLF. There are budget requests from other justice agencies 

for this same effort. Will the FBI have the lead role there? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Then you will have the lead? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And will they share some of the financial burden, too? 

Mr. MUELLER. My hope, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Your hope? Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. I hope it’s yes. 

VIOLENT GANGS

Mr. WOLF. I have a number of questions on the violent gangs. 

But you know how I feel and Mr. Fattah feels. I really hope that 

you will embed a strong program with regard to the gang issue 

that continues after you leave. You know, we may do some language in the bill with regard to that. But I really worry, particularly the question that Mr. Culberson asked. The violence south of 

the border is pretty extraordinary, and I can remember taking my 

entire family driving through Mexico with all of my children. We 

went to, you know, Mexico City. We drove through the entire, not 

through the entire country, a large portion. You couldn’t do that 

really today, and I worry that it’s moving north, and the killing of 

the two Americans just at the border crossing. So I really hope that 

there can be—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe any one of my proposed successors would 

have gangs as one of the top priorities. I do not expect that my successor would change much in the way of priorities, and gangs is 

very high at the top. We have so many persons in the Bureau who 

have worked on this over a period of time and believe strongly that 

this is a function that the Bureau should have. I cannot really anticipate any diminished effort when it comes to addressing violent 

gangs. 

FBI/ATF EXPLOSIVES INVESTIGATIONS JURISDICTION

Mr. WOLF. Coming then to the other side of the coin with regard 

to lack of resources, the issue of jurisdiction over explosives investigations has been a divisive issue within the Justice Department. 

There have been previous efforts to resolve and including instructions by the Deputy Attorney General. The OIG has also looked at 

the issues several times and continues to have concerns. The overVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
218 

lap and confusion, you were talking earlier about if there is a good 

spinoff from these budgetary matters it would be that we are not 

going to have any overlaps. The IG also looked at the issues and 

said, ‘‘The overlaps and confusion have also been identified by GAO 

as a potential source of cost savings, if we were to eliminate the 

duplication and combine capabilities.’’ What is your assessment of 

the current arrangement, and what can be done to streamline operations and reduce confusion and also to save money, and is there 

an active effort? I know periodically you will see articles in the 

newspaper about an active effort in the Justice Department to resolve the issue. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I think the IG report and the like predated 

the Deputy Attorney General’s action on those recommendations 

and he, several months ago, issued a directive that outlines the 

lanes in the road when it comes to explosive investigations, but 

also goes further in assuring that ATF has a presence on our Joint 

Terrorism Task Forces. Basically in brief summary, any explosion 

or explosive incident that may be tied to terrorism is handled by 

the Joint Terrorism Task Force. On the Joint Terrorism Task Force 

are ATF agents. Any explosive incident that has no ties to terrorism goes to ATF, and so it’s a fairly clear guideline for both 

agencies. It’s been in practice several months now, and as I travel 

around, I ask the question, ‘‘How are we doing?’’ and my belief is 

that it’s gone a long ways in solving the problems that were pointed out by the IG. 

Mr. WOLF. So you think the issue has been resolved? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, I do. The actions of the Deputy Attorney General in this particular area has resolved that issue. 

Mr. WOLF. If the head of the ATF were up here would he say, 

give the same answer, do you think? 

Mr. MUELLER. Both of us probably didn’t get everything we 

wanted, which is always the case. But I think he would also say 

that it has been resolved. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, you can see in the, this Subcommittee has really 

made an effort to make sure that your efforts are completely funded. I know that. But when you do see this overlap with ATF as 

you’re giving up certain things, they are a capable agency that can 

do this work. I think if they’re doing their work, I’d rather see the 

FBI rounding up al-Awlaki or dealing with MS–13 or if there’s 

somebody else always working on that area. But if you say the 

issue’s been resolved. 

Mr. MUELLER. Can I just comment briefly on that? I am not at 

all reluctant to give up jurisdiction in areas which I think should 

be with other agencies, and I’ve done it over a period of time, both 

at the Bureau, but also at the Department of Justice. In this particular area though, at the outset of an explosive incident, you do 

not know whether it has ties to terrorism. You take something like 

the backpack up in the Martin Luther King holiday in Spokane, 

Washington. Initially that is investigated by the Joint Terrorism 

Task Force, including ATF, and it turns out to be a domestic terrorist incident. So I would say that the guidance from the Deputy 

Attorney General leads to a presumption, where there is a list of 

factors that seem to indicate that it’s a terrorist attack, then the 

Joint Terrorism Task Force would take it at the outset. If it is clear 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
219 

it has nothing to do with domestic terrorism or international terrorism, then it goes to ATF. And I would say that because of our 

capabilities, our handling of devices with the context of a terrorist 

plot perhaps in mind and the experience we’ve had dealing with 

IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in the United States, that 

when it comes to a terrorist incident, we have the capability and 

the greater backdrop and context of terrorism to investigate those 

cases. 

SENTINEL

Mr. WOLF. Okay. On the Sentinel issue, I think we just have to 

get into that because one of the biggest challenges and I’m sure the 

frustration has been the automation as you mentioned earlier of 

the FBI’s case files. Last year you issued a full stop work order on 

the contractor, and I understand you brought the management of 

the project in-house. Can you describe what the problem was that 

led to that decision and was the contract not going to deliver the 

desired outcomes within the existing budget? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the answer to the last question was yes. It 

would not deliver the desired outcomes under budget or within a 

reasonable time frame, so we sought alternate solutions. We got 

into this when the contractor delivered Phase Two to us. We found 

that Phase Two did not have the functionalities that we had paid 

for. The question is why didn’t you pick this up earlier? The fact 

of the matter is, in the first phase and various iterations in between, you get to the deadline and it would be produced and prior 

to the delivery of the second phase, we anticipated that when we 

got it it would work fine, but we found that it did not. There were 

coding errors and other issues that required us to go back with the 

contractor and get those resolved. We then looked around and determined how we could be more efficient in handling the contract. 

We put in a partial stop work order for the balance of the contract, 

and developed thereafter what we call an ‘‘agile’’ development capability, which is a different way of developing a software capability. 

We’ve been using this now for maybe six months, and I am comfortable that the smaller team is responsive to the needs of the 

field and is providing to us at a much reduced cost, the 

functionalities that we need based on the original contract. Part of 

my frustration goes to the procurement policies of the government 

in the sense that in 2004, 2005 we entered into a contract for millions of dollars, with a set of requirements that are developed at 

and for the workforce of 2004, and yet is a five year contract, and 

over those five years a number of things changed. The technological 

capabilities in the workplace are advanced. Our business practices 

changed and inevitably the contracts change over a period of time. 

But when you have such a large, timely expensive contract like 

that, you cannot be adept and agile in responding either in the 

change in business practices or the change in technology. So the 

new way of proceeding with the contract gives us more flexibility 

to develop and adopt the technology going almost in every case, 

using the provider of the technology as opposed to a middle man, 

and it also is much more responsive to the business needs of today, 

as opposed to the business needs of 2004. I am cautiously optimistic that we’re on the right path in terms of providing a case 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
220 

management system under budget, or at the budget figures that we 

arrived at four or five years ago. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you believe the FBI has the in-house technical 

project management expertise? 

Mr. MUELLER. At this juncture, yes, and we also have persons 

from the outside that are monitoring every step. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, here’s the concern that I have. The OIG contends that your defined budget of $451 million does not reflect the 

true cost of the project because it does not provide the cost for 

maintaining the system for two years as the original budget plan 

did. Do you agree with this statement, and if those two year maintenance costs are included, what is the full life cycle cost of Sentinel, of it today? 

Mr. MUELLER. I’m not that familiar with that particular issue. I 

will say that we’ve had some disagreements with the IG in terms 

of what is encompassed within the $451 million dollars. I’d have to 

get back to you on that particular issue. 

[The information follows:] 

SENTINEL FUNDING BREAKOUT

The FBI has estimated the cost of the Sentinel project to be $451,000,000, which 

takes into consideration the necessary precautions for any information technology 

development effort. This amount includes funding for development support, program 

management, operations and maintenance, risk management, and independent 

verification and validation. Additionally, Sentinel Agile development is currently 

within the alloted budget amount and is on schedule. A briefing of Sentinel’s capabilities will be provided within the next couple of months. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, well who is the manager now of Sentinel? What 

is the person’s name and his background? Who is the person that 

now has been brought in-house to head it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, T.J. Harrington is in charge of the whole 

thing. 

Mr. WOLF. What’s his background? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, he’s an accountant. I can get you the background. 

[The information follows:] 

BIOGRAPHY—THOMAS J. HARRINGTON—ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

On August 13, 2010, Director Mueller appointed Thomas J. Harrington to the position of associate deputy director. 

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Harrington served as the executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, the largest operational 

entity within the FBI, which is composed of the Criminal Investigative Division, the 

Cyber Division, the International Operations Division, the Critical Incident Response Group, the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, and the Office of Victim 

Assistance. 

Previously, Mr. Harrington served as the associate executive assistant director for 

the National Security Branch (NSB). During his tenure in this position, he also 

played an integral role leading the Strategic Execution Team, which Director 

Mueller established in September 2007 to build on and accelerate the FBI’s efforts 

to enhance its national security mission. 

Mr. Harrington also served as the deputy assistant director (DAD) for Counterterrorism, Operational Support Branch. During his tenure as DAD, he had administrative oversight of the division, as well as managerial responsibility for the Foreign 

Terrorist Tracking Task Force, the Counterterrorism Operational Response Section, 

and the National Threat Center. He also played a major role in the establishment 

of the NSB in 2005. 

From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Harrington managed the organized crime/drug and violent crimes/major offenders programs as the assistant special agent in charge of the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
221 

Philadelphia Division. While serving as a supervisory special agent in the Philadelphia Division, Mr. Harrington led the economic crimes squad and was the whitecollar crime coordinator. Mr. Harrington was instrumental in the proposal and subsequent establishment of a a Russian/Eastern European criminal enterprise squad 

in Philadelphia. 

Mr. Harrington began his career as an FBI special agent in September 1984. Following a period of training, he was assigned to the FBI office in Denver, Colorado. 

In Denver, Mr. Harrington specialized in white-collar crime matters, and more specifically, financial institution and securities fraud. In June 1991, he was assigned 

supervisory duties in the Criminal Investigative Division at FBI Headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. As part of his Headquarters assignment, Mr. Harrington oversaw 

the FBI’s national insurance and securities fraud intitiatives. 

Mr. Harrington is a 1978 graduate of Mount St. Mary’s College, in Emmitsburg, 

Maryland and a 1990 graduate of the Stonier Graduate School of Banking, American Banker’s Association, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. Mr. Harrington received the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Executive in 2006. 

Mr. WOLF. How many project managers have there been over the 

life of the project, and where are those individuals now? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you, possibly two or 

three. 

[The information follows:] 

LIST OF SENTINEL PROGRAM MANAGERS

Mio Lazarevich—3/16/06–6/15/07 (Phase I) 

Dean Hall—6/16/07–10/14/07 

Steve Shelton—10/15/07–10/15/10 (Phases 2&3) 

Jeff Johnson—9/15/10–present (Agile) 

Mr. WOLF. I think that is part of—you know, I was out in my 

district. And I went into one location. And we were doing a town 

hall meeting. And I looked at this guy. And I recognized him. I 

said, ‘‘You look just like.’’ He said, ‘‘I am that person.’’ He is gone. 

He is out. He is moving. 

So I think you have had such a—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I think you are talking about—well—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well I think you have had such a turnover there. And 

the concern is did he come from outside? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Did he sign a contract that he will stay for the next 

five years? Because you have had one year, two years, three, and 

then they go. I remember the first gentleman you had I believe he 

was from Utah, if my memory serves me. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. He used to live in Oakton. I can recall another person. And then I can recall the person that I saw a couple of months 

ago. 

Mr. MUELLER. That probably was Zalmai Azmi. He would have 

been there for a period of time. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, it was. And I think they change so often. And 

I really worry about bringing someone in. I mean, is he going to 

stay? Is he in the—— 

Mr. MUELLER. For the life of this project, yes. But you are talking two different things. One is the CIO. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. Chief Information Officer. 

Mr. WOLF. But that is their responsibility too though. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. The person I have in that responsibility now 

is Chad Fulgham. He is an Annapolis graduate. He was involved 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
222 

in electronics in the Navy over a period of time. He went to Wall 

Street for a period of time and then came to us two years ago. He 

will remain for the period of this contract I believe. 

But the fact of the matter is one of the hardest things for any 

of our agencies to do is keep qualified personnel as CIO, because 

with what we pay them compared to what they can make out on 

the street, it is tremendously different. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. I am not really totally sympathetic to that 

though. I think, you know, your people really do an incredible job. 

And they do it because they are dedicated to the country. If everyone just went to where they had the highest salary. 

I was very disappointed once. One of your counterterrorism people came in. And I thought he was a wonderful selection. And then 

I found out he was going to work for the gambling industry. I 

mean, how depressing. 

So, yeah, your people could go out and work for the gambling industry in Vegas. But that is not what they are. That is not who 

they are. So just because you can make—you could have made 

more money. 

Mr. Director, you could have quit in five years. And you could 

have gone home and told your wife I am leaving. I am going to go 

with one of the biggest law firms on Wall Street. You could have 

named your price. You didn’t do it, because you are a patriot. And 

your family stayed in there. And I know your people. 

I mean at church I think you have ten agents that go to my 

church. When I am out in wherever I am in my district, men and 

women come up to me. They are good people. And I know. I will 

guarantee that if somebody said, okay, at 48 we can take you here. 

Most of them say, no, we are not going to go. They are committed. 

The same way we have very many people in the American military in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and places like that who could go 

out. But they don’t go out, because they stay. So I think it is not 

really that. 

I think there has been too much of a change in the program. And 

I would hope, you know, and I want, you know, their names publicly. And I stipulate if you think they are good people they must 

be. But I think we are going to continue to check are they still 

there, or did they leave to go out for a bigger salary or a better salary? This has been really a difficult issue. 

And I know you have put a lot of time in on it. And I know 

Glenn Fine has done more, you know, comments about it. But it 

really has to be done right. So I hope who they are stay and stay 

until they can salute to the next director or whoever it is and say, 

you know, job well done. This thing is finished. It is a good program. The American taxpayer got the money. The Bureau can do 

what they need to do with the effort. But I think you have had too 

many changes. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well let me if I could say something about the 

work that Chad Fulgham and his predecessors have done. People 

tend to look at Sentinel and should, because it is a substantial 

project. 

But in terms of our database structures, we have come from— 

through some difficult times. We now have the latest generation of 

work space. We have, over 25,000 people who are on BlackBerries. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
223 

We have internet access. We have come a long ways in a relatively 

short period of time technologically. 

One focuses on Sentinel. I understand that. But one also ought 

to focus, on the advances we have made in all the other areas of 

technology that our current CIO and his predecessor are responsible for. 

Mr. WOLF. But when Sentinel finishes, assuming it is finished 

well—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. What will the total cost be? 

Mr. MUELLER. $451 million. That is my hope. 

Mr. WOLF. That is a half a billion. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. From the very beginning. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. So in your overall—— 

Mr. MUELLER. But we don’t have any new case management—— 

Mr. WOLF. Right. And I think it is appropriate. And the committee has always funded that. But I think the change, and the 

turnover, and the people that I have talked to over the years, I 

keep seeing different people. 

And I just hope the people that are there now, I don’t know if 

the gentleman is in the audience or not, but I hope that they stay 

with this until it is concluded and finished. And they can turn an 

ongoing program over for the American taxpayer. And so your men 

and women can do the best job with it. 

But there has been a lot of turnover. And I know the Bureau 

people don’t want to leave and go work for the gambling industry. 

Not only do they not want to go for—and you don’t want to go 

downtown to work for a big law firm that is representing China or 

doing something like that, because your people are committed patriots. They do the best thing for the country. 

FBI ACADEMY

On the training issue, your request for fiscal year 2011 included 

an increase of $74 million to renovate facilities at the FBI Academy, including the construction of a new dormitory and classroom 

space. This funding has not been provided. And given the current 

status of fiscal year 2011 appropriations, it looks like the funding 

may not be. 

You testified last year that the academy was in a maximum-service capacity. How are you managing without the funding? And 

what are your plans for fiscal year 2012 and beyond? 

Mr. MUELLER. It is like any infrastructure enhancement. It is 

needed. If you don’t get the funding for it, you just delay. But your 

infrastructure crumbles around you. Quantico was built in the 

1970s, I think. Most of the dormitories and the like are crumbling. 

So we are pushing money in to fix up the falling concrete, the disrepair. But we need the additional building to augment that. 

Again, it goes back to when we are asked to build an intelligence 

capability in the Bureau, which means now having 3,000 as opposed to 1,000 analysts, including having to train those 2,000 additional analysts, including setting up a training program. That 

means personnel, but it also means building expenses and costs. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
224 

We have new agents classes. We have the analysts that need to 

be trained. We have state and local law enforcement. One of the 

gems of the Bureau, if you talk to state and local law enforcement, 

is the National Academy. 

Mr. WOLF. I agree. 

Mr. MUELLER. I refuse to cut anything out of the National Academy, because we are training state and local law enforcement. We 

are also training the middle managers of our counterparts overseas. It is one of the most effective programs in my mind for identifying the future leaders of police forces, whether it be in Asia, or 

the Middle East, or what have you. And giving us a leg up in the 

future. 

So the training of the National Academy, the agents themselves 

and the analysts, all take space. And that is why we requested the 

funding for this building. If we don’t have it. Then we will go along. 

I think, if I am not mistaken, we have occasions where we are 

using a motel to house people because we don’t have the space 

down at Quantico. 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING/MATERIAL REVIEW

Mr. WOLF. You have had a difficult time finding or training 

enough agents, analysts, and linguists with critical language skills 

especially Arabic. Could you bring the committee up to date on the 

progress of hiring and training? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I don’t have the statistics with me today, but 

we have done better over the last few years but not as good as I 

would want. I would have to get you the statistics on that. 

[The information follows:] 

RECRUITING AND TRAINING AGENTS, ANALYSTS, AND LINGUISTS WITH CRITICAL

LANGUAGE SKILLS

The FBI Foreign Language Program aggressively recruits linguists throughout 

the United States, targeting heritage-speaker communities. Language-specific advertising is launched in local publications where a recruiting event is set to occur to 

inform the public of recruiting events. Rudimentary initial screening occurs on-site 

to triage eligible potential linguists candidates who are then fed into the formal applicant process for proficiency testing and security vetting. The FBI has also 

partnered with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to recruit linguists. 

Recent FBI and FBI/ODNI efforts have produced over 1,000 candidates who have 

been added to the pool of applicants currently in process by the FBI. 

The FBI Foreign Language Program maintains a robust training program for each 

of the three targeted employee groups. Special Agents and linguists are offered longterm training at the U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute and Special 

Agents may be selected for overseas training with international partners. Various 

other types of foreign language training designed to meet specific job criterion are 

provided through multiple commercial and academic vendors. Training opportunities 

are announced via an annual Open Season call for candidates. Critical languages, 

such as Arabic, are given priority placement with leadership concurrence. 

The Bureau has increased the number of linguists in all languages by 74% since 

9/11/2001. The number of Arabic linguists has increased by 243%, while the number 

of agents proficient in Arabic has increased by 134% during the same period. 

Mr. WOLF. Because the OIG found last year that there were substantial amounts of unreviewed foreign language material that you 

had collected. And the question was is this directly related? And I 

think the answer is yes to your challenge of hiring those qualified. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that was several years ago. And I believe 

that we have responded to that. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
225 

OIG REPORT ON UN-REVIEWED FOREIGN LANGUAGE MATERIAL

The OIG Report provided documentary evidence of the difference between the volume of material collected and the amount of material processed by the FBI. The FBI 

acknowledges there are un-reviewed foreign language materials; however, the Foreign Language Program works closely with the Bureau’s operational components to 

ensure the highest priority matters are always covered. The FBI’s struggle to hire 

qualified linguists rests on the reality that: few of the critically-needed languages 

are taught in the United States education system to the proficiency levels required 

for FBI work; there is a finite population of native-speakers of the foreign language 

from which the FBI draws the majority (95%) of its linguists who can successfully 

complete the rigorous proficiency testing; and there are security vetting standards 

which the FBI requires to insure the accuracy of the final English-language product, 

as well as the safeguarding of national security information. On average it takes 

12 applicants to yield one linguist and may take as long as 19 months, owning to 

the thoroughness of the background processing required. 

Mr. WOLF. I think it was last year. 

Mr. MUELLER. I will check on that, but I know we have a response to the IG on that particular issue. As is usually the case, 

and I can say in almost every instance, we move very quickly on 

the recommendations that come out of the report. And rare are the 

occasions where we don’t agree on a particular recommendation. 

CENTRAL RECORDS COMPLEX

Mr. WOLF. On records management, in the past this committee 

has supported the Bureau’s efforts to improve management of its 

central investigative records and to automate those records so 

agents and analysts can share information more easily. 

I understand the fiscal year 2012 GSA budget request includes 

initial funding for construction of a facility. Can you give us a 

quick update on the status of the program? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get you more of the details. I 

know we, again, are looking for the funds so that we can start the 

construction of that central records complex that we have been 

seeking for, I think it may have been at least six–seven years now. 

[The information follows:] 

CENTRAL RECORDS COMPLEX (CRC) UPDATE

GSA’s FY 2012 Request to Congress includes $97 million to construct the Central 

Records Complex for the FBI. 

Mr. WOLF. I think it has been, yes. And what has it meant that 

you haven’t been able to do that? 

Mr. MUELLER. We cannot be as efficient as we want. I know one 

of the issues that people raise is FOIA for instance. We have become far more efficient with FOIA, but we have records going back, 

probably not 100 years now, but many years. But we get probably 

more FOIA requests, than just about any agency in the country. 

And yet we are still paper records based. 

And to the extent that we can get a centralized records facility 

that would enable us to automate, scan, and better access those 

records, we can be responsive to FOIA as well as to our own internal searches where we need to find information, on a terrorist case, 

an espionage case, or a white-collar criminal case. 

Mr. WOLF. So you are continuing the work involved in completing the inventory and file destruction program to prepare for 

the eventual move? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
226 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. And that space will be backfilled in Washington? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have moved people out to Winchester. 

Mr. WOLF. How much of that is still in the main building? 

Mr. MUELLER. There is some still down in a facility down south 

of Washington, D.C. I am not sure what percentage is left there, 

but headquarters, everyone is out in northern Virginia. 

LEGAT OFFICES

Mr. WOLF. Okay. How many legats do you have now in how 

many countries? 

Mr. MUELLER. Last I had was I believe it was 60 or 61. I had 

seen, you know, for many years it was 61. We may be at 60 now. 

And I don’t know why we went from 61 to 60. I would have to 

check on that. 

[The information follows:] 

NUMBER OF FBI LEGAL ATTACHE ́ (LEGAT) OFFICES AND NUMBER OF COUNTRIES

COVERED

The FBI currently operates 62 Legal Attache ́ (Legat) offices and 13 sub-offices in 

65 foreign countries. 

NORTH AFRICAN/MIDDLE EAST PROTESTS

Mr. WOLF. And you had somebody in Yemen. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And you had somebody in Egypt. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. How about Bahrain? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think Bahrain may be handled out of Egypt. I 

would have to check on that. 

[The information follows:] 

LEGAL ATTACHE ́ (LEGAT) OFFICE IN BAHRAIN

Although the FBI does not have a Legat office in Bahrain, the region is covered 

by Legat Doha, Qatar. 

Mr. WOLF. Jordan? 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Mr. WOLF. Jordan, did you have somebody in Jordan? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, we do. 

Mr. WOLF. Libya, did you have somebody in Libya? 

Mr. MUELLER. We do not. We have handled that out of Algeria. 

We recently put one in Algeria. 

Mr. WOLF. Because I don’t want to get in too much detail, because there are a lot of things you would rather not—you want to 

ask but you don’t want to. But I just wonder how closely are you 

following all the activity abroad in some of these countries to see 

who are the individuals that are involved in the activity there? 

Mr. MUELLER. Very closely. I can say we have concerns with 

Yemen and our counterparts in Yemen. What is happening in 

Yemen has resulted in a reduction in cooperation when it comes to 

the counterterrorism side. 

In Egypt we have to develop new relationships with the new entities that have been established. We want to be certain that what 

is happening in Libya, take stock of, to the extent that we have inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
227 

formation in the United States that may bear on what is happening in Libya, the opposition forces, who they are, what they are 

doing. We also have a number of Libyans here in the United States 

whether it be students or visitors, and we are seeking that information. 

We also want to make certain that we are on guard with the possibility of terrorist attacks emanating somewhere out of Libya, 

whether it be Qaddafi’s forces or in eastern Libya, the opposition 

forces, who may have amongst them persons who in the past have 

had associations with terrorist groups. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. I saw yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. It said, 

‘‘The FBI has begun questioning Libyans living in the U.S. as part 

of an effort to identify any Libyan-backed spies or terrorists and 

collect information that might help allied military operations. The 

move reflects concerns among U.S. officials in the wake of an allied 

bombing campaign that established a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent the massacre of anti-government rebels that Libyan leader 

Muammar Qaddafi might try to orchestrate revenge attacks 

against the U.S. citizens.’’ 

So do you pretty much have a handle on who the individuals are 

that are involved in the rebels in Libya? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain at this point anybody really does. 

This is an ongoing effort, by us and at the same time by State Department, and the agency, and others to identify the individuals 

who may be part of the opposition. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. So there are no FBI agents on the ground today 

in Libya? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not in Libya, no. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Dicks and then Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. DICKS. I just wanted to be here today to thank you for your 

great service to the country. And I have enjoyed over the years 

working with you in the intelligence capacity, and counterterrorism, and all the other things the FBI does. 

Let me ask you on the subject that the chairman was just raising. There was a news article, a news presentation last night, 

about what we were talking to a number of Libyans in the United 

States about—you know, I guess we are concerned about a possible 

terrorist attack of some sort. 

Can you tell us anything about that in open session? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well I can say that there are individuals who 

were previously affiliated with the Libyan government who happen 

to be in the United States. They may have been here representing 

Libya in various international institutions and the like. To the extent that they have renounced or denounced Qaddafi, are willing 

to be interviewed and to give us information as to what may be 

happening in Libya, we will proceed with those interviews. 

Also with regard to students or visitors from Libya here in the 

United States who may have information on what is happening in 

Libya, we have an outreach effort to them as well to obtain what 

information they might have that may alert us to any attempts at 

retaliation within the United States or elsewhere by pro-Qaddafi 

individuals. 

The other aspect of it is that countries such as Libya may have 

foreign establishments, or may well have intelligence officers who 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
228 

are part of those foreign establishments, or they may have intelligence officers that are operating with different types of cover in 

the United States. We want to make certain that we have identified these individuals to assure that no harm comes from them. 

Knowing that they may well have been associated with the Qaddafi 

regime. 

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. DICKS. Have we had problems where some of these people 

have gone through other countries and maybe gotten into the 

United States illegally, and we have been monitoring them? Is that 

an issue? Is that something you are concerned about? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I think Mr. Culberson earlier asked about 

special interest aliens coming across the southern border. And I 

would say also that we shouldn’t forget about the northern border. 

Mr. DICKS. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER. But, yes, that has been a concern. We work very 

closely with the Customs and Border Protection. Once these individuals are identified, we interview them and have some recommendations as to how they should be treated down the road. 

They may well come from a country like Somalia or elsewhere—— 

Mr. DICKS. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. And have a legitimate claim to asylum here, and not in any way be associated with terrorism. But we 

need to know if that is indeed the fact. 

So we do and will continue to work with Customs and Border 

Protection and Immigration Services to make certain that we try 

to identify those persons who may have had some association with 

terrorism if they are attempting to come through the southern border or even the northern border. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. Mr. Fattah. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY

Mr. FATTAH. I thank you, Director. With Chairman Young on the 

Defense Committee, I traveled to Brussels a while back. And we 

met with all of the EU law enforcement, your counterparts in the 

EU countries. And it is an amazing thing that they have worked 

out where they have a jurisdiction across these national boundaries, all across the 20-plus countries. 

Because you do work in Europe and Africa, in fact, everywhere, 

I assume, your relationships with our European allies in the EU 

are strong, including with Interpol, because I want to move to a 

subject that connects up to this in a minute. But I assume that the 

relationships are very good. 

Mr. MUELLER. Our relationship with Interpol is very good, and 

our relationship with EUROPOL is good. Some of the things that 

EUROPOL has done in terms of having a European-wide extradition process that is expedited and a European-wide arrest warrant are to be commended. 

One of the issues with a multilateral organization, however, is 

the lowest common denominator. When it comes to sharing intelligence, many services to a certain extent, including our own, are 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
229 

reluctant to put the intelligence into a database that could be 

accessed by you don’t know whom. 

So while we have very good relationships with EUROPOL, I 

would say we have better bilateral relationships, because you develop a level of trust in the bilateral relationship that is difficult 

to do when you are dealing with a multilateral corporation. 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING/VIOLENT CRIME/GANGS

Mr. FATTAH. Well I am going to come to my final subject in a 

minute, which is human trafficking and how it plays out. 

But I just want to run through a few other areas quickly. Given 

your decade, almost decade, of service and looking forward in a 

number of areas, I would be interested in what your view is about 

whether there are going to be continuing or declining problems. We 

see organized crime now, Eastern European, Russian, and the like 

playing out here in the United States. 

Do you see this as a continuing or declining problem going forward for the country? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it is going to be an increasing problem, 

whether it be Eastern European criminal groups or Asian organized crime. That I think will be expanding. 

Indeed, my own view is that while the statistics show that violent crime has been reduced over the last several years, I am not 

certain that we can continue that. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to what has contributed to that reduction in crime. It may 

well be—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I thought it was your tenure. 

Mr. MUELLER. I was going say it was Chuck Ramsey in Philadelphia. And I think it is to a certain extent policing. But also given 

the economic climate, given the caliber of the weaponry that is out 

there, I am not certain we can sustain that reduction level in the 

future. I would be concerned about that. 

But on the upswing, quite obviously as I mentioned, is 

cybercrime. It is going to be increasingly a growing problem. 

Mr. FATTAH. When I traveled to Africa, we were told when we 

went to certain parts of the continent, we shouldn’t have any ID, 

any credit cards, because of the significant counterfeiting problem 

emanating particularly in certain countries that I am sure you are 

aware of. 

Do you see this as a declining issue, their ability to copy and 

produce almost any document? 

Mr. MUELLER. To the contrary. Africa is getting wired. That is 

the only way to put it. The access to the internet where the cables 

are being installed will increase the capabilities of criminal groups 

operating there to expand across the globe. They will have the 

bandwidth that they did not have before to undertake criminal activities outside of the continent of Africa, affecting victims in countries around the world. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now the street gangs here that we talked about already, both domestically grown and those that have expanded 

internationally coming our way through South America and other 

places, do you see this problem growing or declining going forward? 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t know how much it will grow. It is as substantial as it is today. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
230 

Mr. FATTAH. There are perhaps over a million or so gang members. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well if you are talking MS–13, or if you are talking about any number of gangs out there, MS–13, the 18th Street 

Gang, the Nuestra Familia, the Mexican Mafia, the Latin Kings, 

Crips, Bloods, across the board. The gangs have not substantially 

diminished. I haven’t seen substantial growth. But it is just a continuous presence. 

Mr. FATTAH. With regard to hate groups and the supremacists, 

I know you have made a number of arrests in these areas. Domestic terrorism has been a major concern from Timothy McVeigh and 

forward. Is that a problem that persists significantly as part of the 

FBI’s focus? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. We have not forgotten that the largest loss 

of life prior to September 11th was Oklahoma City. Our concern is 

certainly the groups that I think you allude to. 

But also the lone wolf, the individual who is not necessarily affiliated with one of those groups or may at one time have been affiliated with one of the lesser groups and been rejected from the 

group. In part because they may be too violent. So they are off on 

their own and willing to undertake terrorist attacks that other 

members of the group may not want to undertake, because it draws 

the scrutiny of law enforcement to that particular group. 

So the lone wolf is a real problem. We talk about the Holocaust 

Museum, von Brunn, an individual who harbored tendencies. He 

walks in and shoots a guard in the Holocaust Museum, a lone wolf 

that we could not have identified before and stop such an attack 

even though he had been in our files at some point in the past. 

That is our biggest problem and the biggest threat we face. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now I talked to you, privately, about nuclear material. And I know that we have spent a lot of effort and resources 

on being able to detect nuclear material and to inspect cargo. 

If you play out one of the incidents in any of the kind of game 

playing that you go through, it is a major concern, whether it is 

New York City, or Philadelphia, or Washington, D.C. 

Does the Bureau have all of the resources that it needs? I know 

you have some requests that are particularly related to this area. 

But do you need additional resources as you see this playing out 

going forward? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I think this is probably a topic we ought to 

discuss off the record. But I will say we have the responsibility for 

render safe in the United States. And that we take that exceptionally seriously. 

The resources we have asked for in 2012 will enable us to be responsive should there be an incident. But we would also be happy 

to give you a briefing as to how we operate in such an incident. 

And not just us but how we operate with, to a certain extent, DOD 

but most particularly with the labs around the United States in 

terms of addressing a render-safe situation. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well I have visited the Los Alamos Lab and Sandia 

Lab. But this is a concern. And we will follow it up with the chairman and deal with this. 

My final set of questions has to do with human trafficking and 

sexual trafficking. There have been a lot of arrests, a lot of concern 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
231 

in this area. But it seems as though this is a problem that is continuing to be something that challenges the country where women, 

some domestically, I mean, American citizens and also women 

brought here from other places are essentially being put into a 

state of almost slavery. And this is a nationwide problem. It is taking place in places all over the country. 

I would be very interested in what you could tell us about the 

work of the FBI in this regard and what, if anything, we can do 

to apply more resources to this problem. 

Mr. MUELLER. We address the problem in two areas. One is civil 

rights. Under that program in which individuals who are brought 

to the United States in, I think I can appropriately say, conditions 

that are akin to slavery. You know, we have a number of cases in 

that arena over the last year. I can get you the statistics. 

And then we have what is called the Innocence Lost Initiative, 

which addresses child prostitution throughout the country, particularly along the highways. Over the years, I think it may have 

begun in 2007, we have made a number of arrests of individuals 

who are providing those services and holding children in some form 

of a mental or financial constraints. 

We have identified more than 1,000 children who have been involved in this kind of activity and been able to rescue them from 

that activity, which is probably the most satisfying aspect. 

You know, even more satisfying than putting the person away is 

freeing up a child who has been caught in, I would call it some 

form of bondage. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Director. And thank you again, for 

your service to the country. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. Mr. Serrano, Mr. Dicks, any other questions? 

I am pretty much finished. I just want to cover a couple last 

points. One to follow up with Mr. Fattah. I think more should be 

done on the situation of human trafficking, sexual trafficking. 

We have convinced U.S. Attorney MacBride to have a task force. 

He has one now. Every U.S. Attorney’s Office ought to have a task 

force. And if you could do anything about that. 

Secondly, a group named Polaris gave me a list of 72 sites in the 

northern Virginia area where women are trafficked. I raised it with 

a number of people. And it just seems like they just sort of just say, 

well, you know this is interesting. I will get it over to you today. 

If your people can maybe come by the office, we can give you the 

list, addresses, places. 

They ought to be closed down. Now some people say well they 

make the cases so difficult. And we close them down today and 

they go over there. Okay. Close them down today, rescue the young 

women that are in there, and do something about it. 

If someone said in that location slavery is going on. And there 

is someone from the neighborhood’s daughter in there, everyone 

would say let us go and deal with it. So I am going to give you the 

72 locations. And hopefully the northern Virginia office can just 

look at it and talk to the Fairfax County Police. 

They ought to be shut down if they open up the next day. Also 

they ought to be tracking down who owns the building. The fire department should be able to do a fire inspection. The health departVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
232 

ment ought to do. But if there are women or children in there, then 

they ought to be shut down. 

And so we will supply that to you by the end of the day. And you 

can just walk by. At least I can give it to you. And if you could 

have your people look at it. 

Mr. MUELLER. You mentioned 72 sites. And you also mentioned 

task forces. We do participate in human trafficking task forces 

around the country, in excess of 71. We are participating in the 

task force in addition to what we talked about in terms of the other 

initiatives we have. 

Mr. WOLF. Well that is good. Although, you know, I sense that 

people think the problem is in Albania when it is really in Annandale. And so I think in order to bring people back to it, I think 

every U.S. Attorney ought to have it. So I agree with what Mr. 

Fattah said. 

Also, just to plant in the back of your mind, there is a facility 

in northern Virginia. It is not in my congressional district, the Joe 

Gibbs home. It is Youth for Tomorrow. They have a number of beds 

available whereby when you go into these facilities, and you take, 

and you shut them down, there has to be a place. 

And so I would hope your people could find out about that. So 

as we tell the judges— so if they don’t know what to do. We can’t 

put a young woman in prison or in jail. So there has to be a place 

for rehabilitation. So I would hope that somebody could let the 

U.S.—— 

Mr. MUELLER. We will check on that. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Check on that. 

Thirdly, if al-Qaeda had to pick coming across the northern border, or the southern border, or coming in at Dulles Airport and 

going through an inspection, they are going to come through the 

northern border or the southern border. 

So I think this, what Mr. Dicks and Mr. Culberson said, is a real 

concern. I mean they could affiliate with MS-13 and take them 

across. 

Lastly or next to last, do we have a legal attache ́ in China? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, good. Lastly, I think if the administration and 

the FBI ought to be very careful with some of these people who are 

now going on television, Libyans, and expressing great solidarity 

with the rebels. It is like Paul having a conversion on the road to 

Damascus. 

These are people that were representing a fundamentally evil 

government. I will now say these ambassadors are flipping, because they don’t want to go to jail, or they don’t want to be deported. But people who are now, who may very well have been involved in the Lockerbie bombing, may well have been involved in 

the Berlin disco bombing discoteca, are now having this new feeling. 

And I see the one ambassador, I won’t mention his name, he is 

on television almost constantly. And nobody ever says to him, the 

media never says, well, Mr. Ambassador, how did you for 33 years 

continue to work for Qaddafi during this period of time? Did you 

ever have a conscience? And what was the moment that you had 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
233 

your Paul-to-Damascus conversion? Was it when you saw what he 

did? I mean and frankly they are all fleeing for that reason. 

So I really don’t want to see this administration give political 

asylum to these people who automatically are just trying to—who 

have been involved in some pretty fundamentally evil activities up 

to this point. 

Mr. MUELLER. I can assure you that the people who deal with 

this day in and day out understand that. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I want to, again, thank you for your testimony. 

I think you have done an incredible job. And please thank the men 

and women of the Bureau. Also your people who work the Hill have 

done a very good job, so please thank them too. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, hearing adjourned. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
234 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 441 67259A.100
235 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 442 67259A.101
236 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 443 67259A.102
237 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 444 67259A.103
238 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 445 67259A.104
239 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 446 67259A.105
240 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 447 67259A.106
241 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 448 67259A.107
242 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 449 67259A.108
243 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 450 67259A.109
244 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 451 67259A.110
245 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 452 67259A.111
246 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 453 67259A.112
247 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 454 67259A.113
248 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 455 67259A.114
249 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 456 67259A.115
250 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 457 67259A.116
251 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 458 67259A.117
252 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 459 67259A.118
253 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 460 67259A.119
254 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 461 67259A.120
255 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 462 67259A.121
256 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 463/650 67259A.122
(257) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011. 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS 

MICHELE LEONHART, ADMINISTRATOR 

Mr. WOLF. The hearing will come to order. 

Today we welcome Michele Leonhart, administrator for the Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

We thank you for your appearance today. You are testifying for 

the 2012 budget request for the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

For fiscal year 2012, the DEA is requesting a total of $2.36 billion, an increase of $92.6 million or 3.6 percent above the fiscal 

year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 CR levels. 

Most of that increase is in the diversion control area, and that 

part of your budget is financed by fee collections. So the increase 

in your direct appropriations is actually much smaller, an increase 

of only $22 million or 1.1 percent. 

Your budget request includes some notable cuts including a proposal to eliminate your mobile enforcement teams, a recision of $30 

million from balances in your salaries and expenses account, and 

a general efficiency reduction of about $8 million. The committee 

will be interested to hear about the impacts of these proposed reductions. 

On the diversion side, you are seeking a $31 million increase for 

regulatory control and enforcement activities, all supported by fee 

collections. I understand the fee collections are falling far short of 

estimates this year, so I have some questions about how likely it 

is that these increases will materialize. 

Finally, we will have some questions about your ongoing operations in Afghanistan for counter-narcotics activities or overall part 

of the counter-terrorism effort. Your presence there was initiated 

there with emergency supplemental appropriations that relied 

since then on transfers from the State Department. 

Before you begin your testimony, I want to commend you and 

your employees for the important and often dangerous work that 

you do every day both here and overseas to protect American communities from the scourge of drug trafficking. So please pass along 

to your people our appreciation for their hard work. 

Before we recognize you to present your testimony, I would like 

to recognize my colleague, ranking member, Mr. Fattah, for any 

comments he would like to make. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the chairman. 

And let me thank you. I look forward to your testimony and the 

opportunity to ask a few questions. And like the chairman, I am 

interested in a number of the activities of the agency relative both 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
258 

to your overseas work for instance in Afghanistan and West Africa, 

but also to talk a little bit about issues closer to home, both the 

situation with the southwest border and other issues. But we will 

get into that after your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, you may proceed. Your full statement will appear in the record. Go ahead. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member 

Fattah and Members of the subcommittee. It is my honor to appear 

before you to discuss DEA’s fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request. 

First, I want to thank you for your continued support of our critical law enforcement mission. Your partnership is particularly appreciated in this difficult budget environment, when we are being 

asked to work harder and smarter and more efficiently, even as the 

challenges of drug law enforcement continue to grow. 

I would also like to highlight a few of DEA’s recent achievements 

and our priorities for fiscal year 2012, and these include our efforts 

along the southwest border in cooperation with Mexico, our bilateral operations in Afghanistan and the nexus between drugs and 

terrorism, and prescription drug abuse. 

First about Mexico and the southwest border: the violence in 

Mexico is of great concern to all who care about freedom and stability in our hemisphere, and it presents fundamental challenges to 

Mexican governance, our border security, and the fight against 

dangerous drugs in the United States. 

However, our partnership with the government of Mexico is now 

more effective than ever before, and together we have inflicted tremendous damage on all of the Mexican drug cartels. And these efforts are directly supported by the DEA-led El Paso Intelligence 

Center, also known as EPIC. 

EPIC is a multi-agency tactical and strategic intelligence center 

consisting of almost 30 law enforcement organizations and now includes representatives from Mexico and Colombia. And our fiscal 

year 2012 budget request includes $10 million to expand that interagency participation at EPIC. 

About Afghanistan and narco-terrorism: unfortunately, drug trafficking from Mexico is not the only challenge that DEA faces. Drug 

trafficking and the associated crimes of narco-terrorism and money 

laundering occur around the globe, and this is of particular concern 

because drug trafficking fuels terrorism. Nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan where narco-terrorists provide direct assistance to those fighting American soldiers. With 82 positions assigned to Afghanistan, DEA has a strong presence there and plays 

an integral part in the U.S. Government’s overall strategy in the 

region. By working closely with our Afghan law enforcement counterparts, we are bringing to justice the most significant drug traffickers in Afghanistan and helping to build institutions capable of 

enforcing the rule of law. 

Our efforts to target narco-terrorists have yielded results in Afghanistan and beyond, and recently DEA and the Department of 

Treasury announced the designation of the New Ansari Money Exchange under the Kingpin Act. This network is a major money 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
259 

launderer for Afghan drug trafficking organizations. A week earlier, we identified the Lebanese Canadian Bank as a financial institution, a primary money laundering concern, and we also exposed 

links between this bank, international drug trafficking networks, 

and the terrorist organization Hezbollah. 

Of no less concern, though, is the fastest-growing drug use problem in the United States. It is not meth or marijuana or cocaine. 

It is the abuse of controlled prescription drugs. DEA has been 

aware of this trend for years, and we have been responding accordingly. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s Budget requests 291 Special 

Agents for the Diversion Program. That is an increase of 273 

agents from what we had working on this problem in fiscal year 

2005. Some of this increase has come through enhancements approved by this subcommittee, and some have come through redirection of our existing agent workforce that we have implemented internally. The increase requested for fiscal year 2012 will enable us 

to expand our tactical diversion squad which combines Special 

Agents, Diversion Investigators, and task force officers to focus on 

enforcement activities. By approving this request, you will help us 

intensify the work DEA has already begun: aggressively closing pill 

mills, cracking down on the domestic production of meth and targeting illegal internet pharmacies. 

Enforcement efforts are an essential component of preventing the 

diversion of controlled prescription drugs and chemicals, but it is 

not the only thing that we can do. Careful consideration must be 

given to whether federal and state laws should be updated to require prescriptions for products that contain pseudoephedrine and 

ephedrine in order to reduce domestic meth production. 

DEA is also combating abuse and diversion by sponsoring National Take-Back days. Last year, the first Take-Back resulted in 

the collection of more than 121 tons of unused, unwanted, and expired prescription drugs. We will conduct the second Take-Back nationally on April 30th. 

Combined with the forthcoming implementation of the Secure 

and Responsible Drug Disposal Act, Americans will be able to dispose of prescription drugs in a safe and secure manner every day 

of the year. 

So in concluding, the threat from dangerous drugs is a continuous fight we must undertake for the health, safety, and welfare 

of our Nation. Traffickers are in the business to make money, and 

they do not care who gets hurt along the way. DEA has unwavering commitment to putting these traffickers out of business and 

fulfilling our mission to enforce our Nation’s drug laws. Our efforts 

are paying off, but we must and will do more. And as we do so, 

I know we will have many more successes to report to you in the 

year ahead. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
260 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 659 here 67259B.001
261 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 660 here 67259B.002
262 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 661 here 67259B.003
263 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 662 here 67259B.004
264 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 663 here 67259B.005
265 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 664 here 67259B.006
266 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 665 here 67259B.007
267 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

Before I begin with some of the questions we have, I want to ask 

you a couple of general ones that were not in the list. 

AGENTS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY

How many DEA agents have been killed in the last ten years 

and can you talk a little bit about where, and the danger that they 

face? 

Ms. LEONHART. Sure. It is not only DEA agents that have been 

killed in the line of duty, but it is also task force officers. I will 

start with three agents a year ago last October, three hard-working, very talented agents that died in Afghanistan on our Afghanistan mission. 

They were doing the duties. One was assigned to the Kabul country office and two were members of our FAS team who died after 

executing a search warrant in one of the western provinces in Afghanistan. 

Just shortly before that, a year before that, there was an FBI 

agent who was killed in Pennsylvania while working on a drug organization and serving search warrants. 

Prior to that, we had an agent who was attending a conference 

in New Orleans who was murdered by a crack addict. 

We went several years without losing anyone. We lost a pilot in 

2005. So over the past ten years, we have lost agents. We have lost 

fellow federal agents from other agencies; and we have lost task 

force officers. And I am very concerned about the tempo, the assaults we have seen on not only federal agents, but especially state 

and local agents, this uptick over the last year after a 40- or 50- 

year low in deaths to law enforcement. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Can you submit for the record, get it to the 

staff maybe within the next two weeks, a report on how many DEA 

agents and other FBI and others in task forces have been killed, 

say, since the year 2000? And we can discuss why, but I would like 

to just submit them for the record too. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
268 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 668 here 67259B.008
269 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 669 here 67259B.009
270 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 670 here 67259B.010
271 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 671 here 67259B.011
272 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 672 here 67259B.012
273 

VIKTOR BOUT

Mr. WOLF. Secondly, I want to thank DEA for the Viktor Bout 

arrest and apprehension. And I’m going to submit for the record a 

Newsweek story ‘‘Getting to Bout.’’ 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
274 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1 here 67259C1.001
275 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 2 here 67259C1.002
276 

Mr. WOLF. I was in Africa once. We were in the Congo and they 

said all those planes are Viktor Bout’s planes and they are bringing 

in guns and weapons. And why were the Russians so anxious to 

keep Bout, known as the ‘‘Merchant of Death,’’ out of America. 

And so I just want to thank you and thank the DEA people for 

the outstanding job of staying with it because I think it would have 

been easy to give up on Bout and also I think in fairness to give 

credit to the Administration, I think Secretary Clinton and others 

who stayed with that and did not allow it to drop. 

Where is Viktor Bout these days and can you give us the status 

of his case? 

Ms. LEONHART. Sure. I can probably say that—— 

Mr. WOLF. And tell us just in a couple sentences—— 

Ms. LEONHART. I can probably say it—— 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Some of the things that he did, so we understand how important this was. 

Ms. LEONHART. I can probably say that he is facing trial in New 

York. We got him extradited from Thailand in November. And he 

faces charges of attempting to sell weapons and missiles to people 

who he thought represented the FARC in Colombia and was even 

offering to give air access to help them to use these weapons to 

shoot down U.S. and Colombian aircraft. 

Mr. WOLF. And was involved in Africa. I mean, many people died 

in Africa because of his—— 

Ms. LEONHART. Sure. His history is he armed many conflicts, especially conflicts in Africa. The charges that we were able to take 

him down on related to his willingness and his conspiracy to fund 

the FARC. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I want to again thank you because had he not 

been—and also the Thailand government, too, for cooperating in 

the way they did. I know it would have been easy to walk away 

from it. But this Administration stayed with it to their credit and 

the DEA did. And I think it is very, very important. 

When is the trial scheduled? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe October of next year. 

MEXICAN CARTELS

Mr. WOLF. Okay. October next year. Well, thank you. 

I want to ask about the drug threats from Mexico. I understand 

the Mexican cartels now control drug distribution in most cities 

and where they do not control them, they are gaining strength. The 

struggle against the cartels have gone on for years and the violence 

seems to be continuing unabated. 

Can you give us an update on the status of the joint efforts with 

the Mexican Government and describe the overarching strategy 

that DEA is using to disrupt and hopefully dismantle the cartels? 

And I am very sympathetic to the Mexican Government and to the 

Mexican people to see what we can do to be helpful. But if you 

could kind of do that, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, Chairman, for asking about that. 

That is our number one priority at DEA. 

We have had significant successes in the past several years specifically since the Caldero ́n administration started in December of 

2006. We have had an unprecedented partnership with them and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
277 

we are helping them on this struggle because it not only affects 

Mexico, it affects the United States. More than 90 percent of the 

drugs entering this country come through Mexico, and that is of 

concern. 

And we have seen over the past several years where the seven 

Mexican cartels, with their domestic affiliates and cells working for 

them, have taken over drug markets all across the country and not 

just cocaine, but some heroin markets and methamphetamine. And 

then there is, of course, the collection of those funds, bulk cash 

going back down to Mexico, as well as weapons. 

So we have a strategy to work with our Mexican counterparts. 

We have the largest law enforcement presence in Mexico, and we 

are working around the clock with them to target those most responsible, not only for the cartels, but also most responsible for the 

violence. 

I will say that the successes include the recognition that those 

cartels we are breaking up. You know, like huge boulders, we are 

trying to break them into small pebbles, and that really is why you 

are seeing the violence that you are seeing. They are in disarray. 

They are acting out like caged animals. They are losing their 

routes. They are losing their money. 

We are seizing cash that they use to continue their operations, 

and we are having a great effect on attacking not only domestically 

those organizations that are trafficking all across the country, but 

tying the information and the intelligence we are getting from our 

domestic cases, bringing that down to Mexico, sharing it with our 

Mexican counterparts, and actually being able to act on that information. 

So for the kingpins, the highest level traffickers: last year, we arrested three CPOTs (Consolidated Priority Organization Target) 

with the Mexicans. The Mexicans, this year, acting on our intelligence, have already arrested three CPOTs and have taken off significant high-level leadership of every cartel in Mexico. 

Mr. WOLF. Now, were you saying all the cartels in Mexico have 

some relationship or are active here in the United States? 

Ms. LEONHART. Every cartel in Mexico has people, has affiliates, 

has members working in the United States, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. With regard to helping the Mexican Government, 

would you comment if you were to take Plan Colombia, the concepts behind Plan Colombia, because having seen Colombia where 

it was, if you recall, they even came into the Supreme Court and 

killed Supreme Court justices, to where it is to today, they have 

made tremendous gains, and we could hope for our friends south 

of the border the same success whereby the people of Mexico could 

live in peace and freedom similar to what is taking place in Colombia today versus how it was? 

Are there models or are you taking all of what was successful in 

Plan Colombia and applying it with regard to Mexico, of course 

with cooperation with the Mexican Government? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have been working with our partners in Mexico since the Caldero ́n administration came in, to identify for them, 

especially with DEA’s enforcement mission, what worked for us in 

Colombia, what was successful, and offer those same things to the 

Mexicans. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
278 

We have done the same with bringing a partnership between the 

Mexicans, the Colombians, and our country. We signed an agreement in 2007 called the Tripartite Agreement where we agreed, our 

three nations would learn from each other and share with each 

other. 

And many pieces of Plan Colombia, the things that worked, I 

have been there because we have sponsored now eight tripartite 

meetings with our three countries. And we have seen the Colombians, with the current president, the former defense minister, 

Santos, and the Colombian national police, General Naranjo, actually walk through what they did during Plan Colombia, what they 

did to really turn around the drug trafficking and all the violence 

in Colombia. 

The Mexicans have taken some of that and have put that into 

practice. So we are constantly learning about things that have 

worked in Colombia and sharing those with the Mexicans, and 

have actually learned in Colombia how we stood up sensitive investigative units. We have done the very same thing with the Mexicans in Mexico, and that is why we are having these enforcement 

successes really over the last couple of years. 

Mr. WOLF. Now, how would you compare the seriousness in Mexico today with the seriousness it was in Colombia at its height, 

Mexico and violence at its height? Is there some hope for the Mexican people so they can see. Can you make a comparison? 

Ms. LEONHART. There is great hope for the Mexican people by 

looking at the Colombia experience. I would like to say that right 

now, even with all the violence in Mexico, President Caldero ́n has 

about a 50 percent approval rating. And it is interesting that currently 73 percent of Mexicans think that the government of Mexico 

should continue directly confronting the drug trafficking organizations and weakening their organized crime. 

I have taken people down to Colombia who only know Colombia 

from the 1990s, and it is such a stark contrast. It is a different 

place now, and it is our hope and why we have prioritized our relationship and our enforcement operations with Mexico. It’s our hope 

that we will be able to turn and see that after this relentless attack 

on the cartels, that we will then be able to bring that cartel problem to a regular law enforcement problem that can be dealt with 

by law enforcement officials and not need the military and not need 

some of the resources that President Caldero ́n has had to call to 

attack the problem. So we are very optimistic. 

Our friend, the former attorney general, Medina Mora, who we 

keep in touch with, always used to warn us and used to say it still 

may get worse before it gets better. And I do not know at what 

point we say that, you know, it has turned, but I can tell you that 

those cartels are on the run. Leaders that used to be in charge and 

be able to corrupt high-level officials and corrupt police forces and 

corrupt entities to be able to move their drugs are in jail, are dead, 

or in the United States in jail. The average tenure of a plaza boss 

in Mexico, which used to be multiple years, is now about six 

months, and that is because the courageous Mexican Government 

has taken on those cartels like they have never been taken on before. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
279 

Mr. WOLF. In your testimony, you describe Project Deliverance, 

429 individuals who were arrested in 16 states in a single day. 

Can you describe how these Mexican cartels establish and operate such networks and to what extent are domestic gangs linked 

to the cartels, just not the cartels who are active, but to what extent is it actually connected? 

Ms. LEONHART. Deliverance was an operation that we worked 

with over 300 state and local police departments and all of our federal partners. It really allowed us to identify the facilitators, the 

people transporting, the truckers, the people moving money, the 

people that help those cartels. So it was the first time it did not 

concentrate on one specific cartel, but the operation targeted across 

the country those facilitators, those that help the cartel. Part of 

that operation was looking at what gangs in the United States are 

also helping. We concentrated a number of our operations down in 

the El Paso area. 

And we saw that, for instance, the Barrio Azteca prison gang operating on both sides of the border helped facilitate in many ways. 

In some ways, they were low-level drug traffickers themselves, but 

the cartels paid them in product and paid them to do the dirty 

business of the cartels to keep people in order, assassinate. So that 

really helped us see this connection between gangs operating on 

this side of the border and the other side of the border and their 

connection and what they do in the business, in the cartel business. 

Mr. WOLF. But when we say there is a connection, is there a connection just with gangs along the border? Is it a connection that 

takes all the way in throughout the United States? 

Ms. LEONHART. The best way for me to explain it—— 

Mr. WOLF. The 50 states, how extensive would the connection be 

in all 50 states? 

Ms. LEONHART. I will tell you that most street gangs make the 

majority of their money by selling drugs. The drugs that they are 

selling are controlled and came into this country by the cartels. So 

there can be loose connections, but the cartels and the domestic 

cells that work for the cartels are supplying all of those street 

gangs. It does not matter if you are in Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington, New York, Philadelphia; those cartels are the suppliers for 

those gangs. 

EL PASO INTELLIGENCE CENTER

Mr. WOLF. One of the primary interagency law enforcement assets is the El Paso Intelligence Center. Your fiscal year 2011 request included $42 million for permanent expansion and renovation 

to the EPIC facility to accommodate increased participation by a 

number of agencies. 

We still have no bill for fiscal year 2011, but your fiscal year 

2012 request includes instead $10 million for modular buildings. 

How many agencies participate in EPIC and how many intend to 

increase their EPIC staff levels over the next few years? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you for that question. 

There are almost 30 agencies there. 

Mr. WOLF. Can you give us some examples? 

Ms. LEONHART. Sure. ATF, FBI, ICE, CBP. We have some state 

and local organizations like Texas Department of Law EnforceVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
280 

ment, DPS. We have people from the Intel Community there. We 

also have representatives for the first time from Colombia and 

Mexico working in EPIC. 

There are nine agencies that would like to expand their presence 

at EPIC over the next six months to five years, so we are out of 

space at EPIC. We see great utility in expanding the operations of 

EPIC and that is why the request for the $10 million. 

Mr. WOLF. Would the $10 million be enough to do what you have 

to do down there? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, Chairman, these are very, very rough budget times, and we have all been asked to tighten our belts and to 

see where we can have savings, how we can do things differently. 

And the way I can explain this is instead of building an addition 

on a house to house people, we found other ways. We will bring in 

semi-permanent trailers. We are looking at going to 24-hour shifts 

to help with the space so that we can continue to bring those folks 

in. 

So we originally needed $42 million to do a full expansion. But 

in trying to do our part in helping with the deficit and the budget. 

The minimum, if we got the $10 million, we could at least expand. 

We originally were looking for 176 more people. With that $10 million, we will be able to bring in at least 100 more people from these 

agencies. 

Mr. WOLF. And how fast? Pretty fast, the modular trailers? 

Ms. LEONHART. Some are actually committed and there now we 

are sitting on top of each other. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. But they are committed. We have good commitments. We have a couple of very time-sensitive operations or programs that we have planned that will especially help with our U.S. 

Mexico border situation, and we did not wait to at least start the 

planning of that. So the minute we get the money, expansion will 

start and the people will be coming in. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Let me first of all thank you for all of the help of the agency in 

responding to a lot of the challenges in my home city of Philadelphia. 

MEXICAN CARTELS

But I want to start more generally. Can you give us either now 

or for the record what your agency’s view is about the amount of 

revenue that is being generated by these organizations, for instance 

in Mexico from illegal drug sales? 

Ms. LEONHART. The United Nations does a study and they look 

at what illicit markets generate the most funding. And I did not 

bring, I should have brought the figures, but drug trafficking is so 

high above the next illegal market. We find around the world, if 

you look at what is happening in Africa for instance, these organizations, especially those that fuel terror, turn to drug trafficking 

because it is the most lucrative. 

The Mexican cartels are acting out because they are losing their 

routes and they are losing their supply, and that is cutting into 

their bottom line. They are losing money. So cartels and these 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
281 

transnational organizations operate; it is all about greed, they operate for money. When you have enforcement operations that attack or interrupt that, then we do significant damage to those cartels. 

[The information follows:] 

UNODC 2010 ANNUAL REPORT

The UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) 2010 Annul Report and 

World Drug Report estimate for the global drug market is over $300 B. 

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. FATTAH. Are most of the drugs that are coming out of Afghanistan going into Europe? 

Ms. LEONHART. That—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Is that our sense of the trading route? What market 

is it going to? 

Ms. LEONHART. Most of it is going to Europe. A lot is going to 

Russia. A lot is going to China. A lot is actually staying in the region. Fortunately, and we think that this has to do with our enforcement operations in this country, less than 5 percent of the heroin on the streets of the United States actually comes from Afghanistan. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now what could you tell the committee about your 

work and the agency’s work, obviously in cooperation with others, 

in the efforts in Afghanistan? You have this effort to get farmers 

to change crops. You have a number of different efforts going on. 

But what can you tell us generally about the work that is going on 

there? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well I can tell you that our primary mission 

there is to help the Afghans stand up a narcotics force that will be 

capable. We call it the DEA of Afghanistan for the future. It is 

helping them stand up, collect intelligence, perform operations, 

identify the money flows, identify the biggest and the baddest, 

those drug kingpins in Afghanistan, and do cases on them. We 

have brought several drug kingpins to the United States to face 

trial. We work with the international community that is there 

within Afghanistan. We work with the military in Afghanistan. 

What we are most proud of is the three entities in Afghanistan 

that we stood up. That is the National Interdiction Unit of the Afghan National Police Counternarcotics. We stood them up and 

think of them like the SWAT team for Afghanistan. Then we stood 

up a special Sensitive Investigative Unit called the SIU, and more 

recently stood up a third entity called the TIU, the Technical Investigative Unit. We have a very robust wiretap program that we have 

set up with the Afghans in Afghanistan, and this is the group that 

does those wiretaps and has over a hundred translators collect all 

this intelligence and then we share it with the interagency. 

Mr. FATTAH. In terms of your entire budget and your staff, what 

percentage of your resources or how many dollars are flowing 

through to this Afghan mission? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well in 2012—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
282 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. DEA requested $88.6 million in 

transfer funding from the Department of State for our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan. 

[The information follows:] 

S&E IN AFGHANISTAN

In addition, DEA dedicates a little over $19 million of own Salaries & Expenses 

funding for our operations in Afghanistan. This supports our original 13 positions 

plus the FAST teams which perform 120 day rotations. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now given where the resulting trade is, the EU, 

Russia, China, do we have buy-in from these other countries who 

are the recipients of these illegal narcotics from Afghanistan? It 

would seem to me they have some interest in this matter and I am 

trying to understand to what degree you have a working relationship, or to what degree they are invested in the United States’ effort. I mean, we have our own reasons. We do not want the dollars 

to flow to potential terrorist entities in Afghanistan so we want to 

cut off their supply of money. But I am trying to see whether we 

have any partners in this effort. 

Ms. LEONHART. We do. We have a number of partners. We are 

working with the RCMP of Canada. We are working with the Brits. 

We are working with the Germans. We are working with the 

French. More recently we are working very robustly with the Russians, where a lot of these drugs are going. So we have built partnerships there over the years, and we are doing joint enforcement 

operations, we are sharing intelligence. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
283 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 693 67259B.013
284 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 694 67259B.014
285 

Mr. FATTAH. Are they sharing the resource side of this? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, they are. One example would be the Afghan 

Threat Finance Cell. It’s a cell; it is a civilian and military operation. DEA was asked to run it, and we have Australians, Canadians, Russians who want into it. We have buy-in from the international community, because this is the entity that is looking at 

those drug flows and looking at the corruption, and not only drug 

trafficking, but all crimes. There is interest by the international 

community and they have come to us to ask to be included in this 

center. So it is one of our success stories in Afghanistan. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. We would like to learn more about the arrangements between the partners there. That would be helpful. 

CARIBBEAN DRUG TRAFFICKING

But let me get a little closer to home. I know that the chairman 

talked to you about Mexico. Let me talk to you about some of our 

friends in the Caribbean. And there has been a concern as to 

whether some of these law enforcement organizations and governments are starting to be influenced by the large activity of using 

some of these countries as transshipment points for drugs. What if 

anything could you tell us about the agency’s work in the Caribbean? 

Ms. LEONHART. We are putting pressure on the Mexican cartels, 

and we are working more and more in Central America, in Colombia: for us our southwest border starts in Colombia. That is our 

concept of the southwest border. As we put more pressure on them, 

we are very concerned about that shift that we may see back up 

through the Caribbean, like we saw in the eighties and early nineties. But that being said, we have been able to stand up some 

units, and we have been able to develop some tremendous partners. 

I will say our partners from the Dominican Republic, for instance, 

are very, very concerned about drug loads going into their country 

from Venezuela. Very concerned about corruption. Very concerned 

about the money that has been showing up. So collectively we have 

worked on joint operations with them. 

We work very well in the Caribbean, in Jamaica, joint operations 

and in fact, we just brought out one of their major traffickers here 

a year ago. So the Caribbean, and they have worked very well together. They are very, very concerned when they see that Mexican 

traffickers have made their way to South America, have made their 

way to Europe, have made their way to Africa. They are very concerned about Mexican traffickers also showing up in their countries 

and starting to have a piece of the drug trafficking there. So we 

work with them on a daily basis. We have an office in San Juan, 

Puerto Rico that coordinates our offices within the Caribbean. And 

there are many success stories—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Good. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. That we have out of there. 

MEXICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING

Mr. FATTAH. Now when you get to the States, did you say 90 percent of the drugs were coming via these Mexican cartels? 

Ms. LEONHART. Ninety percent of the drugs that end up in the 

United States—— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
286 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. Traffic through Mexico. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. And then secondly we have this other problem which is the prescription drug issue, right? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. FATTAH. And a lot of our colleagues are also very concerned 

about meth and the robust nature of that problem, particularly in 

rural sections but also in urban areas like Philadelphia. So now we 

have the, the chairman asked you about street gangs, we have 

other organized groups moving these drugs. Can you tell us a little 

bit about who else is in this enterprise? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well like I said, the Mexican cartels have taken 

over the drug market all across the United States, Pennsylvania 

included. But they get the drugs to these areas. They get the profits from that. Street distribution differs from community to community. What we find in your area is often street gangs or community 

organizations, organizations that have been operating in your area 

for quite some time, still have control of distribution on the streets 

there, but they have cut out all those middle men that we used to 

have. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. LEONHART. Like when I was buying drugs as an undercover 

agent, you would have to go through four or five people until you 

got to the source. Those have been cut out by the Mexicans. The 

Mexican traffickers have gone right to your community and are 

dealing directly with the major distributors in your city. So that 

has changed drug trafficking all across the country. And the other 

thing that has changed is, it is not just coke, it is not just meth; 

it is heroin. It is any drug that a community wants now. These are 

polydrug organizations that will sell whatever the community, the 

city, whatever the appetite is for, because it is all about making 

money. 

INTERNET PHARMACIES

Mr. FATTAH. Well I want to thank you for your thirty-year career 

as a DEA agent. And I will have some more questions, but just as 

the last one in this round, you also have this new problem which 

I am not sure is in your lap. But we just had a major expose ́ on 

60 Minutes about drugs via the internet that are less than authentic, but are being sold. Can you comment on that? 

Ms. LEONHART. Sure. And it is interesting because some of our 

best internet cases actually came out of your area. I am thinking 

about Operation Cyberchase about four years ago, which was an 

experiment for us on how to go after these internet sites that were 

selling scheduled drugs. We have had great success. There have 

been some great laws that have been passed that have helped that, 

and what we see now is that the internet is being used more for 

non-controlled substances. I know I have seen a couple of the reports lately that are of concern. I know that our partners at HHS 

are concerned; CBP at their mail facilities are concerned. It is 

something that we do not get involved with everyday, but when 

there are controlled substances involved that is in our bailiwick. 

And the internet, there is a great success story to be told here 

about when we identified the internet as a problem, how a new law 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
287 

can change the trafficking, and how our strategy had to change. I 

think they will use that same strategy on the non-controlled substances that are being sold over the internet. The other thing is 

most of these internet sites are not in the U.S. They are actually 

foreign internet sites which then make it even harder for us to target. So I think—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes, I want to yield back because I know we have 

a couple of other members. But I will get another chance. When we 

do come back I want to talk to you a little bit about juveniles and 

their involvement. So we will get to that. But thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. Mr. Austria. 

ARMING AGENTS IN MEXICO

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, thank 

you for being here today and your service to our country. I appreciate it. Let me, I think some of the questions I was going to ask 

have been hit on. But I want to follow up especially on the Mexican 

border and what is happening with the cartel, with the gangs 

there. Like many members of Congress I am very concerned about 

the safety of our farmers and American citizens who live along that 

border. And as you describe the amount of activity that is coming 

across to this country when 90 percent of the drugs come through 

Mexico, and that there are a large number of people who work with 

these cartels in the U.S. It concerns me. 

And I want to follow up on that a little bit. But also our DEA 

agents that are working down there, and our ICE agents. And as 

you know, I think it was February of this year, two ICE special 

agents were driving in Mexico unarmed in a government vehicle 

when they were savagely ambushed by Mexican cartel members 

who fired eighty-three rounds at them. Special Agent Jaime Zapata 

was murdered and another agent was seriously injured. These 

agents had no way to defend themselves as they were not permitted to carry weapons. While the Mexican government has issued 

gun permits to some permanently assigned U.S. agents, those temporarily assigned receive no protection. And in my opinion just because a U.S. agent like the one that was killed are only in Mexico 

for a short time, maybe six months with detailed work, that does 

not mean that they are at any less risk sometimes than those that 

are there permanently. 

After the death of this agent, this ICE agent, and I know DEA 

also works down in that area, and with evidence that American 

agents have become targets for Mexican cartels, why are we still 

sending agents across the border into Mexico unarmed? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, sir, for the question. I will say that 

DEA has been in Mexico for over forty years working in various offices, and we have expanded our presence there and are the largest 

law enforcement presence there. So this is of, you know, absolute 

great concern. Every day we talk about the safety of our people, 

and I will speak generally and say that there are protections in 

place or we would not have our people there. But to go into protections and to go into what we do to keep our people safe will put 

our people in danger, so I am very cautious about going forward 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
288 

with that. But I will tell you that it is of concern to me. I have had 

discussions many, many times with the Attorney General and the 

Deputy Attorney General and the former Deputy Attorney General. 

Our agencies from the United States that serve in Mexico we have 

actually collaborated in safety things that we can do to keep our 

agents safe. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. How many agents do we have assigned in Mexico, 

DEA agents? 

Ms. LEONHART. We do not give the numbers. Again, for safety 

issues. But I will tell you that it is a very large presence. It is the 

largest law enforcement presence, and we have offices scattered 

around Mexico. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Are you able to share with the committee how they 

are able to defend themselves if they are not able to be armed 

and—— 

Ms. LEONHART. What I would offer—— 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Well you mentioned protections that are in place 

and, you know, I do not know in this committee setting what you 

are able to share. But it certainly would put—— 

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield just for a second? I think 

you raise a really legitimate question, and I sense that what maybe 

we can ask you to do, if you could work out a time to come by to 

see Mr. Austria—— 

Ms. LEONHART. I was just going to offer that. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. And myself, and I will come so we can 

really get to—— 

Mr. AUSTRIA. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LEONHART. I will do that very quickly. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

DRONE USAGE

Mr. AUSTRIA. Let me jump to one other area along the Mexican 

border, the use of drones that are being used now. There was a recent article in the New York Times that highlighted the DEA’s use 

of drones to gather intelligence. It helps to locate major traffickers, 

drug traffickers, and to follow their networks. Are you able to give 

us, or can you give this committee an overview of the challenges, 

successes, future opportunities of the DEA’s use of drones? And is 

the DEA using drones domestically? And I think more specifically, 

are we using them along the Mexican border? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well I can tell you that the DEA does not have 

drones or Predators, so there is no use by DEA. But I can tell you 

that intel sharing and the collection of information that can be 

timely shared with our Mexican partners is of utmost priority to 

us. We have a number of ways, a number of methods to collect information, and we are always looking for new methods. But DEA 

does not have drones and predators. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG TRAFFICKING

Mr. AUSTRIA. Mr. Chairman, one last just comment, I think, and 

you are welcome to comment. Mr. Fattah hit on prescription drugs 

and the problems we are having across this country and with meth 

labs. And I hear that a lot in my home state of Ohio, that our local 

law enforcement are just, a large portion of their budget, you know, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
289 

from the Sheriff’s Department, from the prosecutors, is being used 

to try to battle these meth labs, to try to battle the prescription 

drug problem we are having. I know Chairman Rogers has raised 

that question multiple times with Attorney General Holder. It is a 

very important issue that we are faced with at the local level and 

across this country and it seems like it is a growing problem. And 

I know the DEA did a very good job, I think, in arresting twentytwo people and seizing over $2.5 million in assets during a recent 

raid in Florida in which you were effective in that area. And I 

think that is a first good step. But it is also just a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the outbreak of prescription drug 

abuse and the meth labs that are appearing across this country. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, sir, for bringing that up because 

DEA’s main priorities now are Mexico, Afghanistan, and prescription drugs. Unfortunately, this is a problem that is not just in one 

area; it is across the country. We have pockets. Right now Florida 

is the hotbed for the pill mills, but I am very concerned for your 

state and some of the Midwest states because of the impact of what 

has happened in Florida. We have a strategy, and I have some 

slides that at some point I hope I am able to walk you through that 

will talk about what we are doing because of the prescription drug 

problem. 

I am worried because 7 million Americans are abusing prescription drugs, and that means that every day there are 7,000 new 

users, first time users. The other thing that really worries me for 

our children is that since 2008, it is more likely that a first time 

drug user will abuse prescription drugs rather than even marijuana. We have never seen that in our history before. So everything 

we are charting, everything we are looking at, tells us that prescription drugs are the problem of the future. It is the problem 

now, and DEA and other agencies are doing what we can to move 

in that direction and to be able to have an impact on it. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Administrator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. To follow up on what Congressman Austria said, why do we not try to set up something the first week we 

come back? And we will make sure, we will build it around your 

schedule. But I think he raised some good questions. And maybe 

cover both of those issues, but particularly the first issue. 

Ms. LEONHART. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. And we will invite all of the members of the committee at that time. Thanks. 

Ms. LEONHART. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, good 

morning. 

Ms. LEONHART. Good morning. 

FY 2012 BUDGET

Mr. GRAVES. I want to thank you for being here this morning. 

I know that your duties are great and I appreciate you taking the 

time to answer questions for us. And I know the challenges are 

mighty out there. And I guess, Mr. Chairman, I am really thankful 

that, you know, we have an agency who has actually brought in a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
290 

request that is less, moving down and understanding the climate 

we are in. And I want to thank you for that. Because most of the 

time that we are hearing from agencies that are asking for additional funds, and certainly we all understand that. The missions of 

all the agencies are big and everybody needs more resources. So I 

want to thank you for that. And it looks like your request almost 

got to the 2008 levels, and not far from that. And it is about a 9 

percent decrease from 2010. Can you help us understand how you 

arrived at that and how your agency moved in that direction? Because it is a very positive move, I think, given the climate we are 

in. And we are grateful for that. And I would like to learn more 

about that. 

Ms. LEONHART. Well I can tell you it is not easy. We just feel a 

responsibility, however, to do our part. And you know, the Attorney 

General asked all of the Department of Justice agencies to take a 

look at our programs, take a look at what our critical needs are, 

take a look at our mission, and look at anything that is not critical 

to the mission and see where we can do some belt tightening. I 

think I have the advantage because I am a DEA agent. I know my 

agency very well, and I was able to, with my executive staff, take 

a look and find out what is left. We have had cuts over the years 

that have really, really hurt, and there is not much fat there. There 

is no fat there. So this year was extremely hard, because one of the 

things that we are saying we could do without is a program that 

is dear to us. 

But with the climate, we want to do our part, and in doing that 

we took critical looks at all of our programs. We identified where 

we had some overlap or where we could consolidate with another 

agency, or tweak something, and those were the cuts that we put 

forward. 

Mr. GRAVES. Right. Well I appreciate your willingness—— 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield? Is this the Mobile Enforcement Team, the program that you cut? Could you just make 

sure we are clear about what you are saying? 

Ms. LEONHART. One of the things we identified was the Mobile 

Enforcement Team. In doing that, it is really a trade off. The Mobile Enforcement Team, by offering that up, we save our 217 task 

forces that are working with states and locals all across the country. So we took a look and we said what is core to our mission, and 

then what is in the next ring? And we came up with this program 

as one program that we do not like to give it up, but in these very 

austere times, it is one of the things that will allow us to continue 

with our core mission. We have lost MET in the past, and we have 

just strategized about what we will do with our state and local 

partners to make sure that we are still there to help them. 

Mr. GRAVES. Right. Well, thank you. And maybe you can share 

with the committee at some point some of those decisions you made 

in detail. Because that helps us to see and offer recommendations 

to other agencies of areas you can look to or consolidate or be creative with some solutions. And something I am asking all agencies 

to do is provide us and really go, what you have done is incredible, 

and maybe go a step or two beyond that. Because we really do not 

know where it ends. We have got a lot to do fiscally to get the nation back on track. And so if the chairman does not mind I would 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
291 

like to submit a letter to the committee that just asks the agency 

to provide us with options that go 25 percent in cuts, and 20 percent as well, as you have already reached almost the 10 percent. 

To show us how, what impact that would have on your agency and 

if there are ways you can still focus on core missions that you are 

focused on. And I know those would be difficult to reach but I think 

it helps us in making decisions so that you are part of that process 

that we want you to be a part of. We are not making those decisions for you but we see where we might be able to join you in this 

partnership during a difficult time. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
292 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 710 here 67259B.015
293 

Mr. GRAVES. And so Mr. Chairman I do have that letter and we 

have one other question, if that is okay? We heard a minute ago 

about the pill mills and you brought that up and I appreciate you 

doing that, because we were in a hearing recently where Attorney 

General Holder was there and Chairmen Rogers and Wolf were 

questioning what was going on in Broward County, Florida. And I 

do not know, are you aware of any request by the chairman to look 

into that issue at all? Because I know that it is a discussion we 

had in committee. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG DIVERSION

Ms. LEONHART. I do know that right after the Attorney General 

testified, we have been in discussion to provide a lot of background 

information so that the Department of Justice can get back to, I believe, Mr. Rogers on questions. But I would like to take the opportunity to tell you that prescription drugs, especially the pill mill 

situation in Florida, the charts I brought I thought would maybe 

help you understand that this is a priority for us, and this is a 

sense of urgency for us. What we have done and the budget we are 

requesting, especially for the diversion control piece, will have an 

impact on what is happening in your state. 

I worry about Georgia because Ohio and Georgia are the next pill 

mill states, but I think we can be ahead of that with some of these 

tweaks and some of these additions to our Diversion Control Program that we are asking for. 

Mr. GRAVES. Good. And I think that is something that we are all 

looking for. And if there was one takeaway for me from that committee meeting it was that the chairman, and I think Chairman 

Wolf as well, were very engaged in requesting somebody to look 

into this, and did not seem to be getting a lot of feedback as to 

whether something was going to happen. And I want to mention 

to the chairman here that, you know, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution this morning it shows that the DEA reacts very quickly 

sometimes. In fact, after just two weeks of getting a request from 

an attorney they have, you know, moved into Georgia and taken 

over some controlled substance from the State of Georgia. And I am 

certainly not questioning whether that was right or wrong, but it 

just shows that they can act quickly when requests are made. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Graves. 

Let me follow up on a couple of those issues. I am going to do 

a letter and maybe I am going to be the only one that does it, to 

the new Republican governor of Florida to tell him he ought to get 

with the program. 

At a hearing that we held on OxyContin several years ago Mr. 

Rogers had people from his district come up, and it was a young 

man who was not a witness but was behind his dad who was a pastor I believe, and he had been addicted to OxyContin. I can still 

remember he had an electric blue coat on and he sat to the left, 

and Mr. Rogers’ district has been devastated, and we set up a diversion program and helped and then a couple months later I 

asked Mr. Rogers how was the boy doing, and he said he had 

overdosed, he had died, and I saw the figure the other day, the 

number of people, it is something like 20,000 a year. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
294 

So what we are going to do based, and hopefully Mr. Rogers may 

want to sign it, just ask the governor of Florida to adopt this program, because it is spreading. 

Has any action been taken on that specific request? Because we 

then called down to see did anyone go to Broward County? Was 

there anything specifically done with regard to that exchange with 

the Attorney General? And I appreciate Mr. Graves raising it here. 

Ms. LEONHART. I can tell you that after the hearing ended, we 

did get calls from the Attorney Generals office. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, good. 

Ms. LEONHART. I think just the week before that we have been 

down to Florida, we have been working Florida for a year, and the 

papers do not report it. I felt bad that you, the Committee, did not 

know all that we have done, but since last February we have sent 

eleven separate tactical diversion squads from around the country. 

We have sent them down there and launched them down to Florida, and that is what helped this operation called Pill Nation, 

which identified that Tri-County area in this pill mills. I think to 

date we have closed twenty-seven of them. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, is it fair to say that if it is not successful there 

is it coming to Georgia? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is already on its way to Georgia, already on 

its way to Ohio. 

Mr. WOLF. Why? 

Ms. LEONHART. Because action that we are taking in Florida is 

moving these owners. We know that many of these clinics are not 

even owned by doctors. 

Mr. WOLF. Who owns them? 

Ms. LEONHART. Some are owned by doctors, but of the pain clinics that we are having the biggest problem with are run by people, 

businessmen, out to make a buck. They saw an opportunity; some 

have felony arrests. So all that we have been doing over the last 

year, and then Florida passed a few laws, one being that no longer 

could these pain clinics advertise or promote the use, sale, or dispensing of a controlled substance. 

You have got to go down there and take that paper and look, it 

is four and five pages of ads for pain clinics. 

Mr. WOLF. And what counties for the record can we say so we 

know? Broward County. 

Ms. LEONHART. The primary, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm 

Beach. 

Mr. WOLF. And what papers are running the ads? 

Ms. LEONHART. When I was down there, and I am familiar with 

Los Angeles, this reminds me of the marijuana dispensaries, and 

so it would be the New Times in south Florida and Creative Loafing 

and Tampa Bay Times in Tampa they run ads. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, are the local officials not worked up about it or 

are the—— 

Ms. LEONHART. They are very worked up. The law enforcement 

community on this has come together. 

Mr. WOLF. Why do you think the governor has taken the position 

he has taken then? 

Ms. LEONHART. We were very surprised. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
295 

Mr. WOLF. But have you spoken to him? Has there been any— 

because if it is drifting—I mean, frankly this ought to be shut 

down. I mean it ought to be just—do you believe they are in violation of the law? 

Ms. LEONHART. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. So the newspapers in Broward County are carrying 

ads that are basically in violation of the law, what they are advertising. And we went through this here with regard to sexual trafficking. 

Ms. LEONHART. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. Major newspapers around the country were carrying 

ads in the sporting section about sex trafficking centers, legitimate 

papers. To their credit, to the credit of the Washington Post, to the 

credit of other papers, once brought to their attention they shut it 

down. 

So if you would tell me, if anyone wants to sign, fine, if they do 

not I will do it by myself, because 20,000—and if they are roaming 

north they are going to keep coming—I will write every newspaper 

down there personally and we will release it to the media asking 

them to stop running the ads. 

How many people have died? Was the 20,000 figure a year accurate that I saw in a publication? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, it is probably accurate. I know seven people 

die a week. No, seven people every day. 

Mr. WOLF. From that region? 

Ms. LEONHART. In Florida alone. 

Mr. WOLF. Seven a day. 

Ms. LEONHART. Every day in Florida they are losing seven people 

a day. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, how does a reputable newspaper, and I am sure 

they are, I mean how do they then carry the ad? Do you think 

there is a disconnect that they do not understand? 

Ms. LEONHART. Let me premise this with, when we start attacking the problem in February of 2010, this was part of the problem. 

The State of Florida made some changes to the law, we started 

taking down these pain clinics, so the situation has changed a bit. 

I am talking about why it exploded. I will not say that there is any 

action for you to take on that right now because we believe Operation Pill Nation has completely changed what will happen in Florida. That is why I am worried about Georgia and I am worried 

about Ohio. 

Mr. WOLF. Why Georgia and Ohio and why not Alabama and 

North Dakota? Why do you mention those two? 

Ms. LEONHART. You asked about the new governor in Florida. 

Florida was on line to have a prescription drug monitoring program. It needed it, we did everything—— 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, and Bill McCollum supported it. 

Ms. LEONHART. We did everything we could to say to State of 

Florida, this will help. I do not know why he made the decisions 

he did. 

Georgia does not have a prescription drug monitoring program. 

A number of residents from Georgia closest to Florida would go 

down there on these trips and get all these pills and bring them 

back to Georgia and sell them. So there is already a market there, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
296 

already an emerging pill market, but also the people that own 

these clinics have moved up. They have started to do some recruitment of doctors out of Ohio and in Georgia. That is why we are 

working with you, because we believe that that is where it is headed next. 

Mr. WOLF. Would you see the deaths moving too? If you have the 

seven in Florida would you see the death issue moving to Georgia 

and Ohio? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, we already saw Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, 

Kentucky, West Virginia, the states where there was an explosion 

of a pill problem. These are people that are going down to Florida. 

It is like going to Atlantic City for a junket. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. Instead of gambling you go down there and you 

get as many pills as possible; come back and you start your own 

distribution network. So there are established distribution networks now in Georgia and in Ohio, and the rate in those states 

with prescription drugs and deaths are going up. 

On March 3rd my friend, the head of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, held a summit that we helped them put on, a prescription drug summit in Georgia because he is so concerned about it. 

Ohio has jumped on it and they want to be ahead of the curve as 

well. But we are seeing the deaths from prescription drugs are not 

just in Florida, it is in Georgia, it is in Ohio, it is in California, 

it is in Houston. The three major hubs for these pill mills have 

been the tri-county area of South Florida, Broward Miami-Dade 

and Palm Beach counties, the Houston, Texas area, and Los Angeles, and there is a correlation between the deaths from prescription 

drugs and the explosion of these pill mills and doctor shopping. 

Mr. WOLF. Now the company that manufacturers the pills, what 

company? I mean there was a successful case in the Western District of Virginia, is it the same company? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is a little bit different than the OxyContin 

problem, and a lot of people think that the drug that is the number 

one drug out of the pill mills in Florida is OxyContin, and that is 

not correct. 

Mr. WOLF. What is it? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is the generic form, it is Oxycodone. 

Mr. WOLF. And who makes that? 

Ms. LEONHART. A number of companies. Roxicodone is the most 

popular. 

Mr. WOLF. Where are they from? 

Ms. LEONHART. And that is manufactured by Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals. 

Mr. WOLF. Where are they from? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am not sure. Joe, do you know the company? 

I am not sure where they are located. 

Mr. WOLF. And who else? Any other major drug companies? 

Ms. LEONHART. Roxy is the main drug. 

Mr. WOLF. If you can give us that and I will do a letter to the 

drug companies telling that, you know, basically I mean they are 

responsible for killing people and as the CEO goes home at night 

and looks at his wife or his son or his daughters or his grandkids 

he has to kind of think about that. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
297 

Ms. LEONHART. I am sorry, I found it, I knew we knew. It is 

Newport, KY and Mount Arlington, NJ. 

Mr. WOLF. That is where the company is located? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I mean, the thought of young people—if you 

could have seen this fellow, and I know the impact on Mr. Rogers’ 

district has been devastating, and it has on other districts, I mean 

this is not just—for some reason it was gathered there, but I think 

where you have had construction jobs and different things it is— 

and so it is a nationwide problem, unfortunately Mr. Rogers has 

borne the brunt of it and it was coming there, so what we will do 

and we will share the—if you want to join the letter with us, what 

we will do is get a letter off to the governor of Florida and just tell 

him that we are asking him to take an effort to shut these things 

down, and then we will also write the newspapers that are involved. 

Ms. LEONHART. I am also aware that our drug Czar, Gil 

Kerlikowske, has written the governor, and I have as well. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, so we will write them, and then if you have any 

other thoughts maybe we can write the newspapers too. We found 

the same thing on sex trafficking. Once they found out that they 

were basically centers for people that were being trafficked they responded quickly, so we will try to do that. 

Ms. LEONHART. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. I appreciate Mr. Graves bringing that issue up. 

The figure that you have used, seven million we have it here, is 

it seven million? That figure has been kicking around, are abusing 

prescription drugs. You said more than the number that were abusing cocaine, heroine, and other hallucinogens. Is that figure an up 

to date? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is a 2009 figure, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. And how many people do you think die as a result 

of this activity of abusing prescription drugs? Because that is one 

of your major efforts now. How many people have died per year? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have looked at that. Some of the reporting is 

late, so the latest numbers we have are 2007. There was a 298 percent increase in overdose deaths involving opioids, the pain killers, 

between 1992 and 2007. We have—— 

Mr. WOLF. What is that in real terms of the number of people 

that have died? 

Ms. LEONHART. In 2007 11,499; however, I can get you some additional reporting that we have seen on drug deaths, and I can tell 

you that we are concerned because more people are dying from prescription drugs, in some states than from car accidents, and in 

other states more than people who have died of gunshot wounds. 

I would be glad to give you a fact sheet on prescription drug 

abuse that may be informative. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
298 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 726 here 67259B.016
299 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 727 here 67259B.017
300 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 728 here 67259B.018
301 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 729 here 67259B.019
302 

Mr. WOLF. That would be good. Do you think—and I think I 

should say this in fairness to the governor of Florida, because I do 

not know him, and I do not think it is fair to be critical of him unless he—do you think he understands the severity of this? Because 

he is a new governor in fairness and he has not been in there for 

a long time. Do you think they understand? Have your people—I 

mean to write a letter but have your people asked to sit down with 

him to talk? Have your DEA people in the State of Florida gone 

in to the governor’s office? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe our people in DEA have actually talked 

to some of his staff, but I know that the two letters that the drug 

czar has written have offered assistance. 

[The information follows:] 

COPIES OF LETTERS FROM ONDCP TO THE FLORIDA GOVERNOR

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice did not provide a copy of the letter 

indicated by the witness. The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
303 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 3 here 67259C1.003
304 

Mr. WOLF. But just writing a letter, sometimes you write a letter 

to the Hill, it is irradiated, it comes in and somebody opens it— 

what I would recommend is that you call the governor in fairness 

to him and say we would like to send our people, and I think we 

owe this to the people of Georgia and all the other States where 

it is coming to, we would like to send someone down to sit down 

with you to explain—— 

Ms. LEONHART. To be fair, it may be that he is just not aware 

of the entire problem. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Ms. LEONHART. So what we are attempting to do, and obviously, 

would have gotten attention after this latest takedown in Pill Nation, we will offer, as we have done to so many other governors 

around the country, drug summits and some of the things that we 

are doing. We will make sure we prioritize a meeting with him or 

his staff to at least let him make a decision. We have been discussing with the Florida Office of Drug Control Policy, which he 

just disbanded, what seemed to work. 

Mr. WOLF. He expanded or disbanded? 

Ms. LEONHART. He disbanded the office. That is who we were 

dealing with. 

Mr. WOLF. But I think in fairness you really ought to speak to 

the governor’s office. 

Ms. LEONHART. And we will. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, and then if you could let me know what the response is, have you been able to get a meeting, or not. Because it 

is very easy to be critical and then find out that someone did not 

even know, and if they had known they would have done something. If you could let us know if you have had a problem getting 

in to see the governor too so we can have some sense. 

Ms. LEONHART. Okay. 

[The information follows:] 

RESPONSE TO LETTER SENT TO THE FLORIDA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

DEA contacted the Governor’s office after the March 16, 2011, hearing to request 

a meeting between Administrator Leonhart and Governor Scott, but the meeting 

was declined, and the state offered instead a Deputy Chief of Staff. Administrator 

Leonhart sent Governor Scott a letter on March 25, 2011 to request a meeting to 

discuss ways the DEA can work more closely with the State of Florida to combat 

prescription drug abuse. 

Mr. WOLF. And we will try to do the letter. We will make sure 

that the committee gets you the letter. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
305 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 737 here 67259B.020
306 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 738 here 67259B.021
307 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 739 here 67259B.022
308 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 740 here 67259B.023
309 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 741 here 67259B.024
310 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 742 here 67259B.025
311 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 743 here 67259B.026
312 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 744 here 67259B.027
313 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 745 here 67259B.028
314 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 746 here 67259B.029
315 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 747 here 67259B.030
316 

Mr. WOLF. Would it be helpful to do a letter to every governor 

to say that this is—I mean this is not a problem nationwide though 

is it? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is a problem in Los Angeles, Houston, and we 

see in the future Ohio, Georgia, that area. Most of these places, everyone is aware, and they have had drug summits and drug education. 

Mr. WOLF. Has there been a drug summit down in Florida? Why 

don’t you put one on in Fort Lauderdale? Or where is Broward 

County? Is that Fort Lauderdale? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, that is Miami, Miami-Dade. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why don’t you put one on down there? 

Ms. LEONHART. I will check, because I think there is a very good 

chance that we did. 

[The information follows:] 

DRUG SUMMIT IN FLORIDA

In conjunction with Operation Pill Nation, DEA conducted a training seminar 

with various Florida state and local law enforcement agencies in February 2010 and 

with state and federal prosecutors also in February 2010. DEA’s Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Diversion Control, Joseph Rannazzisi, participated 

in a prescription drug forum in Sarasota, Florida, on February 27, 2011, sponsored 

by Congressman Vern Buchanan. 

And one of the things with the National Take-back that we did 

in September, that was 4,000 locations, 3,000 law enforcement 

partners, many in Florida—in that we brought together and in one 

day collected 121 tons of pills, got them out of the medicine cabinet, 

because we know from kids, teens, that that is the number one 

place where they get the prescription drugs that they are abusing. 

That was the best way to educate this entire country about the 

problem, and I know that they had a very, very robust kind of messaging day and education piece in Florida. I will look and find out 

exactly in Florida who was a part of that and who participated. 

Now we have a great opportunity. April 30th we are going to do 

the second National Take-back, and this would be a good opportunity. We will make sure that we are working with the Governor’s 

office in Florida and see if we can do something with him for that 

Take-back. 

Mr. WOLF. Now you know, with the take-back—we had thought 

that every drugstore ought to be the place that you could go, and 

it did seem that the restrictions were somewhat cumbersome, because there was fairly detailed regulation, and I understand you do 

not want take-backs at every corner store because you do not know 

what is going to happen, but if it is a Rexall or Rite-Aid—there 

were pharmacists in my district who wanted to participate but felt 

that the situation was too restricted. 

So would it not be a good idea to do a take-back day in every 

certified drugstore in the nation? Because if you are in a rural area 

and you happen to get your drugs through—like in Leesburg we 

have a local pharmacy, well-thought of, highly regarded, but they 

are not a chain, they wanted to participate. So would it not make 

sense to have that, to try it at least to be less cumbersome that 

every certified drugstore could be a take-back or at least one in 

every community? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
317 

Ms. LEONHART. Two things on that, sir. There were a lot of drugstores that were a part of the take-back across the country. The 

cumbersome piece is that the way the CSA is written now, until 

the law changed, and we are doing the regulations, the only entity 

that could actually take in these prescription drugs was law enforcement. So the reason it was kind of restricted in certain communities, it was whatever the local police department felt that resource-wise they could do. So to do it in every registered pharmacy 

we would need a law enforcement department. 

Mr. WOLF. Would you really need—I mean couldn’t you have a 

black box, a black metal box that on a continual basis could come 

in and burn it and they could—— 

Ms. LEONHART. Not right now. That would be against the CSA; 

however, the beauty of the law—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, against the CSA, but maybe you should change 

it. 

Ms. LEONHART. We did. They passed the—the week after the 

take-back—— 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Ms. LEONHART [continuing]. Congress passed this Secure Drug 

Disposal Act and we are writing the regulations right now. We had 

an open hearing, and we had over 100 people gather to give ideas, 

and some of those ideas are that a pharmacy, or some people 

thought, a hospital, some people think police departments. We are 

working it, and we think by the end of the year, by early next year 

there will be—— 

Mr. WOLF. That is a long while. 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, it has to be done right, because we are 

talking about safe disposal, and we will have these take-backs in 

between. 

Mr. WOLF. I have heard stories, and you might want to validate, 

of high school parties where people are going in and throwing them 

all in a bowl and young kids are—— 

Ms. LEONHART. It is called pharming. 

Mr. WOLF. Can you tell us about that so we can educate the committee. If that is happening in some locality is it not better to move 

this thing quickly, better to have it in the local county hospital. 

Every county almost has a hospital. I am looking at my own congressional district, so you really know it is a reliable, dependable 

place. 

So the faster you do that, because it is better to have it there 

than in people’s medicine cabinets. So the faster you do that and 

localize it whereby you can memorize it, oh yeah, I know that is 

still a county hospital I can take these by. Maybe somebody has an 

accident they are taking a pill, they take care of it, the operation 

has been successful, they want to get rid of these things, so they 

know precisely where to go, because maybe their doctor is connected with it. 

Can you educate the committee a little bit about what is going 

on in some of the schools and how this thing works with regard to 

prescription drugs? 

Ms. LEONHART. For at least the last three or four years, every 

questionnaire, every study, all the research that is done on teens 

that start abusing prescription drugs, when you ask the question, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
318 

where are you getting them from?, has said they are getting them 

from their family medicine cabinet, a friend’s medicine cabinet. 

They are stealing them when they are babysitting; they are getting 

it from homes, not the local drug dealer. So—— 

Mr. WOLF. That is fairly prevalent? 

Ms. LEONHART. Very prevalent, and that is the reason for the 

take-back. When we started looking at that, because we originally 

thought it was the Internet. It may have been the Internet a few 

years ago for someone old enough to have a credit card and be able 

to order on the Internet, but when you look at these questionnaires 

that are given to young people, you get the sense that they start 

by stealing out of medicine cabinets, taking grandma’s medication. 

That is why we did the National Take-back, to get those drugs out 

of the medicine cabinets, 121 tons worth, and what we found, I will 

give you an example. 

I went to one of the take-backs here at one of the local police stations in the district. While I am up there meeting people at the 

take-back, I am hearing what is going on at Potomac Mills shopping center. I am hearing about a couple people that pull up in a 

car and have garbage bags and they come and they go, ‘‘Will you 

take these? I know it is a lot, but will you take them?’’ And our 

folks said, this is what the take-back is about, and these people 

have been holding on to these drugs from a couple family members 

who passed away, and they have always been worried about how 

to dispose of them so they have just been holding on to them. And 

we learned that that one day, September 25th, was the best day 

of education around this country for the prescription drug problem. 

Everyone showing up not only had a way of disposing of their 

drugs, but got educated on why it is important to get this out of 

our medicine cabinets. 

We were very happy with Congress. About a week later they 

passed this bill, and we are working very hard to get the answers 

to be able to write the regulations. The idea is for every community, every person, every citizen to know 24 hours a day how they 

can get rid of and safely dispose of their medicine. 

Everybody took part in this. We had environmentalists so happy. 

They participated because they are worried about it in our water 

streams. So it is that in my 30 years on the job, this one day where 

I can say something good was done for every citizen of this country, 

and it was as simple as getting those drugs out of your medicine 

cabinet. 

So we will do it again April 30th, and we have people coming out 

of the woodwork to do this. And we worked with the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police. This next one we are working with 

NOBLE, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers 

and the National Sheriffs’ Association. We have got all of these 

partners and these community groups that ban together, and they 

do a take-back, April 30th. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, could it not be every day in the sense that if 

you had it at the county hospital? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is the idea of the safe disposal law. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. That there will be—it will be in your community, 

it will be the county—it will be at the hospital. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
319 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. There have even been people who have suggested 

the library. Everybody has a library. So there will be a way for disposal to be safe, easy, everybody knows it, 24 hours a day. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I am going to go to—the last question and you 

know, you are a career person and I do not think it is fair to put 

you on the spot, but I do want to just say at our hearing with the 

Attorney General we discussed the department’s plan to zero out 

the grant program to states and create state prescription drug 

monitoring programs. This is a part of the budget being cut, correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. As I understand it there was nothing in the 

President’s Budget for the Department of Justice’s—— 

Mr. WOLF. That is a yes. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. How many states have such programs, and does 

the existence of a state monitoring program correlate with reduction in prescription drug abuse? 

Ms. LEONHART. I can tell you that we have been raising our 

voices since they have started. 

Mr. WOLF. How many states have programs? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thirty-four, with nine starting a program or a 

program is pending, and the territory of Guam. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, I appreciate that Mr. Graves bringing 

that issue up, and you know, if that is the number one, I mean, 

all the attention gets on the drug cartels coming in, but if that is 

the number one issue we ought to be able to deal with it. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me start where the chairman left off, and with 

this monitoring issue, because you have to bifurcate this. We are 

talking about legal drugs that are prescribed, and in this instance 

they are being abused, and in these pain clinics operating where 

the law allows them to somehow sell what would normally be legal 

prescription drugs in whatever quantity where there is no state 

regulation. Is that really the issue about why they locate in certain 

states? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, a couple of things, Mr. Fattah. These are 

pain clinics. Now remember there are pain clinics that are legitimate pain clinics. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. These are entrepreneurs. These are people who 

have seen a way to make money. Many are not doctors, and this 

is not about providing pain relief; this is about making money, so 

they will open these up somewhere in strip malls. They will open 

it up, but they will advertise as a pain clinic. Where else would you 

see people advertising for a doctor on craigslist? 

Mr. FATTAH. No, I understand, but I am trying to understand 

how this correlates with the monitoring issue at the state level. So 

we were giving grants to states or some states may have been setting up monitoring on their own to monitor the availability of prescription drugs that have not normally been made available, right? 

So where states have regulations there are less of these or none 

of them and where states do not they are more active? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
320 

Ms. LEONHART. I would say there is less diversion in states 

where they do have them, and they also allow the state regulators 

to take more action against a doctor who would be, you know, writing a number of prescriptions. It allows the doctor who writes the 

prescription to know if the person they are writing it for has gone 

to three other doctors and gotten the same prescription. 

Mr. FATTAH. So you’re not doctor shopping for a prescription, 

right? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yeah, so it helps doctors, and it helps pharmacies. 

Mr. FATTAH. So in the Florida instance what you have is a governor who does not want a lot of regulations or promised not to do 

this and that is why there was this dispute. You say we have thirty-four states that have monitoring, nine more setting them up? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am not sure how closely you are involved in the 

grant program from the Justice Department but was the grant program central in trying to get states to set these monitoring programs up? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe that there are states that have prescription drug monitoring programs that also have serious diversion 

problems to include pain clinics. 

JUVENILES AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

Mr. FATTAH. Let’s go back to the issue I wanted to raise beforehand, which is the role of juveniles in the crack and cocaine epidemic. There were a lot of juveniles being utilized, moved from 

state to state to work in the enterprise, and now we see it with the 

southwest border. Some juveniles from the United States are being 

hired by cartels to be engaged particularly in enforcement or killing 

people and so on and this has been highlighted in the press. 

Are you—and if you want to look at this and supply it to the 

committee that is fine, but I am interested in whether there is 

more we should do in terms of federal legislation about the movement of juveniles across borders or across states for involvement in 

drug activity, and whether you have enough enforcement tools now 

or whether more should be done in that area. 

Ms. LEONHART. If we can get back to you, Mr. Fattah. I do know 

that there are enhanced penalties, and there have been laws 

passed recently with certain drug trafficking crimes that do increase the penalty for using juveniles, and I believe the last one 

that was passed—that is why I want to get back to you—covered 

a number of drugs that were not—trafficking that was not covered 

previously. Obviously something like that would help, but I believe 

there have been some laws that have been passed. 

[The information follows:] 

FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS ADDRESSING ENDANGERING CHILDREN

There are a number of Federal criminal laws that specifically address drug defendants who endanger children. These include 21 U.S.C. § 858 (endangering human 

life while illegally manufacturing a controlled substance); 21 U.S.C. § 860 (distribution or manufacturing in or near schools, playgrounds, youth centers, etc.), 21 

U.S.C. § 861(a) (employing or using persons under 18 years of age in drug operations), and 18 U.S.C. § 25 (use of minors in committing crimes of violence). In addition, drug crimes involving children carry enhanced sentences. Under 21 U.S.C. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
321 

§ 859, distribution to a person under 21 years of age is subject to twice the maximum sentence. Similarly, 21 U.S.C. § 860(b) doubles the maximum punishment for 

individuals who employ persons under 18 in drug operations, and § 860a imposes 

an additional term of imprisonment for individuals who violate 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

by manufacturing or distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, methamphetamine on premises in which an individual under the age of 18 

is present or resides. Furthermore, the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA), 

42 U.S.C. § 10607, and the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 prescribe certain rights and services which are available to victims of crimes. Although 

these statutes do not specifically address children, they would apply to child victims 

of crimes. Similarly, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007 provides funds that 

can be used for grants related to drug endangered children. 

DRUG TRAFFICKING SUBMARINES

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. And one other thing. Now in terms of coordination with other agencies, under our subcommittee we have a 

number of agencies, some involved in scientific activity and others, 

but we also have NOAA. And part of the drug trafficking problem 

that has been in the news of late has been the use of submarines 

or underwater vehicles. Does the DEA need additional help in trying to think about how to address that issue? 

Ms. LEONHART. First of all the semi-submersible subs, and now 

fully-submersible subs, are a great threat to our nation, not just for 

drugs, but other things that they could be bringing in. So we took 

quick action. We actually have seized some in Ecuador—there was 

quick action on the part of Congress. They passed a law, I think 

probably a year and a half ago, two years ago, that makes it illegal 

to manufacture these, and we have had some successful prosecutions already with that. So we have been given the tools to help 

us with that. I think what we need as a law enforcement community, we have gotten together a couple times to talk about it, is 

what more can we be doing, and it really is more intel work on who 

is producing these. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, when you get a chance to talk to the chairman 

in this other briefing, there may be agencies that are not involved 

in law enforcement that have expertise that could be helpful in this 

particular regard, who monitor what is going on in the oceans and 

have observation and sensors that may not have been used in the 

past for this purpose, but could conceivably be helpful to you. 

FY 2012 BUDGET

Let me go to this issue that was raised by my colleague about 

you being able to cut the budget. Now the President asked all of 

the departments to cut $20 billion and there was a round of cuts, 

and then he came back and he asked for the departments to cut 

again and there was $119 billion, and now the Congress is coming, 

and you know, Congress wants more efficiencies in these departments. And my concern is that we do not cut in ways that are irresponsible. 

And so let me delve into this particular issue about the mobile 

enforcement terms, and there may be other cuts that I am not 

aware of that you have made. But the question here is that as best 

as my staff has been able to figure out, the estimation is that drug 

trafficking is about a $400 billion enterprise, and we are applying 

about $2.5 billion, a rounded number, to attack this problem. I do 

not know that there is a state, a city, a community, rural, urban, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
322 

or suburban, that feels at this moment that the country has a handle on this problem. So while we are interested in efficiencies, I 

think we are much more interested in our children and our communities being safe. 

So I am interested in the cuts to the mobile enforcement teams. 

And I guess one of the ways I would phrase it is, if you had additional resources, where would you apply them in terms of your core 

mission, and where else have you cut other than the mobile enforcement teams? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you, sir. Let me talk about the other areas 

that we felt we could cut. They are not as big as the meth cut, but 

we looked at administrative efficiencies. We looked at things that 

we could do, costs for, mailing and anything that was a continuous 

cost to us. We looked at how we could consolidate and how we 

could streamline and cut back, so we offered that. 

We looked at our computer refresh, which right now is at every 

four years we try to refresh our equipment. It is kind of like your 

car. Okay, tough times, yeah, a car, you are thinking about trading 

it up for another car. Well maybe an extra year. You hope it doesn’t 

break down. That is our position. We can stretch it out one more 

year and replace computers. We’ll have a five-year cycle. 

Reduce our physical footprint, not only DEA but other Justice 

agencies. We are really looking at where we have offices to find out 

if there is some way that we could consolidate some of our offices. 

And we have some very small offices. 

Mr. FATTAH. You are operating in some 62 countries? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have 82 offices in 62 countries, yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. But domestically we have 226 offices. So part of 

the cut is looking at them and finding out where we have some 

small two-men posts of duty. Maybe we could save on some rent 

and some other expenses if we partnered up and moved in with the 

FBI or moved in with the ATF and in some areas, they will move 

in with us. 

So that is what we are looking at, how to consolidate some of the 

Department of Justice offices. We are not losing people, but we are 

shrinking the number of offices that we have. 

And then there is task force consolidation. We are doing a review, all of Justice did, of task force operations, to find out if there 

is a way that we can consolidate—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Like some of the task forces that you had operating 

in the city of Philadelphia? 

Ms. LEONHART. Philadelphia has a task force. 

Mr. FATTAH. Which has been very successful. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, it has been. 

Mr. FATTAH. In part because of the chairman’s help we got additional resources there a few years ago. So now we are cutting back. 

Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have 217 task forces. We will be looking at 

all of them. We are not losing the people, and we are not losing 

the task force component. We might be able to find, and we believe 

we can find, some of those task forces that maybe are not as effective anymore or have kind of outlived their purpose, and move 

those resources into existing task forces, programs, or operations. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
323 

Mr. FATTAH. Well let me ask you this question. On the meth 

labs, for instance—— 

Ms. LEONHART. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Part of the problem is the contamination. And in that local enforcement sometimes is not in a position 

to understand the environmental hazard that is created when 

someone is operating a meth lab in a particular place, and this is 

a major problem. I know that prescription drugs is the number one 

problem. But meth is a major problem in our country. 

So I am trying to figure out how these mobile enforcement teams 

and the cuts there are going to impact our communities. 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, like I stated when we talked about cuts, it 

is just a very austere time. And we felt with our mobile enforcement teams, which we have lost in the past and got back, you 

know, that is probably the only program we have left that would 

not be—— 

Mr. FATTAH. How much was that last year? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is about a $39 million program. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. I don’t want to belabor the point, because I 

know the chairman is looming with the time clock. In fact, we don’t 

have one, so it is hard for us to gauge how far we should go with 

these things. But just so we are clear, I mean, we are spending $80 plus million in Afghanistan, right? It is not just a matter of austerity. It 

is a matter of priorities and not your priorities. 

But the Congress has to think through where our priorities lie, 

because if we have drugs coming from Afghanistan that are going 

to, for instance, Europe, but we have meth labs in Pennsylvania or 

other problems right here at home and we are cutting back, we 

have to think through what our priorities are if we are going to cut 

back, or we have to invest the money we need to cover all of our 

priorities. 

But I am not sure that the notion wasn’t that charity should 

begin in Afghanistan. So I am just trying to figure out where we 

are and how we go about getting at these issues. Thank you. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. And, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Graves 

made a very good point about the budget issues. And Mr. Fattah 

makes a very good point. And I am not threading needle. I kind 

of agree with both of them to a certain extent. 

But fundamentally this administration really has to come forward and deal with these entitlement issues, because the money is 

in the entitlements. And if you continue to cut these things back 

as he is talking about. 

So Speaker Boehner wants the President, and I know you don’t 

talk to the President every day. The President has to engage on 

this issue of the entitlements. And the Republicans in the House 

are prepared to engage with him. I think Speaker Boehner has 

made it very, very clear. 

And so as we deal with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security to reform it in an appropriate way, we take the pressure off, 

because there are a lot of your programs we really can’t cut. 

I mean, if you talk to a parent who has a child that has been 

addicted to drugs, and the pain, and the suffering, and the agony 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
324 

from the—I mean the flower of the youth just taken away. So I 

think Mr. Fattah makes a legitimate point. 

And now the whole issue on Afghanistan, I don’t know what you 

are going to do. I mean, I oppose what some on your side are trying 

to do. But I have a resolution, a bill, that we are going to be putting in in a couple of weeks to set up an Afghanistan/Pakistan 

study group to look to see are we doing the right things in Afghanistan. Is it the right way? I don’t necessarily want to get out, but 

I don’t know. 

And he raised a legitimate point. Here we are perhaps aiding 

corruption in Afghanistan. I want the Afghans to have freedom, but 

yet if we are going to cut back what they are going to do in Philadelphia, or in Boston, or in Los Angeles? 

And so the administration has opposed my proposal. We are 

going to now put it into bill form, which would create an Afghanistan/Pakistan study group. I was the author of the—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I am for your proposal, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Maybe we can cosponsor together, because I don’t 

know what the answer is. But I think the answer isn’t just to drip 

everything out and give you no resources or to be doing something 

maybe in Afghanistan where we shouldn’t. 

And when he asked you the earlier question, I guess the question 

I wanted to ask is are the Chinese giving you any money? Are the 

Russians giving you any money? Are our allies or those who are 

not our allies but who want to participate, are they putting resources in? Is it ‘‘big hat, no cattle’’ that they are all interested and 

want to participate but have no money? And so are they giving 

money? So that is for the record. I want to know if they are. 

But I think both make a legitimate point. So you have got to deal 

with the entitlement issue. And then we have to look to see are we 

doing everything the appropriate way in Afghanistan to be successful. And if it came out that we are funding meritorious programs 

in Afghanistan but we are taking away from people that live right 

in the United States, then it is a tough issue. 

And I have a couple of meth lab questions. And I want to follow 

up on that. But did you want to say something? 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes, just for one quick second. My whole point is 

you have one of the most dangerous jobs in the government. And 

you are going after some very tough people who are making $400 

billion. We are giving you a budget of $2.2 billion and say, well, go 

get the bad guys, right? And then we say, well, we want you to cut 

here and cut here. 

And, you know, I just think that we have to be careful as a Nation not to cut to a point where it is really going to be more costly 

in the end. And I don’t mean just financially. You know, when 

34,000 people are losing their lives in Mexico in large measure because of the drug issue there, where we have seven to nine a day 

in Florida because of prescription drugs, the question of whether 

we can attack this problem on the cheap is a relevant question. We are spending $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. If we are 

going to do that, then we have to be big enough as a country to 

think about what our other priorities are too. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. And I agree with Mr. Fattah on that. For instance, 

a lot of people don’t—I mean if you talk to a couple of members 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
325 

who were really excited about what you had done, by getting Viktor 

Bout, the number of people whose lives were saved and everything 

else. And you all stayed with it when others sort of dropped it. 

And so I think Mr. Fattah’s point is a very appropriate one. And 

it gets back to we have just got to get the President to join with 

the leadership here to come together. Some of these programs will 

actually be increased. I mean I would increase cancer research. A 

lot of people from my family died of cancer. And I would increase 

research on autism. 

The tax bill, I found out later on, both of us apparently opposed 

it. They gave a 2 percent payroll deduction on the Social Security 

tax, which will cost the government $112 billion. Imagine what you 

could do with $112 billion. 

So he makes a good point. So, again, we have got to deal with 

these entitlements and come together in a bipartisan way quickly, 

or else we are going to continue to see these problems. 

METH LABS

Can you submit for the record the statistics from the number of 

meth lab cleanups by states over the last three years? And do you 

know what the number would roughly be? 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. There were over 10,000 meth labs—— 

Mr. WOLF. Ten thousand. 

Ms. LEONHART. Last year, yes. And the number anticipated for 

2011 was even more. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
326 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 775 here 67259B.031
327 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 776 here 67259B.032
328 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 777 here 67259B.033
329 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 778 here 67259B.034
330 

Mr. WOLF. Well then will the states and localities be able to engage such assistance on their own? And what do you expect will 

happen to these hazardous materials in the absence of funding for 

the DEA programs for the remainder of the year? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, if I can explain for the committee, the 

money has always gone to the COPS Program. It has been a grant 

program. 

Mr. WOLF. Does the President’s budget for fiscal year 2012 include any funding in the DEA or the COPS accounts for meth lab 

cleanup? 

Ms. LEONHART. No. 

Mr. WOLF. No. 

Ms. LEONHART. No. 

Mr. WOLF. So if that answer is a no, coming back to the question 

will states and localities, we now know no is no. They would have 

to be able to engage such assistance on their own. 

Ms. LEONHART. A couple of things: the other grants they do receive, some of the Byrne Grants, we understand—— 

Mr. WOLF. That may very well be in. 

Ms. LEONHART. Some of the Byrne Grants actually allow for that. 

Asset sharing money that we share with state and locals when they 

work on cases can actually be used for lab cleanup. And what is 

missed sometimes is that the cases that we are working jointly 

with them, that we have investigations on, DEA is authorized to 

clean those up, and we will continue. 

Mr. WOLF. I guess the point I am trying to make following up 

Mr. Fattah, do you expect there will be enough resources to do 

what has to be done if it is reduced at this level, knowing how the 

localities are having a very difficult time? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am concerned about the resources available to 

state and locals to be able to respond to the meth issue. 

MOBILE ENFORCEMENT TEAMS

Mr. WOLF. As you know, the committee had funds above your request in 2009 and 2010 to expand the mobile enforcement team 

programs, DEA teams that reside in field divisions that are available for TDY deployments. How many MET teams do you currently 

have? 

Ms. LEONHART. We have currently 16 MET teams. 

Mr. WOLF. And your budget proposals, the total elimination of 

the program; is that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. That’s correct, $39 million. 

Mr. WOLF. And is that because you were trying to reach a saving 

and this was the area that you thought that you could save in? 

Ms. LEONHART. This was about the only program. We feel strongly that it is worthwhile, but having to do our piece, this is about 

the only program that we thought was a little bit distant from our 

core mission, which is disrupting and dismantling the world’s largest drug traffickers. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. As I understand it, the rationale for cutting the 

MET program has been—it is basically an asset to localities. Is 

there a fundamental difference between the MET teams and Tactical Diversion Squads? And don’t both of them target particularly 

acute localized drug problems and involve the participation of state 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
331 

and local officers? So why is MET terminated and TDS currently 

expanding? There seems to be a little bit of an inconsistency there. 

Ms. LEONHART. If I can correct you on that. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. You can correct me any time. Go ahead. 

Ms. LEONHART. One of the things that the Tactical Diversion 

Squads, and if you will look at my slides when we are done if we 

don’t get to go through them, one of the things it does, it brings 

task force officers into the program. 

Most of our MET teams do not have state and local task force 

officers in them. They go to a department, and they assist in whatever that department thinks are the biggest and the baddest in 

their community, but it is not a program that has task force officers in it. 

Mr. WOLF. Well would you acknowledge that this reduction may 

create some problems? 

Ms. LEONHART. I will acknowledge that there will be communities and police departments that we would like to help that we 

are not going to be able to help. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. The Afghan issue, is DEA there primarily to 

advise and train the Afghans, or are DEA personnel conducting 

joint operations? 

Ms. LEONHART. It is both. We are there to help stand up the Afghan National Police’s Counter Narcotics Police, so that they, at 

some point, will be fully functional on their own to conduct both 

their domestic and international drug investigations. 

But we are also there because there are major traffickers, highlevel traffickers, major drug kingpins, that are a part of the problem for Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The corrupt governments. They are funding and are a part of the insurgency. 

So we play this dual role where we are developing counterparts. 

But we are also saving lives—U.S. military and coalition forces’ 

lives—because as we are developing our informants in the country, 

we are passing on that information; on a number of occasions we 

have passed information to Special Forces, and they have been able 

to get troops out of the way. We have reported on rocket attacks 

planned on military installations. And with our passing that information, they have been able to prepare for it. Because of our drug 

enforcement activities in the country, we have been able to provide 

leads, tips and information to our Ambassadors and even President 

Karzai himself, which has allowed them to move people out of 

harm’s way. So we are helping our own forces by doing our mission 

in Afghanistan. 

Mr. WOLF. Of your 82 positions in Afghanistan, how many are 

funded by DEA funds and how many by transfers from State Department? 

Ms. LEONHART. The $88.6 million for Afghanistan from the State 

Dept. supports 69 of the 82 positions. 

Mr. WOLF. Tell me from the State Department is how much? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well we asked for $88.6 million. 

Mr. WOLF. And so if that were not forthcoming, what would that 

mean? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well we are concerned, because it isn’t forthcoming. They are now going to give us $38.1 million and an addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
332 

tional 12.7 million. So we are about $6 million short of what we 

reduced our request to, $56.8 million. 

Mr. WOLF. So will that mean you will have to pull out some? 

Ms. LEONHART. Very, very hard questions have to be asked if we do not have that $6 million. And we have 82 people in country, but 

they can’t do operations, then we have to ask, you know, what good 

is it to have those people in a war zone if they can’t conduct their 

operations. 

Mr. WOLF. When do you have to make—what date do you have 

to foresee making that decision? 

Ms. LEONHART. We were just notified by the State Department 

on Friday, and we have been in discussions every day since. We are 

going to be discussing with the Department of Justice our plans, 

because obviously something has to change with us not getting 

money for what we need. 

Mr. WOLF. Is there a drug problem in Pakistan? I don’t hear too 

much about that. How does that compare with regard to the problem in Afghanistan? How does drug money and the drug issue impact them in Pakistan? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well I will say that both Afghanistan and Pakistan have a citizen drug problem, a growing citizen drug problem. 

And they have the problem of drug trafficking and these high-value 

targets, these kingpins. The ones that we have indicted, have 

brought to New York, and are prosecuting, what we find is, they 

jump across the border. They are operating not only in Afghanistan, but they are also in Pakistan. 

So what I did a couple of years ago is I set up our eighth foreign 

region, and I called it the Afghan/Pakistan region, because what we 

do in Afghanistan affects Pakistan and vice versa. 

BOLIVIA

Mr. WOLF. Sounds like my bill, the Afghan Pakistan study group 

to look at both. Two other questions. In 2008, President Morales of 

Bolivia ordered the DEA to leave the country. We understand you 

relocated staff to other Southern Cone countries. 

There were concerns at the time that this could be a major setback for counternarcotic efforts in Bolivia and in the region. We understand that the former head of Bolivia’s antinarcotics police was 

recently arrested by the DEA in Panama for drug trafficking and 

brought to the U.S. for trial. Is that accurate? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is accurate. 

Mr. WOLF. I bet he was doing—— 

Ms. LEONHART. I am sorry? 

Mr. WOLF. How did he get the job? Did President Morales know 

he had this problem? 

Ms. LEONHART. Let me say what our worries about Bolivia are. 

The region around it, the countries around it, have been very concerned, because there is an uptick in production and trafficking in 

Bolivia. You can question why did we really get thrown out of Bolivia. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. Is there not a problem of drug use in Bolivia too? 

Ms. LEONHART. There is a growing, already bad, but growing 

drug problem in Bolivia, a coke problem. 

Mr. WOLF. And what does President Morales think of that? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
333 

Ms. LEONHART. If you remember, he was a cocalero, so he looks 

at this through different glasses. 

Mr. WOLF. How would you characterize the level of cooperation 

you get today from the Bolivian government on counter-narcotics? 

Ms. LEONHART. We are having to, since we were removed from 

Bolivia, put our people in surrounding areas, surrounding offices, 

countries. We have what we call an outside-in strategy. We are 

having to work our operations from the outside, like this case on 

General Sanabria that just was taken down. 

We have had to develop informants outside of Bolivia. It is difficult, but President Morales has said several times that DEA will 

never return to Bolivia while he’s in office. 

Mr. WOLF. What was he doing in Panama when he was arrested? 

Ms. LEONHART. This is an undercover operation. He was part of 

a conspiracy that negotiated to sell our undercovers I think 150 

kilos of cocaine. 

Mr. WOLF. And what is he charged with? 

Ms. LEONHART. He is charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 

Mr. WOLF. Now will he have a public defender or will he have 

to get his own lawyer? 

Ms. LEONHART. He has arrived recently in Miami, and I don’t 

know who is representing him. 

Mr. WOLF. Could you tell the committee what law firm represents him and the background of the people that represent him? 

Will it be a public defender or a prominent law firm in Miami or 

whatever? Who is representing your friend, Viktor? 

Ms. LEONHART. One of the reasons for the delay, we thought we 

were going to trial this summer. It has been delayed until October 

is because he has fired his attorney. 

Mr. WOLF. Who was his attorney? 

Ms. LEONHART. I don’t know who it was. And I just heard the 

other day who he has gotten. I will get back to you on that. He has 

just hired a brand new attorney. 

Mr. WOLF. Was it a reputable law firm in the United States? 

Ms. LEONHART. I wasn’t aware of the person. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Ms. LEONHART. Of the name, but I will get you that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department of Justice did not provide the 

information regarding legal representation indicated by the witness. The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
334 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 790 67259B.035
335 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 791 67259B.036
336 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 792 67259B.037
337 

Mr. WOLF. If you could let us know. Do you think the law firm— 

do you think it is a public defender, or do you think he is—— 

Ms. LEONHART. No. I believe—— 

VIKTOR BOUT

Mr. WOLF. Do you think the law firm knows of all the kids in 

Africa who have been killed because of Viktor Bout? Do you know 

if this firm knows of the pain and suffering and the agony he has 

brought to Sierra Leone, to the Congo, to Liberia? 

Ms. LEONHART. I don’t know. 

Mr. WOLF. If you could do a one page, kind of two page on the 

pain and suffering that Viktor Bout has brought to the poor people 

of Africa, I would send the law firm. And then you give me the lawyer. What I will do is I will write him a letter and tell him that 

his client has been involved in all these activities and the pain, and 

the suffering, and the agony that he has created. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
338 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 794 67259B.038
339 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 795 67259B.039
340 

Mr. WOLF. With that, I have some others we are going to submit 

for the record. But, Mr. Fattah, do you have any last questions? 

CYBERSECURITY

Mr. FATTAH. Let me just ask, because we have asked this I think 

of all of our other witnesses, about cybersecurity for your agency. 

Are there issues, challenges, and are there budget requests relative 

thereto? I heard you say something about not refreshing your computers. I am a little more interested in the security of your computer system. 

Ms. LEONHART. Well I will tell you that part of the budget request is $900,000. And that is to stand up, and I believe the FBI 

or a couple of other agencies may be requesting this as well, this 

is to help make sure our systems are secure. This is to check not 

only our automated systems, but this will be a program we can 

start to even check and see if we are being infiltrated anywhere 

from informants and employees. So it is $900,000 that would allow 

us to start a counterintelligence program, looking at our own operations. 

Mr. FATTAH. Over the last year have there been attempts to illegally access your system? 

Ms. LEONHART. I believe for Justice as a whole that there are always people attempting to get into our systems. 

Mr. FATTAH. So other than the generality of that, there have 

been no persistent or particular attacks on your security system, 

your computer system—— 

Ms. LEONHART. I am aware—— 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. That you can talk about? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am aware of we have been shut down a few 

times to protect, because of an intrusion that is always caught. I 

am not aware of anybody that has actually been able to penetrate 

us. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. And so you have this $900,000 request. And 

just for the record, I know my colleague raised this, there is a story 

in the New York Times today, about drones. They are not operated 

by the DEA. If they exist, they are operated by the Department of 

Defense or some other agency. 

Ms. LEONHART. We have none. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. I thank you. I think that is all of the questions that 

we have. There will be a number for the record. And then if we can 

have the other follow-up information, like the law firms, that information, the prescription drug issues, so we can write the governor. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. And then if you could keep us informed after we write 

the governor whether he will meet with you. 

But if you can let us know what takes place with regard to that. 

And then keep us informed of these other things. 

With regard to that, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate 

the good work your people do. Thanks. 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you for your help. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
341 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 800 67259B.040
342 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 801 67259B.041
343 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 802 67259B.042
344 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 803 67259B.043
345 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 804 67259B.044
346 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 805 67259B.045
347 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 806 67259B.046
348 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 807 67259B.047
349 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 808 67259B.048
350 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 809 67259B.049
351 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 810 67259B.050
352 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 811 67259B.051
353 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 812 67259B.052
354 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 813 67259B.053
355 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 814 67259B.054
356 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 815 67259B.055
357 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 816 67259B.056

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(359) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011. 

U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS 

WITNESS 

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS 

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. WOLF. Welcome to the hearing. The hearing will begin. 

Over the past 25 years, the U.S. prison and jail population has 

skyrocketed to an all-time high, with 2.3 million people incarcerated. We are the world’s incarceration leader, confining 23 percent 

of the world’s prisoners. 

Our federal prison population is experiencing incredible growth. 

The Bureau of Prisons is nearly 40 percent over capacity and its 

population is expected to grow by an additional 14,000 inmates 

over the next two years at a cost to taxpayers of $27,000 per inmate per year. 

The President’s budget requests increases of 10 percent for the 

prisons and detention accounts just to keep pace. The budget requests $6.8 billion for the Federal Prison System, more than $600 

million over the current levels. 

I am sympathetic to the challenges the Bureau of Prisons faces 

as the inmate population continues to grow, because by law they 

must provide for the custody of all inmates. BOP does not control 

the number of inmates sentenced to prison and unlike other federal 

agencies cannot limit assigned workloads and thereby control operating costs. 

We must still seek ways to reduce costs and I think the Administration is not doing enough on this to be honest with you, nor did 

the previous Administration do enough. There is a lot of rhetoric, 

a lot of talk, a lot of talk about work, a lot of talk about Drug 

Courts, but nothing really ever changes except the situation gets 

worse and gets worse and gets worse. 

One serious problem influencing our prison population is recidivism. The Bureau of Justice statistics has estimated that twothirds of all released prisoners will commit new offenses within 

three years of their release. 

I believe that Director Lappin and I likely share the goals of reducing costs of prison populations and crimes. Just a few weeks 

ago, this subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the growing body 

of evidence that suggested we can—if we really make an effort— 

turn around the failure rates associated with our outdated reentry 

system. 

Organizations like the Pew Center on the States and the Council 

of State Governments are promoting innovative efforts that are 

being tailored to specific populations and jurisdictions. I hope that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
360 

some of these lessons, if not all, will be applied to our Federal Prison System. 

In light of this, I am pleased to see the emphasis that the budget 

request places on reentry programs, specifically residential drug 

abuse treatment and occupational education. And we have a number of questions to ask with regard to that. 

Before your testimony, let me just recognize the ranking member, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

I look forward to your testimony. It is true, as the chairman said, 

that the percentage of prisoners in federal custody—if you go back 

to 1980, you had about almost 10 percent of what you have now, 

so it is just growing each and every year. 

You do not have anything to do with how many people you have 

in custody, but it is obviously a very stark reality that among the 

210,000 you have significant numbers involved in organized gangs 

and other levels of activity that lead many to believe that out 

there, after that average ten-year sentence, that there are going to 

be further challenges for society even once they are released. 

So I look forward to your testimony and I welcome you again to 

the committee. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Your full statement will appear in the record and you can proceed as you see appropriate. 

OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, sir. It certainly is a pleasure to be back. 

And good morning to you, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member 

Fattah, and other Members of the subcommittee. 

Let me begin by thanking you for your strong support of the Bureau of Prisons. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for 

the Bureau of Prisons. 

I assure you we will continue to exercise restraint and good judgment in executing the budget you provide by continuing to contain 

costs while maintaining a high level of service. 

Continuing increases in the inmate population pose substantial 

ongoing challenges for our agency. A net increase of approximately 

5,600 inmates is expected in fiscal year 2012. We believe the inmate population will continue to grow for the foreseeable future 

and so will the Bureau of Prisons’ challenges to provide for safe inmate incarceration and care, and for the safety of Bureau of Prison 

staff and surrounding communities. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request builds upon the 2011 Continuing Resolution level. For the Bureau of Prisons, this means the 

starting point for this budget is the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

All adjustments to the base and program change line items are 

built to bridge from the fiscal year 2010 level to the fiscal year 

2012 requirements. 

The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau 

of Prisons is $6.724 billion for the Salaries and Expenses account. 

This request includes program enhancements to begin the activation processes at three institutions, FCI Berlin, New Hampshire; a 

secure female facility at FCI Aliceville, Alabama; one acquired faVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
361 

cility USP Thomson, Illinois; also to increase current staffing levels 

at existing institutions; and to expand residential drug abuse treatment programs and provide occupational education. It also contains offsets including $41 million for a proposed legislative initiative which, if passed, would allow additional good conduct time credits for inmates. 

For the Buildings and Facilities, or B&F account, $99.4 million is requested, and a rescission of $35 million in prior years’ new 

construction balances is proposed. 

Our highest priorities continue to be ensuring the safety of federal inmates, staff, and surrounding communities; increasing onboard staffing at Bureau of Prisons’ correctional institutions; reducing inmate crowding to help prevent violence by adding additional 

bed space; maintaining existing institutions in an adequate state of 

repair; maximizing the use of inmate reentry programs such as 

education and drug treatment in order to reduce recidivism; and 

seeking long-term strategies to control population growth. 

Crowding is of special concern at higher security institutions. 

These facilities confine a disproportionate number of inmates who 

are prone to violence. 

The fiscal year 2012 B&F budget request would not provide new 

beds for the projected future inmate population growth. In order to 

reduce crowding, one or more of the following must occur: reduce 

the number of inmates or the length of time inmates spend in prison; expand inmate housing at existing facilities; contract with private prisons for additional bed space for low-security criminal 

aliens; and acquire and/or construct and staff additional institutions. 

The continued professionalism and dedication of our staff has 

been critical to the Bureau’s ability to continue to operate safe and 

secure facilities. We are managing many more inmates than our 

prisons were designed to house and also preparing more inmates 

to transition back into their communities. 

Currently, there is a hiring freeze throughout the Department of 

Justice and all of its components. As of January 29, 2011, the Bureau of Prisons has 36,280 Salaries and Expenses staff on board, 

which is 90 percent of the fiscal year 2010 authorized level. 

The challenges have never been greater. The Bureau is managing severely crowded institutions with more inmates who have 

histories of serious violence and more inmates who have proven to 

be confrontational, resistant to authority, and disrespectful of prison rules. 

Chairman Wolf, this concludes my formal statement. And, again, 

I thank you, Mr. Fattah, and the subcommittee for your support of 

our agency. 

As I have indicated in my testimony, the BOP faces many challenges as the inmate population continues to grow. The fiscal year 

2012 President’s request moves us a step further toward adequate 

staffing and bed space needed to meet the requirements of the increasing inmate population. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

Members of the subcommittee. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
362 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 825 here 67259B.057
363 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 826 here 67259B.058
364 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 827 here 67259B.059
365 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 828 here 67259B.060
366 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 829 here 67259B.061
367 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 830 here 67259B.062
368 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 831 here 67259B.063
369 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 832 here 67259B.064
370 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 833 here 67259B.065
371 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 834 here 67259B.066
372 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 835 here 67259B.067
373 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 836 here 67259B.068
374 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. If the chairman would yield for one second. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Mr. FATTAH. I have Secretary Chu, from the Department of Energy, testifying before Energy and Water and I am going to step 

out for a minute. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Mr. FATTAH. And Congressman Schiff is going to take the ranking position. 

And I do share all the concerns of the chairman about reduced 

costs. And 26 percent of the people in your prisons are not even 

American citizens, so there is a lot for us to deal with. 

But, unfortunately, given the situation in Japan, I feel a necessity to go to the Energy and Water Committee. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. No. I understand. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. All right. 

CLARIFICATION OF OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

You said it is a step. Is it a baby step or a giant step? You said 

in your testimony you are taking a step. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is a small step. 

Mr. WOLF. A baby step kind of? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is a step. It is not as big a step as I would like 

to have. And, again, I think it is all driven by, as you have indicated, the number of inmates that continue to come into the Federal Prison System. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, I could go more, but I think we will from 

some of the questions. 

It seems like we have been here before. Again, this is not directed toward you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I know. I understand. 

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. WOLF. You know that. But it just seems that this is the way 

it has always been. 

Most state corrections systems begin their reform process by providing outside experts with corrections data to conduct comprehensive analysis. I believe it is imperative that experts at BOP and 

outside government fully understand the drivers of population, 

costs and recidivism so that we can address overcrowding, costs 

and reduce recidivism and increase public safety. 

You said that really in your testimony in some respect, but that 

is why I requested that you make available the BOP data that will 

be necessary for a thorough analysis. 

Have you read this? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I have, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Great. What is your reaction to it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I found it very favorable and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Would love to work with you and others 

on a similar initiative. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
375 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. What else can the Department do to advance 

the comprehensive analysis of both its own policies and establish 

the best practices that will ultimately reduce recidivism and corrections spending? 

Basically what I am trying to say is if you have got all the best 

ideas and you are going to be leaving in four years, I mean, I do 

not know, you are not going to be here 20 years from now, so—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. You are a career person, you have a lot of expertise, 

I have a lot of respect for you, if somebody said, ‘‘okay, Lappin, you 

have got four years to turn this baby around, what are you going 

to do?’’ 

If you took the very best that was being done by Mitch Daniels 

in Indiana, by the governor of Texas and what they are supposedly 

doing, what Pew says, what the Council of State Governments 

says, what you know in your heart of hearts, what would you do? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, you are supposed to start these out with 

an easy question. 

Mr. WOLF. But that becomes, fundamentally that is the 

whole—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I wish I had all the answers. And I appreciate your 

confidence certainly in the Bureau of Prisons and how we have 

managed in the past. But I think we can learn a lot from this exercise, from this process. 

In my opinion, it involves more than just the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons. I look forward to providing you the 

information you have requested. It is going to be large in volume. 

It is going to be complicated. But we really welcome the opportunity to work with you on analyzing and assessing that data to 

look for the direction to go. 

I think it involves more than just the Bureau of Prisons and the 

Department of Justice. As reflected in there, it needs to include 

representatives from the judicial system and from the legislative 

branch because it appears to me that they collectively worked together on a number of the initiatives that were of benefit to them 

and resulted in their success. 

It is clear that a lot of the work that they did was in the earlier 

stages of the criminal justice process with pre-trial detention, diversion, with probation, with a number of other issues. 

I think in the federal system, we have to step back and take a 

look at sentencing. As indicated by Congressman Fattah, 30 years 

ago, we had 26,000 inmates. Today we have 210,000 inmates. I 

think there are two common factors there. 

One, the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act that 

resulted in longer sentences for the inmates that were coming to 

the prison system at the time; and then second was the addition 

of federal offenses, traditionally state offenses that became federal 

offenses with the addition of longer sentencing and mandatory 

minimums. And consequently we saw these two waves of significant increases. 

So I think it needs to be a collective effort on the parts of the 

executive, legislative, and judicial branch. I think we need to reach 

out to the Sentencing Commission, to the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts. We work closely with them as we anaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
376 

lyze this data to look at what vehicles we may be able to pursue 

to alleviate some of the crowding and some of the ongoing increases 

of inmates into the federal system. 

I could not agree with you more. You have been year after year 

after year, along with Congressman Mollohan, supportive of ‘‘determining, once they are in prison, what should we be doing for 

them?’’ Especially for those willing participants who recognize the 

skills they lack such that we can provide the programs to improve 

those skills and consequently see fewer of them coming back to 

prison. 

GOOD CONDUCT TIME LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

And so I think we need to, for those that end up in prison, we 

need to continue to emphasize participation in programs. As referenced in my full testimony, there are a couple of pieces of legislation that the Administration has moved forward that you should 

have, if you do not have them yet, that would encourage more participation in these programs. 

And it is leverage that I think would be overwhelmingly supported in moving forward, urging more inmates into programs that 

we know improve skills—like working in Prison Industries, getting 

a GED, getting a vocational certificate, getting drug and alcohol 

treatment, addressing some of their social skills, decisionmaking, 

anger management that many of them lack—such that when they 

do leave prison and we can provide a more supportive transition, 

they are more likely to be successful. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why can’t you force that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We—— 

Mr. WOLF. You know, they are in prison. They have done something. They violated the law. They are not a group of boy scouts. 

They are in prison. So you are in prison. You are going to work. 

We are going to get you your GED. We are going to have rehabilitation. We are going to be tough on you. 

But the purpose of being tough on inmates is almost the same 

in some respects, as you are with your children, in order that they 

will be better persons. So when you get out, you can have a family 

and live happily ever after. 

I mean, when I go to the prisons, no one is working anymore. If 

someone goes to a federal prison, they ought to be working, period. 

And I do not mean the laundries. If they do not have their GED, 

GED class ought to be mandatory, absolutely mandatory. 

Why can’t we do that? They are in prison. They are in your custody. It is not like you are doing something bad to them. You are 

actually pulling them along. Most people are redeemable. There are 

some that are not redeemable. We all know that. We cannot go into 

this with a kind of pollyannaish view, but there are a number that 

are redeemable. And so it is sort the initiative, you know. You get 

them here and you do this. And, finally, these people turn into good 

citizens. I mean, why can’t we force that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. First of all, all the inmates do have jobs that are 

medically able to work. It is complicated—— 

Mr. WOLF. I walked through one of your prisons a couple of years 

ago. There were a lot of guys sitting around playing checkers, doing 

this, doing that. I think they had a little morning kind of drill, but 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
377 

they were not really learning anything that when they got out, 

they could say, okay, I am going to go and work for Siemens or I 

am going to work for X. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, there’s work, education, and vocational training, three separate programs, so let’s just focus on work. And it 

may be—— 

Mr. WOLF. Now, if we’re looking at the optimum, the summum 

bonum, how many are doing work, rehabilitation, and how many 

are meeting the capacity to really turn this criminal into a good citizen, who would have an opportunity to make a contribution and 

live a normal life when they get out? So if they are the three cylinders, are the cylinders going up to 87 percent, 93 percent, 13 percent? Where are they? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Based on my experience, about seven out of the ten 

inmates in our custody are willing to participate in those programs. 

Mr. WOLF. But, I mean, how many are not willing? How many 

are really doing what they could be doing to turn themselves into 

a decent—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can give you the statistics of how many are participating in programs and how many are working. I would say of the 

seven out of those ten, the majority of those seven are participating 

to a great extent in work, education, and vocational training. There 

are three out of ten who tend to resist. 

Could I force them into a classroom, could I make them go in 

there and sit down in the classroom even though they did not want 

to be there? We could. It would probably be detrimental to the 

other participants. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, couldn’t you say to them, folks, you are not 

going to participate, but you will spend every single day that you 

have been sentenced here, and then you who want to participate, 

we are working on good time—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. We are working on this. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. WOLF. You are going to be able to get, I mean—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct. There is little flexibility for us under 

the current statute. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, nobody—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. They get—— 

Mr. WOLF. Nobody from the Administration has come up and 

said to me, Wolf, but we want to—I mean, maybe they have to Mr. 

Schiff. They have not to me. We want to really deal with this issue, 

so this is a priority. We are pushing this. We have been by to see 

Lamar Smith fifteen times. We are talking to you. We are talking 

to Mr. Conyers. This is our priority. I do not think that is happening, not under this Administration, nor under the previous Administration. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think that is happening under this Administration 

more so than the prior administrations. I think you have two pieces 

of legislation that reflect that. 

One, to increase the original statute of good time from what they 

now get, 47 days—— 

Mr. WOLF. Now, how fast is it moving? Where is it? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
378 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think both pieces of legislation have been sent over 

to The Hill. 

Mr. WOLF. But have hearings been held? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not believe they have, no. 

So there are two pieces of legislation. One to increase the amount 

of good time under the current—— 

Mr. WOLF. Everything you are testifying on is predicated on the 

idea that they are going to pass, correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are absolutely correct. Right now the budget re- flects that it will pass and they have already taken $41 million assuming it does pass. And—— 

Mr. WOLF. And can you guarantee us that it will pass? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I cannot. I cannot without a doubt. Certainly, I am 

hopeful and I am encouraged by it because the first piece is more 

of a relief valve. For inmates who are behaving, for inmates who 

are complying, they get out a little earlier. The second—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, it is just a little earlier, too, isn’t it? I mean—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. It adds seven days—— 

Mr. WOLF. For a year. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. For a year. I mean, is it significant? No. 

Mr. WOLF. No. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But is it helpful? Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. But why if it was—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. The second piece adds another 60 days on top of that 

54 days. To earn that good time, to earn that 60 days, you must 

be participating in the programs that we recommend you participate in, just as you have indicated or else you do not get that good 

time. 

So when they come into the prison system today, they get assessed, and we identify the skills they lack. There are nine skills 

we assess. We look at daily living skills, mental health, wellness, 

interpersonal, academic, cognitive, vocational, career, leisure and 

character skills. 

They do an assessment. We identify those skills that they lack. 

We then will provide programs at every location that they can participate in to improve those skill sets. 

If they participate in those programs successfully, they can earn 

that 60 days. If they do not, they cannot earn the 60 days. 

Mr. WOLF. If the bill passes? 

Mr. LAPPIN. If the bill passes, that is correct. 

If they earn the good time because they participated—— 

Mr. WOLF. Has the bill been introduced in the Senate yet? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not believe so. 

If they do earn the 60 days and then misbehave, we can take 

that good time away. 

That’s one thing we did not foresee back in the 1980s when we, 

the Federal Prison System had more flexibility on good time, the 

granting of good time and the removal of good time. When that was 

eliminated, a consequence today is that we do not have as much 

leverage with inmates not only for those who behave, but for those 

who misbehave, because the only severe type of punishment today 

in prisons is isolation. 

Mr. WOLF. Does this bill take you back to the 1980s? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not quite. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
379 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. It will not drop below two-thirds. 

Mr. WOLF. But why wouldn’t you want to go back to when you 

had that flexibility? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Obviously given the—is this risky? This is risky for 

everyone. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, what percentage of—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. And we are trying to take small steps—— 

Mr. WOLF. What percentage are violent and nonviolent? I mean, 

the violent guys, it is a different story. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is. And we are probably about six out of ten, 60 

percent probably fall into the violent category. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. So 40 percent—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. About 40 percent, my guess is, are not as violent. 

It depends on how you want to define violence. 

Mr. WOLF. And I was going to say—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. If you define violence as carrying a weapon—— 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Then probably more than that. But if 

you define carrying a weapon without using it in the commission 

of a crime, probably more 60/40. So, again, on the other hand, we 

know that these programs that we provide, as we have done the 

research over the years, have a positive impact even on violent inmates. 

So even the violent inmates who participate and improve those 

skills tend to be far more successful upon release than those that 

do not. So there is really no differentiation between nonviolent and 

violent. Certainly there is a perception, a concern of that, but certainly the research we have done on inmates who participate in 

these programs reflects that it has had a positive impact on both 

groups of inmates upon release from prison. 

Mr. WOLF. So why wouldn’t you go back and say we are going 

to take one prison in the west, one in the east, and we are going 

to go back and use the 1980s standards and then we are going to 

take—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Those are certainly options that can be considered. 

Mr. WOLF. I do not know that your bill is going to pass though. 

Nobody—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I have no idea. 

Mr. WOLF. Nobody up here—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are absolutely correct. 

Mr. WOLF. Nobody up here is talking to me. Nobody is saying, 

boy, this is—nobody from the Administration has been by to see 

me. I am a Republican, so maybe they do not want to deal with 

me. But nobody has been by to say this is really a priority. 

And when the Attorney General testified last week, I did not 

sense that there was a fervor that he was really committed. We are 

at a crisis. And if Pew and others can do this, if some of the governors can do it—and you probably have more resources than the 

average state has. You certainly have better-run prisons than 

many of the states. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
380 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, it has taken eight 

years to convince somebody to go down this route. This Administration has agreed to do this. I think that is significant. 

Now, it is early in the process. This is not the first time we have 

had this debate about the need to step back and reevaluate who 

is going to prison and for how long. I agree with you. There has 

been resistance on both sides. 

This is the first group that has gotten this far to agree to draft 

and submit, and maybe it is just getting over here, and maybe it 

is yet to come, the interaction from them on that issue, but I am 

encouraged by it. I am not overly optimistic yet because you are 

right. It has not passed. But certainly for the last 20 years, 25 

years, the alternative has only been build, build, build. And I question whether we will ever build our way out of this. 

So, I am thankful that they are stepping back, reevaluating as 

this report urged people to do, maybe not to that degree yet, but 

I think it is a good first step towards reevaluating how many get 

incarcerated and for how long. 

THE NATIONAL SUMMIT ON JUSTICE REINVESTMENT

Mr. WOLF. Well, why couldn’t you take this report and apply it 

to the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can. I think we can do that. I do not think it can 

just be done by the Bureau of Prisons. It is going to take support 

of—— 

Mr. WOLF. Why doesn’t the Attorney—is there anybody here 

from the Attorney General’s Office? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I know the Attorney General has met—— 

Mr. WOLF. Why doesn’t the Attorney General put together a 

group on a fast march to apply the principles of the Pew and the 

Council of Governments and try to get this—I mean, this ought to 

be a bipartisan or kind of a nonpartisan thing. 

I consider myself a conservative Republican and tough on crime. 

You know, my dad was a policeman. So if I can do it, maybe you 

and Representative Conyers from the other side would do it. 

Why couldn’t they take this and say, ‘‘okay, we are going to replicate, if not across the whole prison system, in a couple prisons to 

see if this would really work? Is it working? Has Indiana really 

done as good a job and have some of the states done a pretty good 

job that you look at those and you yearn to see if you had that 

same ability and that same’’—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is being assessed. I know the Attorney General 

has met with these folks. But I want to back up here a minute. 

Again, this is more than a review or reform of prison systems. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, get the judges in there too. 

Mr. LAPPIN. This has to be a criminal justice initiative. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, get the judges in there too. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Because once they are sentenced to a period of incarceration, our options are minimal. 

Mr. WOLF. But you have an easier time because you have the 

federal judiciary, and you can call the chief justice and ask him to 

make this a priority with regard to the judicial system. You have 

the Justice Department. It is the Attorney General of the United 

States in addition to the judicial conference, if you will. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
381 

And, you know, I think you would call the Supreme Court, the 

chief justice, and say we would like the priority of the court system 

to be on a force march to do this by the end of this year. I do not 

mean by the end of the summer but by the end of this year. So we 

have that flexibility and this ability to do it. 

GOOD CONDUCT TIME LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Now, I am going to go to Mr. Schiff, but let me just ask one or 

two more questions on the inmates. Currently inmates who participate in Federal Prison Industries, educational programs, and occupation and vocational training cannot earn sentence reduction opportunities in exchange for their successful participation. 

Would this legislation change that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am sorry. What—— 

Mr. WOLF. Currently inmates participating in Federal Prison Industries, as little as there now currently are—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Educational programming and occupational and vocational training cannot earn sentence reduction opportunities in exchange for their successful participation. 

You allege that a proposal would change this? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Has that ever been done before? Was that the way it 

was in the 1980s? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, I do not exactly recall how it was framed 

in the 1980s. But inmates who participate in work-related skills 

building activities, education, vocational training, other treatment 

programs would benefit from this good time credit as long as they 

sincerely participated and completed the programs. They could 

earn up to the 60 days. So that would change. 

There are a couple of groups that it would not affect because they 

are already getting reductions. So if you are already getting credit 

for drug treatment, you cannot double dip. So there are a few exceptions, but most of the inmates out there who participate in 

these programs would earn credit for their participation. And those 

that did not would not get it. And, again, if you earned it and you 

misbehaved, you could lose it. And I think that is some of the leverage that—— 

Mr. WOLF. Give me the optimum of somebody in there for ten 

years, if they were hitting on every cylinder and went to the Prison 

Industries and were involved in GED or doing everything that they 

could be doing, they were an A student, if you will, what would 

happen to that ten-year sentence? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Reduced by 600 days. So they could earn—I do not 

say they get the entire credit because they have got to participate 

for a while for—— 

Mr. WOLF. But the max they would get would be—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. The max someone could get would be 60 days, an additional 60 days per year. So that is about 600. That is about a couple years. 

Mr. WOLF. And how was that number picked? Was that 60 

days—— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
382 

Mr. LAPPIN. This was the first step. No different than the information we are providing you to do the analysis. This is kind of the 

first step. 

Mr. WOLF. So that was just a number? Somebody said let’s pick 

60? It sounds like it is—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, no. We looked at what—we are trying to be 

reasonable. 

Mr. WOLF. Any studies done and other—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We did not want to raise the ire of the folks that 

are concerned about letting people out too quickly. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I do not want to do that either and let me just 

stipulate: I am very tough on crime. And so I am not looking at 

letting people out there—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I know. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. That are violent. Also, though, I will tell 

you, and I have talked to prisoners that tell me they believe the 

prison system is a graduate program to learn how to do crime. We 

are putting some young people in, particularly on a first offense, 

that are going into prison and learning about crime. One, they are 

joining MS-13. They are joining gangs. Some of these prisons, you 

join a gang or you are in trouble. 

And I have been disappointed. I have just got to say it. I was not 

going to say it. But on this whole prison rape thing, the failure of 

the Attorney General and the Justice Department to aggressively 

move on that. 

I saw a piece the other day. It is so long. I can submit it in for 

the record, but—and I want to make sure I am right. I will correct 

it if I am wrong. It said that the failure to move will result in, the 

last sentence said, over 200,000 being raped in prison for the failure to aggressively move. If I were the Attorney General, man, I 

would have moved on it. 

So 60—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. They would serve, at minimum, they have to serve 

67 percent of their sentence. 

Mr. WOLF. Now, if—— 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Under these two proposals, inmates 

must serve at least 67 percent of their sentence. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
383 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 4 here 67259C1.004
384 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 5 here 67259C1.005
385 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 6 here 67259C1.006
386 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 7 here 67259C1.007
387 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 8 here 67259C1.008
388 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 9 here 67259C1.009
389 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 10 here 67259C1.010
390 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 11 here 67259C1.011
391 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 12 here 67259C1.012
392 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 13 here 67259C1.013
393 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 14 here 67259C1.014
394 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 15 here 67259C1.015
395 

INMATE WORK OPPORTUNITIES

Mr. WOLF. And my last question before I go to Mr. Schiff, if everyone said, okay, Mr. Lappin, we are signing up, we are going to 

be a model, do you now have the work for them? Has the Prison 

Industries been so decimated? 

Today, if everyone says they are lining up in all the federal prisons around the country to participate in Harley Lappin’s program, 

do you have the work for them to do? Decent work where they can 

learn a skill? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Today? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not with more inmates housed in prisons than they 

were built to hold. So that is the complicating factor of work, productive work opportunities. When you have more inmates housed 

in a prison than it was designed to house—to have to manage, it 

is complicated. It is—you end up having to make work. You do not 

want to do that. 

So are there meaningful work opportunities today? I do not think 

they are as meaningful as they should be, in part because there are 

more inmates housed there than was intended and consequently 

there are only so many jobs that you can create in a 30-acre site. 

And so, I mean, it is reality. I mean, those of us running prisons 

face this every single day when we have more inmates in prisons 

than they were designed to house. We are in that situation right 

now. 

So can we provide the work? Yes. Is it as meaningful as we 

would like it to be? I do not think that it is, but that goes back 

to the basic problem, you know, your concern over these young men 

and women coming to prison for the first time. Again, I think that 

is where the justice reinvestment initiative plays an important role. 

Is that the only option? But that has to be decided before someone 

is prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to a period of incarceration. 

That is why it has to be a collective involvement of the judicial, 

legislative, and executive branches to deal with this aspect of who 

goes to prison and, if so, for how long. And I agree there are probably cases where there may have been alternatives. They currently 

may not be available in the federal system. Should they be available? In my opinion, they probably should be available. And we 

have got to work towards that situation. 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, if I could just, Mr. Schiff, just follow-up 

on that one question. I have a whole series on Prison Industries. 

But if Federal Prison Industries entered into partnerships with 

private businesses, we could bring some manufacturing back. I had 

a bill in that would allow the prisons, the Federal Prison Industries 

to work with companies to bring back products that were no longer 

made in the United States. We called it Operation Condor. Remember the condor bird that was extinct and we brought the bird back? 

We had different people oppose it. 

Would you support that whereby we could aggressively have arrangements with the private sector to make and manufacture products that are no longer made in the United States, so you are not 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
396 

in competition, and if you do, do you have that capacity now to 

move ahead based on this legislation that you are sending up? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We would have the capacity to do that given how 

Prison Industries operates with non-appropriated funds. We have 

the factories. And, yes, I would support any legislative initiative 

that would allow us to create more productive work opportunities 

for inmates in prisons as long as it does not negatively impact businesses in our own communities. 

Mr. WOLF. How could it have a negative impact if you are making something no longer made in the United States. So if you were 

making television sets—we had Emerson at one time that was interested in coming into Lorton Reformatory which was a hell hole. 

People opposed this. I mean, you are not competing with any company that is currently making that product. So the unions would 

not be hurt. The business would not be hurt. I just do not see how 

it would have a negative—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. You and I have had this discussion, and I know how 

supportive you are. 

Mr. WOLF. But nothing ever happens. 

Mr. LAPPIN. There is another side to this story that I am sure 

we will encounter. 

Mr. WOLF. What is the other side of the story? What is it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. There will be an argument that we are affecting 

some businesses, some professions in the United States. It has happened in virtually every product area that we have, even as sensitive as we have been to that issue. But we need to explore this. 

We need to look at legislation that would allow us to do this. 

Do I think it can be done? I do. And I think there may have to 

be an agreement to striking a balance, because this is a societal 

issue. I mean, if we do not teach these young men and women, and 

some of them are older men and women, work skills, and I am not 

talking about getting into a factory and learning how to sew or 

learning how to do this, I am talking about just like you said, you 

set your alarm clock, you arrive at work on time. When you are at 

work, you produce, and you are held accountable for a quality product. When you are at work, you have a relationship with peers, 

that you make good decisions even when you do not agree such 

that you can be successful in the workplace. You learn to work 

under a supervisor. You take direction even if you do not necessarily agree with that supervisor. These are the skills that they 

learn in those environments. 

Mr. WOLF. What was the high number of people working in Federal Prison Industries at its zenith and what is it now? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, in the recent past, three years ago, we had 

23,000 inmates working in the factory every day. 

Mr. WOLF. When? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Three years ago. 

Mr. WOLF. And what is it now? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Fifteen thousand. 

Mr. WOLF. And what was it, 23,000? What was it at its zenith? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I mean, years ago, before we had this huge surge, 

we had probably 40 percent of the inmates who were in federal 

prison working in Prison Industries at one time. 

Mr. WOLF. And now what—— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
397 

Mr. LAPPIN. But this is back when we were small. 

Mr. WOLF. And now what percentage is working? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Nine percent. 

Mr. WOLF. Forty to nine. Wow. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Schiff. 

INMATE PROGRAMS AND RECIDIVISM

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director, for 

being here. You have a tough job. I do not envy your responsibilities. And I know that when you get first time offenders, you know, 

a lot of the damage has been done. You have little role in preventing the first time offenders from getting there and little opportunity to affect them once they leave. But you have an important 

role in the interim. And I think the chairman is right to focus on 

recidivism because that is something that you have some power to 

influence. I mean, obviously when people are released from your facilities what kind of wrap around services they get whenever they 

are released to wherever they are released will have a big impact, 

maybe a bigger impact. But I am curious about a couple of things. 

What is the average period of incarceration in a federal facility? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think we are at about nine years now. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Nine years? Wow. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Wow. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. In your view, what is the most significant two or 

three things that you can do while you have someone during those 

nine years to affect the recidivism rate? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You guys are supposed to give me a little easier 

questions. You cannot do any of this, folks, without safe prisons. If 

people are unwilling to walk out on that compound on their own 

every day and participate in the programs that are offered, you 

have got a problem to begin with. We have had a problem with this 

in the last three years. One reason why we have been urging people on this Thomson issue, and I will get to that in just a minute, 

but the first thing any prison system I think will tell you is, you 

are not going to run programs and provide those opportunities unless inmates are willing to walk out and participate openly. Fortunately, most of our inmates are. There is a small percentage that 

are unwilling and resist. 

Beyond that, you have got to have the programs available, and 

they have got to be credible, quality programs. You know, it is not 

just show up and hang out in the classroom. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But I guess what I am trying to get at is, if you 

identify by type, what is the most effective thing you do to attack 

recidivism? I will give you my gut impression. You can tell me if 

I am way off. I would put very near the top of the list drug treatment. If you have somebody that goes into custody with an addiction, and that addiction is not treated, and they are released back 

into the population, we ought to be surprised when they do not 

recidivate. So I would say one of the most effective things we could 

do is make sure that anyone who has a drug problem gets drug 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
398 

treatment. Work skills, you know, might be at the top of the list. 

But I do not know, I am guessing. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I understand now. Beyond a safe environment, beyond a rule oriented environment, because that is the first thing 

you have got to get people to do. They have got to understand that 

while you are here you are going to follow the rules. So you have 

got to have a discipline program and an understanding of that. 

Once you get beyond that without a doubt our drug treatment 

opportunities, the mental health opportunities, have a huge impact. 

And I think that is reflected in the number of inmates that participate in our intensive residential drug treatment program. And to 

give you an example, about 40 percent of the inmates in our custody we believe have a drug and/or alcohol addiction. And of those, 

92 percent are volunteering for treatment in the drug and alcohol 

treatment program even though not all of them get any time off 

their sentence for it. So, of that group that is participating, of the 

18,000, about 60 percent actually get some time off their sentence. 

But 40 percent get no time off their sentence. They are there because they understand they have a problem and over the years 

they have observed the positive impact this program has had on 

peers. So I think you have to attract them. 

GED and vocational training without a doubt have impact. We 

do not get as much eagerness in some of those programs. But any 

of those programs that focus on daily learning, living skills, good 

decision making, many of which these programs incorporate, are effective. UNICOR, I have described. I mean, it is a bit controversial. 

But when inmates arrive in UNICOR their expectations are set 

from the very beginning. One, you are going to show up, you are 

going to participate, you are going to be a team player. You are 

going to get along with your peers, and you are going to deal with 

your supervisor. If they do not do that, they lose that privilege. We 

have very few inmates who, once they get into UNICOR, lose their 

jobs. Because they like the environment, they like the fact that 

they are making a little more money. Consequently, they learn 

these skills. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And does the BOP, I assume you have statistics on 

what the recidivism rate is for people who were in drug treatment 

and what the recidivism rate is for people who were not in drug 

treatment? You know, based on your statistics what are the most 

effective programs that you have at attacking recidivism? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We see about a 16 percent reduction in recidivism 

for inmates who participate in drug treatment compared to inmates 

similar to them. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Who do not participate in it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We see a 33 percent reduction in inmates who get 

a vocational skill. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I am sorry, 33 percent? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 33 percent, compared to inmates who, just like them, 

who do not get a vocational skill. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So the job skills are twice—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is right. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
399 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. Twice as effective as even the drug 

treatment? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sixteen percent for all education in general, and we 

look at education and vocation, when you combine it, it is about 16 

percent. And a 24 percent reduction in people who work in prison 

industries. So we are seeing a reduction of, beyond our standard recidivism rate of about 24 percent for those inmates who work in 

prison industries, I think even for as little as six months. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Explain if you would, you mentioned vocational ed 

as being 30 percent and job training as being twenty-something 

percent. Is that on top of the 30 percent? Or are those a subset of 

one or the other? How are you dividing between vocational and 

jobs? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And jobs? We see jobs being work related skill enhancement. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We see vocational as being—I am teaching them 

something that they can leave prison and use to get a job. Now 

they may learn that in their job as well. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But the vocational education is I am teaching them 

a skill. I am teaching them to be a plumber—— 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. A carpenter, a draftsman, an auto mechanic, whichever it is we provide. Some places we have cosmetology. There is a variety of vocational training. So it is teaching 

them a skill that can transfer from that experience to a job in the 

community. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And that is even more effective than the actual on 

the job training that you have? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And unfortunately it has probably the least participation. Because what happens is, they do not get paid. Okay? So 

here they have got a job in prison industries, or they have got a 

job elsewhere, and they are making money. And they have to leave 

that job, they become part time workers, to do the vocational training. Now some inmates who are wise, they will get a job in the 

evening because, as you mentioned, you went into a prison and the 

inmates were not working. Well there are evening and morning 

jobs. So some inmates will do both. They will say, ‘‘I want this job 

so I can go to school here.’’ And we certainly work with them on 

that. On the other hand, we do a lot of half day work, half day 

school, in part because it helps keep inmates more productive 

through the course of the day. And so it is a variety of things that 

work. We work with the inmates to try to address those needs. Believe you me, if they are coming in wanting to do those things, 

those are the easy ones. You know? Those are the ones that are 

much simpler because they have a desire. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Now is there room, take drug treatment, do you 

have the capacity to provide drug treatment to every inmate who 

wants it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We do now. There were two years in the recent past 

where we did not. And tragically we released 1,500, or 1,600 inmates in each of those years who volunteered, and we did not have 

enough seats at the table. It was tragic. It is not the case today. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
400 

Now we are still not there yet, I will be honest with you. Why do 

we want another $15 million? Because I want them to get the 

treatment earlier so they can get more, for those that are eligible, 

get more time off their sentence so they are out of the prison. 

So right now, given the backlog that we have, we are getting everybody treated. But we do not get them treated to take full advantage of the time they can get off their sentence. So they are sitting 

in prison three, four, five months longer than what they normally 

should be. We want to get enough drug treatment specialists and 

programs, and we can do that with this additional money, such 

that they finish that treatment in advance of them being eligible 

for what time they can have off their sentence. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And do you have the capacity to provide the vocational training to all that want it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we do. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So you have the capacity, although there is a backlog on the drug. You have the capacity and no backlog on the vocational training. 

Mr. LAPPIN. There are backlogs on vocational training but I 

think we have the capacity. I think the one that concerns me the 

most are productive work opportunities, especially when you have 

more inmates. When we are at 37 percent over rated capacity, you 

have got, there is only so much you can squeeze out of one place 

and only so many jobs. So let me give you an example—— 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well let me ask you this. This gets to the chairman’s 

question. Within the space that you have, have you maximized the 

job opportunities? Or because of the resistence and the competition 

with jobs in the private sector, you still have a lot of opportunity 

for growth in terms of what you could do in the space you have 

that is unoccupied? 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. We have the space, I think, work wise. It is, 

on the prison industries it is acquiring the work. You have got to 

have the work to—I mean, prison industries is a non-appropriated 

program. It is a company that must make a profit. And so, they are 

no different than anybody else out there. They have got to be a well 

run company. But we have got to have the work. 

And so, for example, tragically, we have closed nineteen factories 

in the last two years. So there’s nineteen factories right now sitting 

empty, where if we had the work we would be employing thousands 

more inmates. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Now I remember when this issue came up in Judiciary years ago, and you know, there were those that came in to oppose it because of the competition in the private sector. Can you 

remind me what the arguments are? Because as the chairman 

points out there are a lot of products we do not make here anymore. And it is hard for me to see, you know, in the case of a television set, you know, there may be competition I suppose in people 

that import TVs, distribute TVs, a foreign manufacturer. But now 

you have a cheaper prison made product. But there has to be a distribution network for those TVs, too, so you would think that the 

private sector would have a role to play there. So what is the argument that has been used against this? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
401 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well there are, let us exclude for a minute the folks 

that are very extreme and just do not want people working in prison. And let us deal with the folks that are amenable to that but 

they want to protect certain interests. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well and right now you can imagine how powerful 

that argument is. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Law abiding people trying to find a job, and—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. You know, I was just talking to my, 

wrote a note for my staff considering that the recidivism rates and 

the amount we have to pay per year to incarcerate, it would be 

cheaper to pay ex-cons to stay out of jail. If you gave them a 

monthly stipend that they could get as long as they stayed out of 

jail, it would be cheaper than what we do now. Of course, you could 

never do that. But, but yeah, tell me what—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Look, I can give you a couple of examples. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Other than the philosophically, yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Certainly, we make furniture and it has been a controversial area. There are pieces of furniture that are not made in 

this country. And we would argue that, well, let us make those 

pieces that you are buying from another country and we will stop 

making furniture. Let us focus on those things that we all know 

are not made in this country. We do not have to make the whole 

desk. We can make the pedestal. We could make the wheels. Whatever it is. But I think you have to get over this, the philosophical 

issue of the impact this has on an individual’s success upon release 

versus the fear that somebody is going to produce something. You 

open this door, and somebody is going to produce something that 

is going to compete with me and they can do it cheaper. We have 

to be concerned about that, without a doubt. 

On the other hand, it is not easy to run factories in prisons. Even 

though the labor is less expensive, it is very complicated to account 

for tools, equipment, material, where things are. So, those added 

expenses oftentimes result in us finding it difficult to compete with 

some of those businesses, because of the added burdens of running 

a factory in a prison given the security nature. So some of that is 

offset. But I think, you know, the argument continues to be that 

we are potentially going to take work away from other law abiding 

citizens’ businesses. And we should limit that as much as we can. 

I think there are ways we could do that if people are reasonable 

and sit down at the table and look at the options, the advantages, 

the disadvantages, I think we could get there. I am very confident. 

I assure you that the Bureau of Prisons and Federal Prison Industries will be a very flexible and willing participant in that discussion. We really do not care what job we do. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, that is not important. The issue is, we 

want the inmates in a factory. We want them coming to work. We 

want them producing something. I mean, I will be honest with you, 

some places you know what we do? We sort hangers. You know, we 

have partnered with a company. These hangers were going to the 

trash. Now the hangers come to a prison and we sort those hangers, we separate them. It is not complicated. But you know what 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
402 

it is? It gets them back in that environment. You are coming to 

work, here is your job for the day. Are they going to be able to 

transfer that skill into the community? Probably not. But they certainly can transfer the work skills they learn. 

GROWING PRISON POPULATION AND RECIDIVISM

Mr. SCHIFF. One last question. You mentioned the increase in 

the prison population over the last ten or twenty or thirty years. 

And it being again part of the function of mandatory minimums, 

and federalizing of otherwise state crimes. How much though has 

the recidivism rate changed? What was the recidivism rate twentyfive years ago? What is it today? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have seen about a 4 percent reduction. We are 

at about 40 percent on our last assessment. But you and I have 

talked a couple of times on the phone about how difficult a discussion this is. Because we have done this global recidivism research 

that reflected that we have seen a reduction of about, I think it is 

about 10 percent. It went from 44 percent to 40 percent over a ten 

year period. But as we discussed, there are so many factors that 

impact recidivism that are completely outside the control of the 

people running prisons. You are right. Today, you release an inmate and they are going out into an environment where there are 

not many jobs available. And they are competing with other very 

quality people. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Recidivism is down 4 percent in the last ten years? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We were about 44 percent the last time we did this, 

which was in the late nineties. Our recidivism rate was about 44 

percent. In the aftermath of that we were at 40 percent in the federal system. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And what were we twenty-five years ago? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not know if we even have that research. Yes, 

my concern, since the last study we have got more crowding, we 

have got more violent offenders. So I am not sure where we would 

be today. But my research guy says earlier than that we were in 

the mid forties. So we were probably at 45 percent, 46 percent, and 

it came down to about 40 percent. I am not sure where we would 

be today. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, but recidivism has stayed fairly stable for the 

last two or three decades. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So it is not the situation where we have had a doubling in the recidivism rate? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No. No. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. I am going to go to Mr. Austria. But you know, I think you are giving up too fast on the prison 

industry issue. It is really a bogus argument to say it is in competition with U.S. businesses. Since PNTR was given, China has taken 

6 million jobs from this country. And to have a man working on 

hangers is better than nothing but you cannot transfer that out. 

And we could, I could if I were head of Prison Industries I could 

find the necessary businesses that were no longer operating in the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
403 

United States, and there are so many, that I could have these men 

and women working. And frankly, you will never deal and you will 

never solve the recidivism rate and the violence of people coming 

out. Never, ever, in a Republican administration, in a Democratic 

administration, until you deal with the issue of work. Biblically, 

work is dignity. It is dignity. It is a biblical fact of life. A man or 

a woman without work does not have the dignity. And then you 

also give them the ability to transfer when they come out, and also 

to have a little bit of money so when they are in there they are 

sending it to their wife, to their children. They also have the potential for an element of restitution. There is also putting the money 

aside so when they get out you are not, and I know a prisoner that 

got out, you guys let him out, Saturday night, Anacostia, ten o’clock 

at night, with I forget how much he had in his pocket. And this 

was about a year and a half ago. Man, no chance. Back to the old 

neighborhood, back to Barry Farms, it is over. It is, I mean, that 

guy is coming back. Guaranteed, you put money on it, you would 

almost win. 

So unless you go and deal with that, and so you have got to 

stand up to the Congress. You have got to stand up to the administration. If there is no work the program will fundamentally fail, 

and these people are going to come out, and they are going to be 

violent, and they are going to do very, very bad things. Because you 

are not even telling the committee how many people go to prison, 

federal and state and local, and join gangs. How many go in, not 

part of MS–13, and join gangs? Three a year? Or many, many a 

year? Is gang—— 

GANGS IN PRISON

Mr. LAPPIN. Gang participation is up significantly in the Bureau 

of Prisons. 

Mr. WOLF. No, I know, but they have nothing, you know—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure it is because they come to prison and 

then join a gang. I think many of them are coming from the streets 

already in the gangs. But Mr. Chairman, you and I agree wholeheartedly on this issue. 

Mr. WOLF. But I know you do, and that is why—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. One hundred percent. So do not let my comments—— 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

Mr. WOLF. Well I may offer an amendment to this and have this 

out on the floor. I mean we are not the authorizing committee, we 

are the Appropriations Committee. And frankly, I have not seen a 

change as I have watched this thing over the last ten years. The 

only change that I have seen has been for the worse and not for 

the better. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You and I agree on this. I am just cautioning you 

that there will be another side to this story from those that do not 

agree with you and me on the inherent value of work. 

Mr. WOLF. But there is not really another side to it, there really 

is not. Because we are not talking about furniture. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are preaching to the choir. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
404 

Mr. WOLF. We are talking about things that are no longer made 

in the United States. And then you are creating a job for the truck 

driver who has to drop the equipment off. And if they are using 

wire you are creating a job for an American company that is manufacturing the wire. If they use a piece of, a lathe or something, you 

are creating a job for that. So you are actually creating jobs. You 

are not in competition. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I could not agree with you more. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. Mr. Austria. 

THE INCREASING INMATE POPULATION

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Lappin, for your service, for being here today. I know, I agree 

with Mr. Schiff that you have a very difficult job. Let me just begin 

by saying that, you know, I too would like to see some more specifics on how you are going to meet the demands of adequate staffing, bed space, with the increasing inmate population. Especially 

the demands that are within the budget—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

Mr. AUSTRIA [continuing]. The 2012 budget, and I would like to 

see those specifics as well. One of the areas I know, when I served 

in the state legislature I chaired the Judiciary Committee. And 

there was always a debate, an argument, about mandatory sentencing versus discretionary sentencing, especially with violent 

criminals. And you mentioned that 60 percent of your population 

is violent criminals, which certainly brings uncertainty I know to 

the prison system when you may have one judge sentence a sex offender for seven years, another judge sentence another individual 

who committed the exact same crime for twenty years. But if I 

heard you correctly the average stay is now nine years, is that correct? Okay. And your population growth has grown from 30,000 

some years ago to now 210,000? How many of those inmates are 

repeat offenders that go back into the system? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well again, our recidivism is about 40 percent, about 

four out of ten coming back. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Is about forty? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I have to give you an idea here recently on another 

point, the supervised released violators, as kind of an indication. 

You know how many people are out there under supervised release 

that are returning to prison? 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. In 2009, 13 percent of the new admissions were supervised release violators, and in 2010 12.7 percent. So those are 

folks that are out on supervision and have violated. May not have 

committed a new crime, but those are the ones returning off of supervised release. But then again, with recidivism of about 40 percent, we are seeing about four out of ten returning to prison probably under a new conviction. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Under a new conviction? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Probably. Wouldn’t you say, Tom? 

BOP STAFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Okay. And now you have gotten this increase in inmate population. You are trying to deal with this. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
405 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

PRIVATELY OPERATED PRISONS

Mr. AUSTRIA. And looking at your testimony, you have 116 facilities that house approximately 171,000 inmates, which the total capacity is 127,000. Eighteen percent are now going to contract care 

or to privately operated prisons. And I know with many of the 

states are going through very, very difficult budgets. And you and 

I just talked a little bit about Ohio, and I know you knew the 

former director in Ohio. You know, what is your opinion as far as, 

and let me ask you as far as the cost. You have got 18 percent that 

are going to privately operated prisons. What is the cost factor of 

doing that? And what is the, you know, rationale behind many of 

the states looking at that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We see minimal savings. It is a little different in our 

system versus the state systems, because we have identified a particular group of inmates who will be in private correctional facilities. So the vast majority of the 27,000 that are in those private 

contract facilities are non-U.S. citizens. So they are, virtually all of 

them, are non-U.S. citizens and virtually all of them are going to 

be deported. So what we buy from them is a little different than 

what we offer in our own low security institutions. But even with 

that, even though we are offering more programming opportunities 

in our own prisons, the costs of incarceration are very close in, per 

day, per inmate. So we are within a few dollars of each other when 

you compare the inmates that are currently in the private contract 

facilities with inmates who are in our low security institutions. So, 

comparatively speaking we are about the same. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. But are you comparing the same prisoners in both 

facilities here? I mean—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we cannot as easily because our facilities have 

a combination of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens. Okay? So in 

our institutions—— 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Sure. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. We do not have institutions that are all 

non-U.S. citizens. So you are right. It is not an equal comparison. 

And we offer more and provide more program opportunities at our 

own institutions than are required in the private contract facilities, 

so it is not an apples to apples comparison. The cost per day, 

though, is pretty close to the same. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION PROBLEMS

Mr. AUSTRIA. Let me ask you as far as your operating expenses 

right now dealing with these CRs, and we have another CR that 

will expire on Friday. Can you just describe maybe the strain, a 

gap in funding, you know, that it might be having on the prison 

system today and how you are dealing with that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are dealing with that by constraining costs in 

every area we can. We are not hiring anybody. So we are in a hiring freeze with a few exceptions at some locations where there is 

significant turnover. We could not function unless we hired people, 

because in some more urban locations we have higher turnover 

than in some of the rural locations. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
406 

But there is a hiring freeze. We have limited that and we have 

limited travel. We have tried to manage our costs as closely as we 

can. We will not get through this fiscal year at the 2010 level. We 

cannot get through this fiscal year at the 2010 level given the fact 

we have more inmates, we have more prisons, and we have more 

staff than we did last year. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. What does that do to your future budgets, when 

you move into 2012 and you move forward? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is a challenge, without a doubt. We have got to 

plan well. We have got to look at how we can gain efficiencies, 

which we have done over the years. But as you know, the longer 

the CR goes on, the harder and harder it is to gain efficiencies. And 

there is only so far you can go. On medical, what we are trying to 

do on medical, is just keep it from going up faster than it has. Because it is the most expensive thing we do other than watching inmates. The most expensive thing we provide to inmates other than 

watching them is medical care. Those expenses continue to go up. 

Utility expenses continue to go up. So we get a gas bill and an electric bill every month, just like everybody else does. They are getting bigger. And we are trying to absorb that increase. To be honest with you, it has to come out of salaries. 

When our operating budget is about 74 percent salary driven, 

and about 26 percent operations driven, you can only squeeze so 

much out of the operations side. Food, medical, utilities, those 

types of things. So we have to offset that increase in cost on the 

operations side by hiring fewer people. And that is how we have, 

over the years, whittled down to only filling about 90 percent of our 

positions. A few years ago we were only filling about 86 percent. 

We corrected that. We reorganized. We gained efficiencies. We are 

now hired up to about 90 percent. But the bottom line is most of 

what we save has to come from salaries given the fact that the majority of our budget is salary driven. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. And again that, going back to my original request, 

is, you know, I too want to see specific plans on how you are going 

to be able to provide this considering the budgets that you are 

faced—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

THOMSON, IL FACILITY

Mr. AUSTRIA [continuing]. That we are going into a deeper and 

deeper hole it seems like. But one last question, and I brought this 

up when the Attorney General was in, about the Thomson facility. 

And, you know, the request from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons includes funding for 896 positions for activation of the Thomson facility in Illinois. The only problem is that the federal government 

does not own the facility. And I understand there was funding in 

the 2011 budget that requests the purchase of the facility, but as 

you know we are, and we just talked about, we are operating under 

a CR that it is highly unlikely that there will be, the case for the 

remainder of the fiscal year 2011. Can you tell this committee why 

the Thomson facility is needed? And how does the U.S. Bureau of 

Prisons plan on moving forward with the Thomson facility while 

operating under a CR? And what additional costs will the taxpayers incur if the purchase of the Thomson facility is delayed? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
407 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is a great question. I appreciate you asking 

that. Before I do, let me go back and tell you one thing we are 

doing to curb costs. We are not activating two prisons that we own 

currently. So we have a facility in Mendota, California and a facility in Berlin, New Hampshire that are partially activated. We have 

hired some people. But we have stopped the activation. So we are 

going to save millions of dollars by not continuing activation. On 

the other hand, we cannot add those beds either. So there is a negative consequence. So that is an example of some of the things we 

are doing. 

Thomson, you know, here is the core issue here. I mentioned earlier about seven out of the ten of the inmates tend to cooperate. It 

is the three out of ten that we are dealing with needing Thomson. 

It is the three out of ten that do not comply that are, or a portion 

of that, it is not all of them. That are combative, that are violent 

even in prison, that carry weapons. And tragically, after eighty 

years, mostly in the last three years, we have seen this surge in 

the number of inmates coming into the federal system who are acting in that manner. 

So, consequently two years ago, we realized, we saw it evolving 

in our penitentiaries because we saw more assaultive behavior. We 

had an increase in the number of assaults on staff and inmates. 

When inmates got into trouble and staff arrived, there were other 

inmates coming to the rescue, like they are going to break them out 

of trouble, you know? So the whole gang mentality. We began 

about two years ago removing this group of inmates and today we 

have removed 1,800 inmates from our general population facilities 

and created Special Management Units, SMU, to house and manage those inmates in more controlled, more restrictive conditions. 

Not as restrictive as ADX Florence, if you have been to ADX, if you 

have heard of it, it’s much more restrictive. So it is a step between 

a high security institution and ADX. But the bottom line is they 

are controlled wherever they move. It is very restrictive. They do 

not, in the initial phases of this program, they do not rec together, 

they do not eat together. And they have to show progress in behaving through the other phases to get to the point that they can begin 

to do those types of activities successfully, and then work their way 

back out to a general institution. 

So we have had to take offline general population bed space. We 

have taken the entire facility in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, which 

was an open general population facility and created a Special Management Unit, and we have taken four small units within other existing facilities to create the 1,800 beds. 

We are not there yet, and we are not there yet because whenever 

I look at the weekly report I continue to see inmates acting out, 

not as often as they were before, but continuing to act out in that 

manner. We must have more of this SMU type of bed space. Not 

only this type of bed space, we need more ADX bed space. 

In 1995 we opened ADX Florence, which is our most restrictive, 

controlled housing in the Bureau of Prisons. There are about 430, 

440 cells there. At the time, we had 95,000 inmates, and it served 

us well for a number of years. Today we have 210,000 inmates, we 

have got the identification of these difficult inmates, so we need 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
408 

space for this small group, the difficult group, not a large group, 

but we need space. Thomson would do that. 

I am going to tell you, it is going to happen one way or the other. 

If we do not get Thomson, we have no choice but to go take another 

general population facility off line, retrofit it for those SMU types 

of inmates—although it’s expensive—and manage it in that fashion. A consequence of that will be that we are going to displace 

more inmates than we are going to create space for. So consequently we are going to overcrowd even more. But as I said before, you cannot run safe prisons with inmates like this running 

amok, they have to be removed and they have to be managed. 

We either get Thomson and we fulfill that need, or we take another prison somewhere else, convert it to this operation, and in 

doing so we solve that problem, but we further exacerbate the 

crowding problem in our other general population facilities. 

It is expensive, folks. Fortunately there are not a lot of them. I 

think we need about 2,500 beds, maybe 3,000 between SMU, Special Management Units, and ADX Housing, because we have 1,800 

of them now. I was just up at Lewisburg a few weeks ago. Granted 

we have some inmates successfully transitioning through that, but 

there are 160 inmates sitting up there that cannot get it. They 

have been there for a year and a half. They are still in phase one 

or phase two. They need to be going over to the ADX, they need 

to go through a more structured, more controlled, more difficult environment. This problem exists; we have got to solve it. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. And it is a problem and we got to fix it. We have 

an overcrowding problem. 

Let me ask you one last question. I know I said that before, Mr. 

Chairman, if I can. 

Is there any plan in place or are you aware of any plan in place 

by the Department of Justice to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees 

to be detained at the Thomson facility? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our plan is to run the entire facility, the entire facility, all 1,600 cells within the Bureau of Prisons. 

Right now I have been told the entire facility would be ours. Our 

activation plan is to open and operate the entire 1,600 cells as Bureau of Prisons beds. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. With no plans to have any detainees at Gitmo 

being housed? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not right now, no. Was there a plan? There certainly 

was, but that is not the case now. I have been told the entire facility would be a federal prison used for federal inmates and we are 

planning accordingly. I need every one of those cells. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Director, thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. But you have not told the full story, because the confidence level in the Attorney General and in the Bureau of Prisons 

and the Administration on this issue is not very high, because they 

were going to go there. You know, the reality is they were going 

to go there. You said not right now. Let the record show that when 

people research this hearing record they will say you felt, your conscience, you are a good man, felt you had to say ‘‘not right now.’’ 

Not right now, but next week. 

But the Attorney General of the United States was coming up 

here and testifying, we were raising the issue of people from GuanVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00408 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
409 

tanamo Bay who were picked up and had been picked up in an Al 

Qaeda run training camp in Tora Bora, and you know where they 

were going to release them? You remember where they were going 

to release them? They were going to get out of Guantanamo Bay 

and they were going to live in northern Virginia, and the Justice 

Department denied, called me up and said, Mr. Wolf, ‘‘when the Attorney General comes up please do not raise this question,’’ and my 

sense was that they meant that we are going to resolve this issue 

and everything else and all of a sudden on a Friday afternoon I am 

traveling through my district and I get a call, and a person tipped 

me off that they are going to release these guys in northern Virginia. They had actually rented an apartment for them. 

So here they were they were going to release people picked up 

in Tora Bora who had gone through an Al Qaeda run training 

camp, they were going to go to Route 7 in Falls Church near Bailey’s Crossroads. 

So let the record show he said, ‘‘not as of now.’’ There is no confidence in this Administration that you will keep your word. Frankly, I do not believe them. I do not think this Congress is ready. I 

think you ought to start rehabbing the other places now, because 

I do not plan on it because I do not trust it. I want to trust everybody, but I have been seeing it. We cannot even get an answer 

back. 

This Justice Department, we saw a report on Freedom of Information Act, some groups, very liberal groups get a response back 

in one day and two days and three days, I get a response back in 

five months from Freedom of Information Act and some I do not 

even get a response back. 

Frankly, if we want to save money we can wipe out the congressional relations from this administration at the Justice Department 

and give you all the money, because they never answer letters. 

So they were going to move them to Thomson, and it is integrity, 

it is trust. It is not only what you say, it is what you do, and what 

they have done is not trustworthy, it is not honest. And so for me 

to appropriate Thomson—I believe you. I mean, I think you are a 

good person, but I do not trust them and I think that, you know, 

an election will be held in 2012 and all of a sudden they will be 

booking them out, and they were going to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City. They were even looking at Alexandria. 

Moussaoui was in Alexandria you know for almost what four years? 

The trial went on—so from an integrity trust form there may be 

some up here, but I certainly do not have it with regard to this administration on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, and to even think 

that they would take someone who had served in Guantanamo Bay, 

and I do not know who had been picked up in training camp in 

Tora Bora or run by Al Qaeda, but they were going to be released 

in northern Virginia. 

So boy, Thomson, I do not think unless, you know, something 

happens up here that I do not know about, I think for the next two 

years I just could not. And if money got put in somewhere I would 

get down on the floor day in and day out. 

I mean, I want to see the Bureau of Prisons do the right thing, 

but not to bring people from Guantanamo Bay to the United 

States. Thirty people died in the attack on the Pentagon that were 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
410 

from my congressional district. The first person killed in Afghanistan was a constituent of mine, a CIA officer, Michael Spann, so. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I know this is a really emotional issue for everyone. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, it is an emotional issue because—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, but as you all know I am not part of that discussion. 

Mr. WOLF. Oh, I know you are not part of it, but I think you are 

an honest man, because you felt you had to say—because of your 

integrity—‘‘not right now.’’ 

Mr. LAPPIN. But I think the reality is it is illegal for them to 

bring them in. I am not going to get into this discussion. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, because the Congress has acted, but Congress 

can change back and forth and so I do not think the Bureau of 

Prison ought to get so wrapped up into Thomson, because I think 

what we ought to get wrapped up in is work, is job rehabilitation, 

early release, things that really make the Bureau of Prisons a go. 

GOOD CONDUCT TIME LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

Now I looked and checked last week. Your legislative package is 

up here, is anyone cosponsoring it? Do you have a cosponsor yet? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, can you call us—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. When you have a Republican on the 

Committee on it and a Democrat on the Committee and the same 

way in the House and the Senate? Just give the committee staff 

a call and say we just got a person that is behind this and they 

will put it in, because I think we have got to begin to move this 

so we can get back to the issue of really dealing with the overcrowding. 

ELDERLY OFFENDER PILOT PROGRAM

Now the Second Chance Act authorized a pilot program within 

BOP to determine the effectiveness of allowing certain elderly nonviolent offenders to serve the remainder of their sentence in home 

detention. Has this program been implemented, and if so has it 

been evaluated? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It has been implemented. 

Mr. WOLF. And how many? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The conditions for qualifying were so restrictive believe it or not, out of 210,000 inmates we had 500 apply, 75 inmates qualified, only 75 inmates qualified. 

Mr. WOLF. And what has been the result? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And 70 have been released of those 75. 

Mr. WOLF. And of the 70 that have been released have any returned? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not that I am aware of. Again, personally I think 

we need to reconsider this, I think there is potential here. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why don’t you? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think it is part of the discussion we are having on 

the whole issue of how we offset the growth. 

On the other hand, sir, let me tell you, we are not going to let 

people go that cannot manage and that is part of the problem. 

Mr. WOLF. I know you are not. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
411 

Mr. LAPPIN. Some people were not approved because they did not 

have the wherewithal in the community. They did not have a family that could support their health condition, or they did not have 

the resources. We are not going to dump that type of person on the 

community. So it was only those 70 that had the wherewithal to 

do it. 

I think the qualifying criteria needs to be re-evaluated, we are 

doing some of that now, we will probably make some recommendations once we have further review of that. 

Mr. WOLF. And you have the authority to do that on your own? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I think we would have to have some help. I 

think it is in the statute what the criteria are, and I think the biggest dilemma is that you had to serve 75 percent of your sentence 

or 10 years, whichever was less—whichever was greater, I am 

sorry. You either had to serve a minimum of 10 years or 75 percent 

of your sentence and be over a certain age. 

Mr. WOLF. What is the age? 

Mr. LAPPIN. What is that? 

Mr. WOLF. What is the age? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sixty-five. There is not a whole lot of people that fall 

into that category, because a lot of these older folks come into our 

custody, did not get a long enough sentence or just have not been 

in custody to meet those criteria. 

Mr. WOLF. So are you looking at a legislative change? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are looking at some of those options. 

Mr. WOLF. And that will be sent up before the Judiciary Committee? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not know. We were really focused on the good 

time first. We wanted to give this a little more time to play out because this has only been in effect for a little less than a year or 

so. 

Mr. WOLF. But you are of the opinion that these people are nonviolent. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, they meet all the other criteria. And to be honest with you, sir, they are very expensive people to incarcerate. 

Mr. WOLF. Because of their health care and everything else? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. And if there are ways to appropriately do 

it in the community we would be in favor of letting them go a little 

earlier. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I urge you to tell the Department to send that 

up as an amendment to the bill that came up that no one has yet 

introduced. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are working on it. 

BOP FURLOUGH PROGRAM

Mr. WOLF. In the Inspector General’s audit of the Bureau of Prisons furlough program, one unresolved issue was a need for the 

BOP to have a more effective means to coordinate with the union 

on policy changes. According to the audit, BOP’s collective bargaining agreement expired nine years ago. Is that true? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, the agreement expired nine years ago, but 

there is a clause in that agreement that keeps it in effect until a 

new agreement is approved and ratified. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
412 

So we are still under the old agreement. We still have an agreement. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Still awaiting implementation there is a policy 

that would assure the victims of crime are notified when an offender is approved for a medical furlough. This notification has 

waited seven years for implementation? Must it wait until a new 

agreement is finalized? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, the furlough policy was being renegotiated, it 

was on the list for seven years, it was finished in October and November, it has now been implemented. 

Mr. WOLF. But isn’t that a no-brainer? I mean if you are going 

to release an offender should you not just tell the victim? I 

mean—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. There was another program statement that was not 

recognized in the report on victim witnesses that required that, so 

victims were still being notified even though the furlough policy 

was not in place. 

So there is another program statement that covered this issue 

that required staff to notify victims, and victims were being notified. 

Mr. WOLF. They were, okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. Just in all fairness, to get it all on the table, 

there are times when they are not notified if it is an emergency situation. So, if someone is having a heart attack we do not wait to 

call the victim, we are heading for the hospital. 

And so reality is these really short-term releases, and typically 

most of those are escorted, so most of them are notified, you know. 

Especially if they are on a furlough medical trip, so we are going 

to put the person on furlough and send them down to the hospital. 

Those are done in advance. So that was continuing to occur even 

though that program statement had not been negotiated and in 

place because there was another program statement that required 

it. 

GANGS IN PRISON

Mr. WOLF. Could you tell us about prison gangs? An update on 

trends and gang growth and discuss what you are doing to disrupt 

gang recruitment? 

Mr. LAPPIN. As I indicated earlier, we are seeing an increase in 

the number of gang and security threat group members in our prisons. We are probably up, I would say, between 35,000 and 40,000 

known participants. So we have seen an increase. 

Mr. WOLF. Thirty-five to 40,000 out of a population of? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Two hundred and ten thousand. Now those are the 

ones that we are aware of. 

Mr. WOLF. What would that number have been 30 years ago? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thirty years ago, a few hundred. I mean 30 years 

ago we only had 26,000 inmates. My guess is we had probably an 

almost smaller percentage. I am not sure exactly. We could go back 

and probably get that number for you. But certainly it’s a growing 

concern, especially the gangs and security threat groups coming 

from other countries—non-U.S. citizens. Who have a whole different outlook on what prison life should be—and it has created 

some problems for us. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
413 

[The information follows:] 

PERCENT OF BOP INMATE POPULATION IN GANGS 30 YEARS AGO

In 1994 (the earliest date for which data is available), 2,483 inmates or 3 percent 

of the BOP population was identified as affiliated with a security threat group (identified as part of a disruptive group which includes gangs). In February 2011, there 

were 15,661 inmates or 6.77 percent affiliated with a security threat group. 

Mr. WOLF. Are they merged with the general population? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It varies from group to group. Even Hispanic groups 

who will not associate because one group is from Mexico and other 

groups are U.S. citizens from the United States. Some of those will 

not merge, they will not get along, and so it is complicated. 

I can tell you right now that many, many of the inmates in the 

Special Management Units and many of the inmates at Florence 

are gang members or security threat group members, and one reason why we need to expand that space is because more of these 

people are coming into our system and are being troublesome. 

THOMSON ILLINOIS FACILITY

And so that’s one reason why I am disappointed to hear your 

issue on Thomson. On the other hand, we will have to create this 

space somewhere. This again would be—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, you are not surprised on the Thomson. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I am not surprised. On the other hand I—— 

Mr. WOLF. And was Thomson at one time by the administration 

considered to be a place for Guantanamo Bay detainees? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Obviously that is how it was introduced. That has 

changed, but I will not go back into that. But the bottom line is 

that we need to find space for these folks that we can use when 

they act out, when they misbehave, when they are threatening, 

when they are orchestrating inappropriate behavior in institutions. 

We need to be able to remove them and handle them accordingly. 

Mr. WOLF. Is there a decision being made at the department that 

you are waiting to see whether the Congress acts on Thomson? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I really do not know at this time. I mean, I am waiting to see what the Congress—— 

Mr. WOLF. I doubt very much that Congress will act. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I understand. 

Mr. WOLF. So if you have that sort of indication it may be good 

to just begin to—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will certainly do that, once we are clear that it 

is not going to happen. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I think you know, I mean my sense is it probably is not. 

PRISON RADICALIZATION

On the issue of domestic radicalization. The full extent of the 

problem of prison radicalization is now known but is a concern as 

a scholar named James Brandon. Do you know who James Brandon is? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I do not. 

Mr. WOLF. Does anyone in the audience know? He points out 

that prisons bring together disaffected people who may be receptive 

to anti-social messages. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
414 

A few years ago the Bureau established a counter-terrorism unit 

that among other activities monitors communications of high-risk 

inmates. 

Can you bring the committee up to date on the continuing operation and results from this unit and from the Bureau’s efforts? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, I can, and I do not know Mr. Brandon, but I 

certainly agree that prisons are a place where radicalization can 

occur at all levels, whether it is for religious or other reasons. 

So the potential is always there, and the creation of the counterterrorism unit was to assist us in precluding that from happening. 

Not only the counter-terrorism unit, but the operations and the 

procedures we put in our prisons to one, make our staff aware of 

those who are potential radicalizers; a classification system to remove those who have a greater risk and house them in more restrictive controlled conditions, which is occurring. But specifically 

the counter-terrorism unit has been hugely beneficial in helping us 

monitor the communications of inmates in general, not just those 

associated with terrorist activities. 

So today that group is monitoring in excess of 3,000 inmates, 

both phones, visits, and mail. A huge cost on translation services. 

We are spending about $16 million a year just at the counter-terrorism unit on the management of mail, phones, visits, and other 

coordinated activities with the institutions. 

So it is a valuable resource to help us to do a better job of monitoring communication. But day in and day out it is the work of the 

staff in the prisons who are monitoring the inmates who have tendencies to radicalize other inmates to these types of philosophies, 

or gang orientation, or acting out in other ways and to put a stop 

to that. To either discipline them or remove them if necessary to 

preclude that type of radicalization from occurring. And so it is a 

daily responsibility throughout every prison that we operate, but 

certain the counter-terrorism unit has helped us focus on the more 

risky inmates, those who have greater risk, those who have violated institution rules, those who have broken laws by circumventing these procedures, such that we have far more control than 

we did a few years ago. 

PREVENTING COMMUNICATIONS WITH TERRORISTS

Mr. WOLF. Now can you bring the committee up to date? I vaguely recall there was a communication between prison population 

with the terrorists in Spain. Can you educate us? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. In the aftermath of that, and you and I met 

and we talked about it quite directly, we soon thereafter, initiated 

the counter-terrorism unit, which is a piece of that. We also activated two communication management units. And so our classification system breaks down these more risky offenders into the highest risk, and those with the highest risk, most of them are housed 

at ADX Florence in very controlled structured environments, not 

much access not only to outside communication, that is—they can 

communicate externally, but it is only through controlled means. 

They do not have a lot of access to other inmates. 

We created communication management units for inmates who 

are not as risky as that, and really did not require that level of supervision, that level of control. I took a housing unit within a prisVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00414 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
415 

on, it is a self-contained unit and those that are in the mid-range, 

not as risky as the high-risk folks, certainly more risky than the 

low-risk inmates, are housed there and they can be out of their 

cells during the day. They can participate in education, vocational, 

religious programs, but we can control their communications. We 

schedule when they use the phone, we determine whether or not 

there will be somebody listening on the phone when they use the 

phone, we schedule their visits, we monitor their visits, we manage 

their mail. 

So it is controlled, but they are not physically restrained to the 

degree that they are at ADX, so it is much more conducive to a 

more normal operation. And so that has allowed us the ability to— 

and again, these units do not house just terrorists, you have got 

people in there who are sex offenders who try to reach out to their 

victims, you have people in there who have threatened judges and 

congressmen and other government officials. We need to be able to 

manage—and they do it through the mail or over the phone. 

So you have got a combination of people. We have room for about 

100 at those two housing units, and I think we are up around 80. 

We have the other high-risk folks at ADX Florence. 

So those are some of the procedures we have put in place to better control communication and manage this difficult group of offenders. 

PROPOSED CHEF ACT

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Congresswoman Richardson testified last week, 

and I said I would ask the question, regarding the testimony of 

Congresswoman Laura Richardson last Friday. She said she introduced the bill, H.R. 5984, called the CHEF Act. CHEF stands for 

Cooking Helps Elevate Futures Act. The inspiration for the legislation she said is Chef Jeff Henderson, who developed a passion for 

cooking while participating in a work program at Terminal Island 

Federal Prison in L.A. The Bill would establish a pilot program 

that provides inmates with opportunities to learn certified culinary 

skills during the normal cafeteria process and would include a 

study of the program success rate and job placement and recidivism. 

The question she wanted us to ask was to what extent are BOP 

vocational re-entry programs focused on teaching food service skills 

and how could a program be enhanced by the addition of a certified 

culinary instruction and training? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think it is a great idea. I will get the exact number. I think we have probably got seven or eight culinary arts vocational training programs, and we have hired instructors. They 

learn everything from not only how to cook, but how to cost out a 

meal, how to serve a meal, you know, all the nuts and bolts associated with running a restaurant or working in a restaurant. 

[The information follows:] 

NUMBER OF BOP CULINARY ARTS VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS

While every BOP institution has a food service operation/cafeteria, almost half of 

our 116 facilities offer formal culinary arts and/or food service preparation occupational training and/or apprenticeship programs. Programs can range from a 90-hour 

certificate program in food handling to a two-year degree program designed to prepare students to work as professional chefs. Local resources and proximity to vocaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
416 

tional schools or schools of higher education are important factors in determining 

course offerings. 

Congresswoman Laura Richardson’s ‘‘CHEF Act’’ or H.R. 5984 would establish a 

pilot program that provides inmates with an opportunity to learn certified culinary 

skills during the normal cafeteria process, and would include a study of the program’s success rate in job placement and recidivism prevention. A funded program, 

focused on food service skills and affording inmates an opportunity to receive industry and employer recognized certificates, could greatly enhance or expand the BOP’s 

inmate training and reentry efforts. If combined with a job placement component 

and supported by research geared to measure employment and recidivism outcomes, 

the program could also serve to highlight the value and need for correctional education. However, if additional funds were not appropriated to support H.R. 5984, the 

BOP would not be able to fund the pilot program with existing resources. 

So look forward to looking at that legislation. It is news to me, 

but—— 

Mr. WOLF. We will give it to you, and then if you could be in 

touch with her office. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We can do that. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Austria, do you have any questions? 

GANG ACTIVITY

Mr. AUSTRIA. Mr. Chairman, I think you have hit on areas that 

I was going to question as far as gang activity, and also going into 

the terrorist side, just to put this to rest. 

You mentioned that a lot of the gang activity—these are individuals that come in from gangs to the prison system. How much of 

that is gang related that comes in, and how much in your opinion 

is being operated or is gang activity in the prisons being operated 

out of the prisons, and what are you doing to interfere with that 

and stop that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. These questions are supposed to get easier as we go 

through this, sir. As a fellow Ohioan I thought you may take a little break on it. But any way, I do not know that I have the percentage of inmates coming into the system who are—I think we might 

be able to determine that, we will check, versus how many get involved in gangs once they arrive. We will see if we can get that information. 

[The information follows:] 

NUMBER OF OFFENDERS WHO ARE GANG MEMBERS INSIDE THE PRISON VS. OUTSIDE

OF PRISON

In February 2011, there were 15,661 inmates in BOP custody (6.77%) affiliated 

with a security threat group (identified as part of a disruptive group which includes 

gangs). The BOP does not have statistics on the number of inmates who were gang 

members prior to their incarceration. 

Our numbers are growing. Certainly as I referenced, a concern 

of ours are the gangs coming, especially out of Mexico, that are 

being troublesome. Because what we have learned, and we have 

learned it the hard way, because we were housing people from different states of Mexico in the same prisons, and once we began to 

develop a relationship with the Mexican Corrections Department 

we learned the difficulties of trying to house these people together. 

So now not only are we looking at where inmates from the 

United States are from and the concerns associated with where 

they are from, we are now looking at where citizens from Mexico— 

what states they are from in Mexico and determining the likelihood 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
417 

of our ability to house them in the same institution. So it is very 

complicated. 

What we continue to do is one, we try to identify them. The other 

problem with some of the Hispanic gangs out of Mexico is they do 

not identify, they are not very well organized. So you may know 

who the leadership is, you may think you have got 50, but on a day 

something kicks off you may have 200, because the others are 

loosely connected, who all at once become associated, once there is 

a problem in a prison between a Hispanic group and another rival 

group. 

So it is—we have added more intelligence staff not only in our 

institutions, but we have staff on the National Joint Terrorism 

Task Force. We have enhanced resources at the National Gang Intelligence Unit in Sacramento which serves the federal system and 

states to begin identifying and tracking these offenders. A lot of 

phone monitoring, a lot of mail. 

So even though the Counter-Terrorism Unit has this responsibility for about 3,000, in our institutions the wardens and their 

staff have the authority to put restrictions on inmates’ mail and 

correspondence locally. So if you go to an institution, based on who 

they have there, the warden has probably imposed other restrictions on inmate’s mail and correspondence and visits such that 

they can manage it locally rather than nationally. 

So that is probably occurring in a vast majority of the institutions that house gang members, that they have got another group 

that they are managing locally with phone communication. So we 

have the ability to listen in. When they make a phone call, it says 

right on the phone, this phone call can be monitored. And so there 

are some inmates where the warden will say, you know what, I 

want to listen to every one of his phone calls, and he has staff sitting there monitoring phones. 

When that person picks up the phone and goes to make a call, 

a light goes on that tells them this guy is on the phone. They will 

drop everything else they are doing to listen to that phone call. All 

of their mail will be monitored. 

It is not perfect because they can circumvent some of those procedures, and when we catch them circumventing those procedures 

that is when we move them to the CMU or the ADX. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Do you monitor visits as well? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We can monitor visits. We can when there is a need 

to do that, and sometimes we will—we do not do it a lot, but we 

will have non-contact visiting so we can monitor those, so we do a 

lot of that. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Okay. Thank you, Director, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAM

Director, the supervised release program, is that run through 

BOP? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is not, it is run by the United States Probation 

Service. So once they leave prison that responsibility transitions to 

the judicial branch with the United States Probation. Now we have 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
418 

a great relationship with them. In fact, if you do not mind, some 

of the skills I mentioned in our creation of that we had U.S. probation staff on our committee because they had a lot of insight into, 

hey, when these guys come out of prisons here is what we see they 

struggle with. So we have a great relationship with them. We meet 

with them routinely, and they come into our prisons frequently. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The reason I ask is I have been involved in trying 

to expand the Project Hope effort out of Hawaii, and I was interested to see whether that model could be used by the federal authorities, and I will follow up with the other agency on that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We would be happy to join you when you meet with 

them and assist any way we can. 

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. One of my staff brought to my attention 

a New Yorker article about the impact of solitary confinement in 

terms of the psychological impacts on rehabilitation, and you know, 

I realize there are cross-cutting interests here, one in having some 

kind of a method of punishment in the institution in which you 

cannot deprive someone of liberty because they have already been 

deprived of that, on the other hand, at least according to this article, there was some kind of demonstrable impacts in terms of recidivism, and I do not know if that is because it is the type of person that gets into trouble in prison, is going to be more likely to 

recidivate anyway, or whether there is an added impact of the solitary, but can you talk a little about your policy in terms of prolonged solitary? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We want to use it as little as we can. That is why 

sometimes you have to use it more than you would like to create 

a safer environment for those inmates who are willing to cooperate 

and live by the rules. So we monitor closely how long people are 

in special housing, you know, housed alone. And I will be honest 

with you, if you go to the majority of our special housing units 

throughout the Bureau of Prisons, they are not housed alone. We 

do not have the luxury. They are housed with another inmate or 

two, even though they are in trouble, and without a doubt some of 

them should be housed alone, we just do not have that luxury. 

So the only locations you are going to find somebody totally alone 

every time you visit is ADX Florence, and that is what it has been 

reserved for, those inmates who given the nature of their conduct, 

their behavior, the situation, we have no other choice than to do 

that, but we do—that does not mean there is no interaction. Our 

staff routinely visit and they have programming in their cells 

through closed-circuit television. They do come out of their cells to 

recreate, so that extreme level of isolation we try to use minimally 

and only for as long as is necessary, but I am not denying, there 

are some inmates who end up being in those conditions for five 

years and beyond. 

USP MARION, ILLINOIS

Mr. SCHIFF. Back in my federal prosecutor days, I went out to 

Marion, Illinois to interview a potential witness, it was not a very 

successful visit, but is that prison one of the higher level security 

facilities, and how has that changed since? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
419 

Mr. LAPPIN. Marion at one time was our ADX. When we opened 

ADX Florence in ’95 we transitioned that mission from Marion to 

ADX, so today Marion is a medium security institution, open population. 

THOMSON ILLINOIS FACILITY

Mr. SCHIFF. Wow. And tell me a little bit more about the situation in terms of Thomson. You know, I take a different view than 

the chairman on the overarching issue, which I know you are not 

here to debate, but I think we need to have some kind of mechanism to detain people that we are going to prosecute in Article III 

court, and you know, we have a residual problem at Gitmo, but we 

are going to have a prospective problem with other people who are 

apprehended in the future who will not be sent to Gitmo and have 

to be sent somewhere. 

So tell me what niche Thomson would fill now and what the capacity is elsewhere in the institution. 

Mr. LAPPIN. The niche for Thomson really would be to help us 

with these disruptive inmates, not to say that if a terrorist, international terrorist convicted in federal court came into our custody 

he may end up housed at Thomson. Right now what is happening 

is, like I said, there are 450 beds at ADX Florence. Traditionally 

those beds were reserved for the most disruptive, the most difficult 

inmates in the federal prison system. Those that assaulted staff 

and inmates, those that tried to escape from even our most secure 

facilities. But over the last few years we have had to use some of 

those beds for other inmates, such as some of the international terrorists who are not acting that way, but given the conditions of 

their confinement, because the Attorney General in some cases imposed special administrative measures, we really do not have a 

choice but to house them at a location of that type. 

So there is little contact with other inmates. There are total controls on phone, mail, all those other things. And in our opinion 

these are the more risky inmates for potentially radicalizing other 

inmates or other persons. 

So without a doubt our ADX bed space is compromised a little 

bit by the addition of this new function. There is another group, 

U.S. citizens, who are potential risks in a general population facility because of their skill set. Bomb makers, other folks who are 

smart enough to take what they can get at a general population institution and use it in a way that would be detrimental to safety 

and security in an institution like that. So you have got a little 

subset of those folks out there. 

So we are using some of that space for purposes other than what 

is really intended, and that is why we would look at Thomson, 

given the design of that facility as being an immediate advantage 

for us adding that type of specialty space not only for ADX, but for 

Special Management Unit needs. 

So that is why we were attracted to it from the very beginning 

because of its design, and it is not a general population facility. 

You could convert some of our general population facilities to an 

administrative/SMU design. Very difficult in my opinion to convert 

Thomson to a general population facility given the design of that 

institution. It was built to be more of a lock down institution. So 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
420 

it marries up naturally with what the mission would be. And unfortunately ADX Florence is not large enough anymore to accommodate our needs, and we are going to have to find space. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And what are the most difficult from a security point 

of view classifications of it? Can you tell us a little bit about the 

relative security risks for example of detaining someone who has 

murdered a prison guard in another facility compared to a Timothy 

McVeigh compared to a mid-level Gitmo detainee compared to 

someone apprehended in Europe plotting an attack in Seattle? 

Which of those pose the greatest problem as a prison authority? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is hard to make such broad generalizations because each of them come to us with unique characteristics and 

have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

We have got 259 international terrorists currently in our custody. 

We have got 35,000 gang related offenders. And then we have got 

a lot of other little individual groups. And I tell you, and this is 

just my opinion, the ones that give me most pause are the more 

serious gang related members, you know, the more traditional 

gangs. In part because they have, as well as some of the drug cartel leaders we incarcerate given their wherewithal, the financial 

support that they have. But what concerns me most about the gang 

folks are that they are established in our communities, and they 

frequently visit our institutions. They are friends, related people. 

Those pose huge security concerns. 

To be honest with you, we do not get very many visitors for international terrorists, and when we do they are closely monitored. 

So those that are just walking in off the street that have ties to 

people who we know have traditionally been disruptive now, who 

are acting out now, and they disrupt that way in our prisons, give 

me pause when we are allowing them, as they have a right to do, 

to visit prisons, call inmates, they have networks within the community. Without a doubt illegal business could be taking place. I 

have to say it, but on occasion crime is occurring over the phones, 

through the mail, through visits. It could be anyone, but I suspect 

it on a larger scale from these more organized disruptive groups 

than we see from others. 

DRUGS IN PRISONS

Mr. SCHIFF. How much, and I know this is tough to quantify, 

how much drug availability is there in a federal prison? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It’s available, and it’s unfortunate that it is, but it 

is available. Let me give you some facts to kind of help put it in 

perspective. I’ll have to get my glasses for this because the print 

is too small. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You know, I just got these. I just turned 50 and I 

held off until now, but boy did my eyesight go south. The minute 

I turned 50, two things happened. My eyesight went to Hell, and 

I kept getting those darned AARP cards in the mail. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right, right. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I don’t know how much, you know, they spend on 

those mailings, because they go right into the bin, but—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Wait a minute, maybe I can. The drug tests? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
421 

We do random tests and we do suspect tests, and my guess is we 

do in excess of 100,000 tests a year, and our rate of positive results 

is 0.5 percent. 

So, I’m thankful for that. On the other hand, I’m telling you, it 

is available, and we need to do a better job. Now I’ll tell you it’s 

improved in the last ten years because we have limited what mail 

comes into prisons. No packages, fewer and fewer things that a 

family can send in. We’ve eliminated those things. So we’ve done 

a lot better job of controlling what comes into prisons. Tragically, 

with as good of an employee base that I have, very good employees, 

I’ve got a small group of employees who break the law and bring 

in drugs and alcohol and sell it to inmates. I hate to say it, but 

this is, you get it all when you get me. I mean, you’re going to get 

the good and the bad, and it’s unfortunate that it happens, but it 

does happen. 

PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT

Mr. SCHIFF. My last question is on something that the Chairman 

has raised today, but for many years and that’s the prison rape 

problem. What’s necessary to make a major impact on that, and 

what, what really has to happen? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, let me begin by saying we want to eliminate 

all of it. I mean, our goal is zero incidence of this. It’s a difficult 

goal, under any circumstances. I don’t want to get into another debate with the Chairman because I know how he feels about this. 

I feel as though the Attorney General has really done a great job 

trying to balance this very, very difficult issue. But from the very 

beginning I told him I thought I believe there are three things, to 

sum it up really quickly. You need to have a policy, and there are 

many agencies that don’t have a policy on what to do when you become aware of an assault of this type. 

You need to make sure that everybody understands that policy. 

You’ve got to have training, for your staff, and you’ve got to have 

training for the inmates. And you’ve got to have a vehicle by which 

inmates can convey to someone who can do something about it 

when an incident occurs, or they become aware of it, and you’ve got 

to have some oversight. You’ve got to make sure that people are 

complying with what they said they’re going to do in this policy. 

That sounds simple? It’s more complicated than that because it’s, 

you know, we have a very thorough policy. I’m happy to share with 

you the policy that we have. Beyond that, it comes down to how 

well you run your prison, and believe you me, the more inmates we 

squeeze in there, and the fewer staff you have watching them, it 

impacts our ability to successfully overcome some of these doings. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Is it a common problem that someone gets raped in 

prison, and they know that if they go to the prison authorities that 

what they’ll get will be worse, if they’re considered having ratted 

out the person that raped them? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I’m sure that could be perceived, I hope it doesn’t 

happen. I know that it’s an issue that has to be dealt with. But 

again, I think that training and understanding is key. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But I mean for every person that’s raped in prison, 

how many more do you think are raped that will, that are too 

scared to ever report it? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
422 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can’t, I don’t know, and again, our numbers are, 

that we’ve reported in the last year are very small. Do I know that 

that’s all the cases? I don’t. My guess is there have been some unreported cases. I don’t have an idea, I mean, it’s not unlike in the 

broader community. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Schiff, and can you get a copy of that 

article? Yeah, we’ll send you a copy and we’ll send you a copy, too. 

It’s a pretty significant number, and I’ve had people tell me that 

they’re reluctant. Obviously if you go forward, and the guard and 

the warden or whoever the supervisor for the shift, you have to basically charge them. There have even been reports, I think when 

Pat Nolan testified, and I know you know Pat Nolan, and I could 

have it wrong but I think he was saying that there was one time 

in a California prison that they were telling a person, ‘‘Listen, if 

you don’t cooperate we’re going to put you in here, and we almost 

know what is going to happen.’’ So it is used as an intimidation factor, but then also when it happens, there’s a great reluctance in 

certain cases to go forward, and some of the people who have been 

raped in prison have ended up with HIV/AIDS. 

So I think Mr. Schiff has a, really a good question and we’ll supply both of you with an article. What was that magazine? 

Mr. SCHIFF. It was the New York Review of Books. 

Mr. WOLF. The New York Review of Books just came out. We’ll 

get a copy to both of you, and so, and it’s less in the federal prisons 

than it is in—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. But I urge you to look at the research that now has 

been done by the Department of Justice, probably some of the best 

and most thorough research that’s been ever done. 

I don’t believe everything I read in the papers, I’ll be honest with 

you. I don’t agree with all of these numbers that they’re putting 

out there. Based on what I’m reading on the research that’s been 

done most recently and continues to be done because of this Act, 

I urge you to take a look at those reports from the Department of 

Justice on this very issue. Not only are they surveying prisons, 

they’re going in and talking to inmates. So I think you’ll have to 

look at all of that material. 

Mr. WOLF. The Department said, by their own Department figures—and most of the figures they have is because the prison rape 

bill passed—that 216,000 were raped. It wasn’t that the Department initiated this because they are wonderful people and wanted 

to do something to get out ahead. It was because of the bill that 

Bobby Scott, Senator Kennedy, Senator Sessions and I had. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No. That’s why I think you’ve got to go back and 

look. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, that they were sexually assaulted. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That doesn’t, well, okay, okay. 

Mr. WOLF. I withdraw that. But if you’re put in prison for robbery, that doesn’t mean you all should have to go—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I couldn’t agree with you more. But I think you normally need to look at what is the clue in that 216,000. 

Mr. WOLF. True, and let the record be corrected from that. But 

sexual assault in prison is not exactly a very positive thing to hapVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
423 

pen to someone, and so we can differentiate between the two, and 

there’s some of these prisons, I mean, you know. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I’m going to testify in two weeks at the Prison Rape 

Review Board. I look forward to doing that. I am fortunate that I 

am testifying on the positive side because we were one of the institutions selected that are doing a really good job. But this is an important issue, and it’s not something that we can overlook. On the 

other hand, I think you need to look at all of the facts. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. Let the record show that Mr. Lappin defended 

the Attorney General earlier in his comments. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Several times. 

Mr. WOLF. Several times. With vigor and enthusiasm had we 

been able to we could underline and put it in italics so that it 

would be clear, and we’re going to end on this, but I think it is an 

important issue because you are a key player. I mean, you’re sort 

of a quarterback for this issue. Congress affirms its duty to protect. 

We all know that. The much delayed notice of proposed rule making published in the Federal Register proposed a new standard, you 

all know that, in light of the fact that monitoring, monitoring and 

evaluation will be two keys to the success of the future standards. 

The Department is considering three possible approaches for the 

system of audits. These include audits every three years, random 

audits, and an auditing system triggered by indications that a facility may be out of compliance. Which of these three approaches to 

audits do you believe will have the most beneficial affect? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, it may be, you’re talking about a prison rape 

issue? 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It may be a combination of all three, sir. I mean, we 

audit ourselves every three years without question. But there are 

times when I, based on what I’m seeing, what indicators show me, 

I tell somebody, ‘‘I want you to go look at this program now.’’ 

Whether it’s been three years or not. 

So, I think this is a critically important issue and I know the Attorney General realizes how important this aspect of this requirement is, and we’re working together to figure out how best to move 

forward with that. But I know this is a very important issue, and 

it is a very important part of the follow-up that needs to be done. 

I’m not sure exactly where we’re going to land, but certainly it may 

be a combination of all three of those to really provide the adequate 

oversight. 

Mr. WOLF. Would it be good if we had the IG audit this? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know. 

Mr. WOLF. Somehow though so you’re not auditing yourself. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, I understand that. You know, right now there 

are, and I’m not saying that can’t be done, but we are audited now 

by a number of auditing agencies who have contract people who do 

this. I don’t think we should ignore that, that they’ve done it for 

a long time. They’ve done a really good job of it, and whether or 

not there could be some partnership there as to how to go about 

doing that and in doing so, maybe at less expense in the long term, 

because of the travel and other things associated with it. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Direct staff supervision and video monitoring 

are two methods of achieving the same goal: reducing the opporVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00423 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
424 

tunity for abuse to occur unseen. Is it possible to craft a formula 

that would set appropriate staffing levels with video monitoring 

standards for all federal prisons, or to what degree and under what 

circumstances is flexibility needed? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I thought by now you’d be giving me an easier question. I’ll be honest with you. I mean, I wish there was a formula, 

there’s not. I’m going to tell you why. It’s more so because of the 

variety of designs that there are in most prison systems. 

We operate prisons that are as old as 110 years old and one day 

old, and any technology is going to be impacted by the design of 

that prison, as well as staffing. I mean, if you go back to our older 

institutions you’re going to see a much higher staffing level given 

the design of that prison. I’ve got to have more people in there to 

watch the same number of inmates, compared to our more modern 

designed prisons that we built in a way that, not only can I have 

fewer people because I can stand in one place and see and hear everything, but when I put a camera or two in there, I can cover a 

whole lot larger area. 

I mean, you can over rely on cameras. You’ve got to have people 

looking at these things sometimes. We had this very discussion as 

we looked at that part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the one 

standard on direct supervision. It’s so difficult to do, given the variety of prison designs and the different types of inmates to come up 

with a formula. I think it’s done—now if I look at, do I have certain 

prisons that should be the same? Absolutely, because I have prisons that were designed exactly the same, housing similar types of 

inmates, and certainly we can do something like that in a system, 

a large enough system that has many facilities of the same type 

and same design, and same type of inmates. But realize, many 

State systems are really small, and they aren’t going to have that 

type of similarity, and they’ve acquired prisons I mean, no different 

than us. 

We have prisons that weren’t built to be prisons. We have prisons that were military bases. We have prisons that were monasteries, that we have converted to prison use, not conducive, you 

know, to technology and to staff supervision compared to our new 

prisons that we built that were designed to be prisons and done so 

in a more efficient, more effective way. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. The last question on that issue, the published 

standards diverge in several instances from the Commission’s recommendations. One example is in regard to cross-gender strip 

searches. The Commission proposed strict limits in this area. However, during the initial comment phase, many agencies objected to 

the limitations on the ground that it would require agencies either 

to hire significant numbers of additional male staff, or to lay off 

significant numbers of female staff, due to their overwhelmingly 

male inmate population and substantial percentage of female staff. 

How do you feel about the Commission’s recommendations? 

Mr. LAPPIN. On strip searches? I think that strip searches should 

be done only by members of the same sex, unless you’re in an 

emergency situation and you have no choice. That happens very, 

very seldom. 

I feel otherwise on pat searches. The only way we can run safe 

prisons though is when inmates are uncertain about when, how, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
425 

and where they are going to be confronted, either through an electronic device, through a verbal confrontation, or through a physical 

pat search, and we don’t give our staff a whole lot to protect themselves and most prison systems don’t. They, most of them, roll in 

there with a set of keys, a radio with a body alarm, and we give 

them the skills to verbally and analytically determine when they’ve 

got a problem and when they should leave and when they should 

react. Pat searches are one of the main reasons we can run prisons 

safely today. I believe they can be done appropriately by members 

of the opposite sex and should be trained to do so. 

But it concerns me greatly when somebody tells me that a staff 

member is not going to be able to pat search an inmate at the moment they think an inmate needs to be pat searched. 

Mr. WOLF. I understand. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So, I know this is an issue for some. On the other 

hand, I’m looking first at safe prisons. I want it done properly. I 

want it done appropriately, and as I convey to our staff, we have 

to create uncertainty in prisons. We’re more successful when inmates never know. It’s kind of the old police philosophy of omnipresence. They just don’t know what to expect. 

So when they’re walking through that unit, they will be uncertain as to whether they’re going to get frisked with a hand-held 

metal detector, walk through a metal detector, be pat searched, 

wouldn’t be strip searched. But if they’re going to be strip searched, 

I want a member of the same sex. 

And the better job we can do of that, the better we can run safer 

prisons. Because inmates, see, most inmates appreciate that, because the better you do that, the more confident they are there’s 

not something in there that’s going to hurt them if they’re out in 

the population. 

CORRECTIONAL STAFF KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY

Mr. WOLF. No, I understand. How many prison guards federal, 

state and local, have been killed in the last several years? Do you 

know? A number. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We lost one two years ago, unfortunately, and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Was that the Florida one? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, he was in California. But you’ve had every 

year—— 

Mr. WOLF. Why don’t you supply that for the record? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. Every year you have states losing—we lost I 

think, 24 in our history, in the line of duty. 

[The information follows:] 

NUMBERS OF CORRECTIONAL WORKERS KILLED ON DUTY

During the last 10 years, the BOP lost one Correctional Officer in the line of duty. 

Jose V. Rivera was killed on June 20, 2008 at USP Atwater, CA. 

The BOP does not have statistics on state and local correctional workers killed 

in the line of duty. 

Mr. WOLF. And I’m sure it would be much higher as you’re, in 

the State prisons in the sense of—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Could be. There are some extremely well run State 

prison systems. There really are. Granted, there are some that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
426 

aren’t as well funded, aren’t as well run. But you’ve got some really 

good State systems. But it’s tragic. 

PRISON FARMS

Mr. WOLF. Was the concept that agriculturally, like at Lorton, 

they—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Was that a bad idea or a good idea, assuming it, I 

mean, now—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. It’s not a bad idea. It depends on the population. Although, I’ll be honest with you—— 

Mr. WOLF. I love working in the—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. You’re talking to a former farmer, okay? It’s not inexpensive getting on a large scale to do it efficiently. 

Mr. WOLF. But you are training somebody. I’m not talking about 

just—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. It’s work again, and the other thing is, many of our 

inmates, see, we have no problem finding productive work opportunities for inmates in camps. We are not inclined to take inmates 

out of secure prisons to work on farms. Some states still do that. 

It is risky, risky business. 

Mr. WOLF. And is that the same way with regard to the road 

gangs that work on—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. Risky business. When you, you know, it’s appropriate in our opinion for inmates who are more trustworthy in our 

minimum security institutions. But the reality is, we have no problem finding ample work for that group, and it’s not a very large 

group. We are resistant to taking people out of prisons who we believe belong behind the fence, risking public safety by putting them 

out in the community and potentially losing them, or having a conflict that would result in somebody getting hurt. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. WOLF. Well, I respect that. You’re an expert, and I’m going 

to end and if Mr. Schiff has any last questions, I will go to him. 

But one, I want to thank you and your people for your service. I 

think you do a good job and it’s very tough. You live in a tough 

neighborhood and so I want you to know how I feel about that. 

Two, I would urge that you really do try to take whatever principles—I want to give again credit to Mr. Mollohan who, with the 

hearings that he had in the previous Congress, sort of set the stage 

for this briefing—to see what ideas that they have, and how you 

can implement them at that level. Third, I hope that you’ll push 

the bill. You ought to get your congressional relations guys to start 

pushing it because the real danger is that you’re going to run out 

of time and if you don’t do it in this year, next year is an election 

year, and so that ought to be moving fast. 

Fourth, on the prison industries, I think you’re really going to 

have to be bold. I think you should take your regulatory authority 

and stretch it and push it. There have been members on both sides 

of the aisle who have been problems for you on this whole prison 

industry issue. But I think it’s relatively easy to find products that 

are no longer made in the U.S., and I think you would be doing 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
427 

a service to the American taxpayer. You would be reducing the 

cost. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer a penny. We’re saving 

money. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah, you’re saving money. 

Mr. LAPPIN. If we didn’t have those factories running, those 

15,000 inmates would be out in the institution being watched by 

correctional staff and in other programs. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. So and secondly, it’s good for, to reduce the recidivism rate. Thirdly, it gives them some resources. So I think the 

more you push on this, at this particular time, because with the 

economic situation and the lack of funding and everything else, 

people may be more willing, and then you don’t get yourself into 

the whole issue of early release and everything else. This is a person who is in prison, but they’re making a contribution. 

So I hope you really move and I don’t know what authority we’re 

going to have here to kind of put this in the appropriations process. 

But we’re going to try to push it as far as we possibly can. But 

we’re not the authorizers in this, so I hope you’ll talk to them both 

on the House and the Senate side. With regard to that, Mr. Schiff, 

do you have any last thing? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur with those 

sentiments and I just want to thank you for this. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you both for all of your support. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Appreciate it. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
428 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 941 67259B.069
429 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 942 67259B.070
430 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 943 67259B.071
431 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 944 67259B.072
432 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 945 67259B.073
433 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 946 67259B.074
434 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 947/1000 67259B.075
435 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 16 here 67259C1.016
436 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 17 here 67259C1.017
437 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 18 here 67259C1.018
438 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 19 here 67259C1.019
(439) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011. 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

WITNESS 

LAURIE O. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 

We want to welcome Ms. Robinson. We appreciate your being 

here today to testify regarding the Department of Justice’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request for the Office of Justice Programs. 

As always, I strongly support funding for the Department of Justice programs that assist state and local efforts to fight the scourge 

of drugs, gangs, and violent crime. 

However, it is unlikely that the Congress will be in a position to 

provide increases to these programs. The fiscal crisis facing the Nation is real and will require a level of austerity that goes beyond 

the President’s budget request. 

We will be asking you to help us prioritize funding needs within 

the Office of Justice Programs as we head into the deliberations on 

fiscal year 2012. 

I’m pleased to see that the budget devotes a portion of its resources to the issue of domestic radicalization. I recently testified 

before the Committee on Homeland Security regarding the importance of fostering cooperation between law enforcement and peaceful, law-abiding Americans of the Muslim faith. 

We need to look no further than a number of individuals who 

have radicalized in northern Virginia over the last several years for 

an indication of the extent of this problem and the serious need to 

address it. So we are pleased that you are willing to move ahead 

to look at some of that. 

We are all concerned about the Administration’s decision to divert funding away from some critical proven programs in order to 

experiment with new programs. For example, the department’s 

abandonment of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is a 

major deficiency in this budget request. 

In the opinion of myself and the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Rogers, this cut will be devastating to communities ravaged by 

prescription drug abuse. 

The DEA administrator, before the recess, testified before this 

committee that prescription drugs have overtaken marijuana as the 

drug of choice of first-time drug users. Moreover, deaths from prescription drug abuse are on the rise as new distribution networks 

are emerging particularly in Florida, Georgia, and Ohio. 

In addition, this budget significantly reduces funding for the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act. This as the department has finally 

put forth regulations with what states and localities soon will be 

required to comply. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
440 

We look forward to asking you questions. Before that, I recognize 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, for any comments. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank 

the witness for appearing. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Ms. Robinson, your full statement will appear in the record. You 

can proceed to summarize and go as you see fit. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah, I 

am very pleased to be here to discuss the President’s 2012 budget 

request for the Office of Justice Programs. 

And I would like to begin by thanking the subcommittee for its 

leadership in addressing the public safety concerns of the American 

people. 

And I particularly wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

leadership in helping the Nation work toward creating a smarter, 

more effective criminal justice system. I think your work on justice 

reinvestment, in particular, is to be commended. 

I believe we are at a critical moment for public safety in the 

United States. State, local, and tribal public safety agencies across 

the country are clearly facing significant budget challenges and I 

think that threatens their ability to do their jobs. 

It seems to me that we have a responsibility at the federal level 

to see that they have the tools and the knowledge they need to 

fight crime in the most effective way possible. 

OJP’s mission is to help reduce crime and improve the administration of justice by promoting innovation, supporting research, and 

providing strategically targeted assistance. 

The President’s fiscal year 2012 request reflects three central 

themes: enhancing partnerships, strengthening evidence-based programs, and ensuring effective stewardship of federal funds. 

Our first step is to build on partnerships we have already established with the criminal justice field. The Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grants Program, I think, epitomizes the federal-statelocal partnership in public safety—I view it as our flagship program. 

Since 2009, we have placed a heightened emphasis on supporting 

evidence-based projects under Byrne JAG. The President’s budget 

request for 2012 includes $519 million for this program, the same 

amount enacted in 2010, and requested by the President in 2011. 

The request also includes $100 million under the Second Chance 

Act. Inmate reentry is arguably the most significant criminal justice challenge in America today. And I know you are very well 

aware of this, Mr. Chairman, because of the work you have done 

in this area. 

The Administration views this as a major priority for funding in 

2012—to support both adult and juvenile reentry work across the 

country. 

The President’s budget also requests a commitment to strengthen 

our basic knowledge about what works in preventing and controlling crime. I think this is a central federal role in public safety. 

The Attorney General last fall appointed an 18-member Science 

Advisory Board for OJP that is helping to guide our efforts in developing evidence-based policies and programs. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
441 

The President’s budget request is committed to science by including a three percent set-aside of OJP grant and reimbursement 

funds for research, statistics, and evaluation purposes. 

I have put a strong emphasis on improving our understanding of 

what works in preventing crime and in using that information to 

fight crime more effectively. 

In line with that, the President’s budget request includes a request for an on-line ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse and a diagnostic 

center to help jurisdictions develop and then implement evidencebased strategies. 

The President’s budget request reflects a strong effort to maximize federal resources and be sure we are as effective as possible. 

This is an area I really care about. In spite of a heightened workload, resulting from grants under the Recovery Act, of which more 

than 3,300 continue to be administered, salaries and related expenses represent only 7 percent of our total request, and the total 

request represents a net decrease of some $125 million from the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution level. 

Since I returned to OJP in January 2009, I have focused aggressively on ensuring strict accountability of federal funds. So we have 

established policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure 

sound stewardship, strong programmatic and financial management, and effective monitoring and oversight of our grant programs. 

I have worked very closely with the Inspector General’s Office to 

strengthen our monitoring and oversight functions. Last year, we 

closed 151 of the 288 open single and OIG audit reports. This represents a return of $3.3 million to the Federal Government for unallowable or unsupported costs. 

In oversight testimony before this subcommittee in February, the 

acting Inspector General noted the positive steps the Department 

had taken to improve its grant management practices. She called 

our efforts to implement the Recovery Act ‘‘extraordinary’’. And it 

is unusual for the IG to be that praising. 

We will continue to work closely with the IG to make sure OJP’s 

grant administration process is fair, transparent, and effective. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with this budget, OJP looks forward to working with you, the subcommittee, and Congress to ensure that funds appropriated to OJP are used wisely and effectively 

to support states and localities and to promote smart-on-crime approaches. 

Thank you so much. And, of course, I am happy to answer your 

questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
442 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1008 here 67259C.001
443 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1009 here 67259C.002
444 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1010 here 67259C.003
445 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1011 here 67259C.004
446 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1012 here 67259C.005
447 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1013 here 67259C.006
448 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1014 here 67259C.007
449 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1015 here 67259C.008
450 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1016 here 67259C.009
451 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1017 here 67259C.010
452 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1018 here 67259C.011
453 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1019 here 67259C.012
454 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1020 here 67259C.013
455 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1021 here 67259C.014
456 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1022 here 67259C.015
457 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1023 here 67259C.016
458 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT

We appreciated your participation last year in the January 2010 

summit on recidivism reduction. Earlier this year, Pew and the 

Council of Governments released a final report of the best practices. 

Have you had a chance to go through the report? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. In fact, I was extremely impressed with the 

report. I read the entire thing, Mr. Chairman, and I think it provides a wonderful blueprint for states and counties moving forward. 

We have been excited to work in concert with the Council of 

State Governments, Pew, and other technical assistance providers 

here and with counties and states. And we are now seeing wonderful response back with the work we are doing with the funding 

from 2010. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, what can you do using the Pew recommendations working with state and local governments? What can OJP do? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We now have—— 

Mr. WOLF. What do you plan on doing? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We have applications, Mr. Chairman, from 13 

states and 23 local communities and we are planning in the next 

two weeks to go forward with applications. 

Mr. WOLF. Are these as a result of the Pew? Can you tell us 

what states they are? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I am not—— 

Mr. WOLF. For the record or—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, because those decisions have not been made 

final, so I am not in the position to announce those here. But we 

would love to have you be part of that announcement if you—— 

Mr. WOLF. Oh, I do not have to be. I am just curious about which 

states. Is the State of Virginia a participant or have they approached you at all? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I think they are a part of the applications indeed, 

yes. 

Mr. WOLF. A participant in that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. But we are excited about that. I think what 

is particularly good about the summit report that came out in January is the specificity of the recommendations in there. 

For example, the recommendations about supervision of offenders 

in the community, I thought it was—and I have been in this field 

for 35 some years—one of the best reports I have seen because of 

the detail that it goes into about the data-driven approaches and 

supervision of offenders. 

We focus so much attention on offenders when they are in prison, 

but we have got to connect that back into the supervision in the 

community. And I thought it was a terrific, detailed report. 

Mr. WOLF. How many states are currently implementing these 

strategies to improve reentry and reduce recidivism? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We have 200 active reentry demonstration programs in the community or in states around the country. I will 

have to get back to you about how many states themselves have 

those programs. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
459 

REENTRY AND JUSTICE REINVESTMENT STRATEGIES

Through its Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) and the implementation of 

seven Second Chance Act programs, BJA is supporting many states and localities 

in improving reentry and reducing recidivism. Through close coordination with the 

Pew Center on the States and five technical assistance (TA) providers (the Vera Institute of Justice, the Council of State Governments, the Center for Effective Public 

Policy, Community Resources for Justice, and the Urban Institute), BJA is currently 

providing five states (Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio) with 

support in justice reinvestment analysis and recommendation development. Additionally, BJA has provided three local justidictions (Travis County, TX; Allegheny 

County, PA; and Alachua County, FL) with initial justice reinvestment planning 

support. It is worth noting that additional states are utilizing the justice reinvestment model with direct support from Pew Center on the States. It is exciting to see 

these initiatives taking root in so many jurisdictions around the country, and to 

have forged to a public-private partnership to support these initiatives. 

Looking to the future, BJA has received 30 letters from jurisdictions requesting 

initial justice reinvestment assistance (12 States and 18 localities) and has received 

6 applications (1 State and 5 localities) from jurisdictions requesting technical assistance and ‘‘seed’’ funding to support implementation of justice reinvestment recommendations, BJA is in the process of working with the Pew Center on the States 

and its TA partners to make recommendations on sites selected to move forward. 

BJA anticipates making these decisions in June, 2011. 

Through Second Chance Act programming, BJA has provided resources to state, 

local, and tribal governments; and non-profit organizations to provide comprehensive reentry planning and services for reentering offenders. In fiscal year (FY) 2009 

and 2010, more than 250 awards were made to or within 47 states and the District 

of Columbia. Except in the case of mentoring grants, priority was placed on jurisdictions targeting higher risk offenders for services and those that proposed the use 

of effective correctional practices including both pre- and post-release service provision. In addition to focusing on implementation grants, FY 2011 resources will support National Institute of Justice research and evaluation efforts. 

An interactive map at http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/nationalcriminal-justice-initiatives-map identifies active reentry grants in each state. Second 

Chance Act grants, Justice Reinvestment grants, as well as others supported by the 

Department of Lab or, Education, and Health and Human Services are all available 

on this map. 

But we had over 1,000 applications under the Second Chance Act 

last year. Tremendous response from around the country. 

We had, just at the end of February, a conference in Washington 

for our reentry grantees from around the country. We had over 800 

attendees there working and getting technical assistance on how to 

work most effectively with returning offenders. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, since the report is so new and fresh, although 

the subcommittee sent a copy to all 50 governors, and I think we 

have only heard back from one. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Really? 

Mr. WOLF. Of course, the mail delivery here is always not the 

best and everything else, but it did not overwhelm me with the response that we have gotten back. And I do not want to miss 

this—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. This wave that is coming into sea. So is 

there a way maybe you could follow-up, get the committee to give 

you a copy, the subcommittee to give you a copy of the letter that 

went out to the governors? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And you could then follow-up with the governors saying that you have been asked to follow-up and if you are willing 

to be helpful and participating to see how they can move ahead because it has gotten such rave reviews. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
460 

But the longer it is out there and people do not begin to move 

on it, particularly in these economic times, so if you could help us 

there, maybe look at the letter. We will get you a copy of the letter—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Signed by both of us here. And then you 

can see if you can follow-up with them. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. I think that would be great. And if I can 

make another suggestion, one of the things that might be good: I 

think you know that the Attorney General established a Reentry 

Council with the other cabinet members on the domestic side of the 

cabinet. We would suggest that each of the governors establish 

something like that as well. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why don’t you get it. We will give you the letter 

and you can tell us how you think you might move ahead to—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Wonderful. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Get them. 

Ms. ROBINSON. We would be delighted to do that. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

Mr. WOLF. According to your budget priorities, OJP, unlike the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, does not feel that prescription 

drug abuse is an urgent national priority in the realm of state and 

local enforcement. 

Is that a fair statement or what is your feelings about that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, we do think that prescription 

drugs abuse is a very serious problem. And I know from the Attorney General’s testimony here that there was a lot of discussion 

about this issue. 

With the Byrne JAG—— 

Mr. WOLF. He did not seem very motivated on it, though. He 

seemed—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. I will tell you that Jim Burch who is the acting 

director of BJA and I are very concerned about this issue. 

And we have actually, since 2002 when this program was established, put in a great deal of time and attention to—well, I have 

not been here that long, but Jim has. And I remember when Mr. 

Rogers chaired the subcommittee talking with him about this issue 

in the late 1990s because he was very concerned about it, in Kentucky, about the problem at that time before the program was officially established. 

So I have been very well aware of this issue and concern for 

many years. Through discretionary funding, through Byrne JAG, 

we will continue to focus on this, to provide training and technical 

assistance. 

Some 47 states have set up PDMPs, the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. We will continue to focus on this issue and this 

problem because it does continue to be of great concern. And I 

know that. 

I know that Florida has applied and received $800,000 under this 

program in the past. I know this is a great concern in Florida, in 

Broward County and other parts of Florida. We will not take our 

eyes off this problem. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
461 

Mr. WOLF. Well, we are sending a letter to the governor of Florida today on this issue. I am not so sure Florida has moved nearly 

as aggressively as you think they have. 

In 2009, there were seven million people abusing prescription 

drugs. And in some states, more people are dying from prescription 

drug abuse than from car accidents or gunshots. According to the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, nearly one in twelve high school 

seniors reported nonmedical use of codeine and one in twenty reported abusing Oxycodone. 

What are the reasons then to eliminate the Prescription Drug 

Monitoring Program? 

Ms. ROBINSON. As I think you said in your opening statement, 

Mr. Chairman, there are not enough dollars to go around for everything. And these were tough decisions that the Administration was 

faced with. 

And among other things, the Byrne JAG money—which we tried 

to preserve at the existing levels—is funding that can be used for 

a variety of purposes. The decision was made in some instances 

that that funding could be used to cover other purposes. This was 

one of the programs that the decision was made that it could be 

covered by Byrne JAG. 

Mr. WOLF. The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program supports 

state electronic databases which collect data on controlled substances that are dispensed. 

As of July 2010, this figure seems to differ, 34 states we believe 

now have monitoring programs, from you. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. Sixteen states including Florida still do not. So what 

was your basis on the figure that you mentioned with regard—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, they have received in the past $800,000. It 

is up to the State then to fully implement that. 

Mr. WOLF. And have you been in touch with them based on 

what—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. BJA has been in touch, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. What have they done with the money? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, we will have to get back to you on those details. I do not know off the top of my head the specifics on that. 

But at a certain point, it is up to—— 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
462 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1034 67259C.017
463 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1035 67259C.018
464 

Mr. WOLF. But that is—— 

Ms. ROBINSON [continuing]. The states to carry forward. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. That is important because Florida is the 

leading State for pill mills. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And it is currently experiencing an average of seven 

deaths each day. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. So by the end of today, seven more people will die in 

Florida. If a program like this is eliminated, what is the likelihood 

that states like Florida will implement a monitoring program or 

that rural states like Kentucky will be able to maintain the ones 

that they have? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. No. I agree with you that this is a serious 

problem. 

Mr. WOLF. There is an article which we would put in the record 

at this time from a Florida newspaper. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
465 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1037 67259C.019
466 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1038 67259C.020
467 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1039 67259C.021
468 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1040 67259C.022
469 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1041 67259C.023
470 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1042 67259C.024
471 

Mr. WOLF. I would quote it, but the figures may be a little 

wrong. Ninety percent of the Oxycodone that was prescribed came 

out of Florida. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Ten percent came out of the other 49 states. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And I would like to urge you, if you would—do you 

have contacts in the State of Florida? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. If you could call them—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. See what their plans are. We will share 

with you. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Maybe what you can do is get the article, have it sent 

over. So we can give you, so you can read it before you leave or 

you can take it with you. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And then who is your contact in the State of Florida? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We work with a number of the police chiefs down 

there, with people at the state level. 

Mr. WOLF. At the state level, who at the state level? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I cannot tell you off the top of my head, but we 

can certainly follow-up with you. We work with people in the state 

police. We work with the state Attorney General. 

[The information follows:] 

FLORIDA’S PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM

Please refer to the previous insert as its response is the same. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. If you would maybe call the head of DEA to 

get the background. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. WOLF. Read the article—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. That we will give you before you leave. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. And then if you could call the State of Florida and 

talk to whoever are your contacts and get back to us and let us 

know—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. What because if seven people a day are 

dying—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. The impact on the young people there. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with the missing and exploited children program. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, we are at $70 million and—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
472 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. The proposal is that we go to $60 million. Where would the $10 million be cut from? 

Ms. ROBINSON. That funding goes across a number of different 

programs. It is not simply the National Center on Missing and Exploited Children, but covers a number of things including the 

ICACS and other programs in this broad area. 

Mr. FATTAH. I went out and visited the National Center. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I recall that. Ralph Martin on my staff I 

know was with you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes. 

Ms. ROBINSON. The National Center is a program that I am very 

familiar with. I have known Ernie Allen for many years. He is a 

good friend. I think very highly of it. 

This is an area where along with so many other programs across 

the Department of Justice, across the Administration, and across 

OJP where there was funding that had to be trimmed because, as 

the Chairman noted, we are in a tough budget year. So even with 

programs that are priorities, things had to be shaved off. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I would hope that as we work to finalize the 

appropriations for this year—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. That we will work to make sure that 

this is not one of the areas that is trimmed—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Because I think that missing and exploited children and the—it is not something where we can afford—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

PRISONER REENTRY

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. To make a cut. But let me ask you 

about this Reentry Council that the Attorney General set up. Now, 

you have 16 different, 17 different federal agencies—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Interacting around the question of reentry. Now, we have, based on your testimony, almost 800,000 people being released from prison each year—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. 750,000 or so. How is the Reentry 

Council’s work going to impact making reentry as meaningful as 

possible for these people returning to various communities? What 

is the plan of the council in terms of—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Getting more buy-in from other nonJustice Department agencies? 

Ms. ROBINSON. That is a very good question. I have been involved either directly in government or outside of government over 

three and a half decades and this is one of the most impressive 

kinds of collaborations across government I have seen over that 

long career. 

On January 5th, Attorney General Eric Holder in his conference 

room convened seven different cabinet officials around his table 

and, rather than their sitting there reading talking points, they 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
473 

were really engaged and very excited about the notion of working 

on reentry. 

So Shaun Donovan from HUD talked about his work in New 

York City when he headed housing there and how they had worked 

with Marty Horn who was the head of corrections in New York 

City, and how they worked to ensure that offenders coming out of 

jail there actually had a place to live. 

And Kathleen Sebelius from HHS talked about the community 

health centers and how they could really work to ensure that returning offenders had a chance to engage with health services 

when they were coming out. 

And General Shinseki from Veterans Affairs talked about the 

need to make sure that we knew who the returning offenders are 

who, in fact, are veterans. He said we are not sure we are connecting with them and have that information. 

So we were able to help make connections on that. So it is a 

problem solving type of situation to connect the dots, to really 

make those connections. 

And beyond that—the cabinet level body—there is the staff level, 

with 17 agencies regularly meeting, headed by two of my staff 

members. That is where a lot of the day-to-day work gets done. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me drill down on that for one more layer then. 

Let’s take the issue of veterans. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. We know that a disproportionate number of these 

young people end up homeless, end up involved in certain antisocial and illegal activities and end up in our prison system. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. And we say we do not know. Are we doing something because of the Reentry Council to now know? Are we— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Creating a data process in which we 

can extract that information and know how many veterans are incarcerated, how many are being released, and what types of services they may need? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. More than that, we are trying to connect 

them with services that veterans hospitals and other clinics provide, so we are trying to actually connect services. We are trying 

to lift restrictions. We are trying to make those services available. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I would be very interested. I had sponsored 

some report language in the past to try to do a kind of census on 

veterans—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Wonderful. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. And this population. So whatever information you could supply that would be of help—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Great. 

PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFITS

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. To understanding where you are and 

what we might do to do even more in that regard. Now, one of the 

increases in the budget is in the death benefits for law enforcement; is that correct? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. The Public Safety Officers Benefits Program. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
474 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. And is that because we have had an increased number of fatalities? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, yes. Last year alone, we had a 40 percent 

increase in fatalities, mainly from shootings of law enforcement officers, very sadly. This is really just to keep up with what we have 

seen. 

Mr. FATTAH. Are we satisfied that the level of benefit is sufficient 

to help the family? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. We think that this will calibrate with the 

need. 

HAWAII HOPE

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. All right. And the reentry efforts now, we have funded it at $100 million and that is where the request is 

now. And some 250 programs have been funded. 

You are kind of moving a number of things around here, but the 

Hawaii program that you identify, the Hawaii Opportunity Probation—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Enforcement Program, can you tell us 

a little bit about this? We have a program in Philadelphia called 

the Youth Violence Prevention Program which is an intensive 

interaction with youthful offenders—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Who, based on evidence, there would be 

a higher probability of them being involved in a very serious crime 

in the near future. They get a very intensive, focused effort and it 

has been very successful. 

But if you could tell the committee a little bit about the Hawaii 

program that you have identified, which you say is having remarkable success even with meth users. So tell us a little bit about this. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Sure. It is the Hawaii HOPE Program as you 

mentioned. And it was started by a former U.S. attorney in Hawaii 

who is now a state court judge, Steven Alm. I knew him back in 

the 1990s when he was the U.S. attorney there. 

And it has some alignment with the Drug Courts, but it is not 

as treatment intensive. It is a probation program. I always think 

of the analogy that it keeps the offenders on a short leash. They 

have to come back and report in very regularly before the judge. 

And so it is basically using that very regular monitoring before the 

judge with sanctions if they are not coming back clean. 

So it uses regular drug testing and it only sends them to treatment if it is clear that they cannot stay drug free without treatment. So it is a less expensive program than Drug Court. 

Judge Alm found that this Hawaii HOPE Program was, with our 

evaluation through the National Institute of Justice, basically reducing recidivism by 50 percent. So that is a pretty dramatic reduction. 

Mr. FATTAH. It is remarkable. The question becomes how we take 

this here. I assume this means this has something to do with your 

request for a clearinghouse on what works—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. At least to highlight these types of programs. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
475 

Ms. ROBINSON. Correct. 

Mr. FATTAH. And let me end my questioning because I am aware 

of your work and with the University of Pennsylvania and with 

Jerry Lee—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. On this question of evidence-based approaches. Are there things that we now know that could be saving 

taxpayers money, making communities safer, and helping people 

turn away from a life of crime that we have not yet taken to scale, 

that we could find ways to help maybe provide incentives to take 

them to scale? 

That is, are we past the point of finding something over here 

that works and studying it and that what we need to do is—I think 

one of the things that the chairman always points to is that the 

communications to governors and other things, do not seem to get 

the response that we would hope. 

But are there things that we now know work in terms of diverting juveniles from the criminal justice system and some of these 

other larger issues that have been studied for a very long time? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. Your point is very well taken, Mr. Fattah. 

I firmly believe that we can make government more effective with 

that kind of smart-on-crime spending. 

As you point out, the work that Jerry Lee and others have fostered, that is my reason for proposing this ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse. We have set out in the budget proposal to highlight for practitioners and policymakers, not in academic journal articles, but in 

very crisp summaries the things that governors, or mayors or busy 

practitioners can see, a framework for the things that they can easily adopt at the state and local level. I think that is the way forward in a tight budget environment. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Serrano. 

STUDY OF HATE CRIMES

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome. Thank you for your service. 

For fiscal year 2010, we inserted language in this bill asking for 

a study of hate crimes against immigrants and Hispanics, in some 

cases these crimes against Hispanics because some folks—I mean, 

there is no reason why they should be, but some people perceive 

them to be undocumented, as some people would say illegal aliens. 

So how is that going? 

When do you think that study will be completed and is there 

anything you can tell us now about what you are finding? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you very much for the question, sir. 

The study is underway by our National Institute of Justice. We 

do not have findings at this point to report to you, but the study 

will be available by September of 2012 and we look forward to 

sharing it with you all in the subcommittee. 

Mr. SERRANO. And the request came from this committee, but I 

am sure there has been other discussions of this. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
476 

Do you have any information on the reporting of these crimes or 

crimes that people feel are hate crimes against immigrants? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I do not have that information, but we will be 

happy to do some further inquiry and get back to you. 

I know that NIJ is looking at existing information because, when 

you undertake a study of this kind, you always look at what they 

call the literature review. So we can certainly get back to you on 

that. 

[The information follows:] 

HATE CRIMES AGAINST IMMIGRANTS

The literature in this area is sparse, and more research is needed that takes a 

serious and rigorous look at hate crimes against immigrants in America. 

The Congressionally directed study on hate crimes against immigrants will be 

completed by September of 2012, and will provide some of the much needed information on this subject. The study’s contractor, Abt Associates, is conducting an 

analysis of existing national data and other data from California, Texas, New Jersey, and Michigan, to determine if there has been an increase in reports of hate 

crimes against new immigrants, individuals who are perceived to be immigrants, 

and Hispanic-Americans. Abt Associates will also complete a more in-depth look at 

the four selected states, including surveys of law enforcement and focus groups. 

A preliminary overview of findings regarding trends, as well as details on how 

participating states were selected, will be available in May 2011. 

The National Institute of Justice maintains an active topical webpage on the issue 

of hate crimes at http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/hate-crime/welcome.htm, and will 

continue to update this page as more information becomes available. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Well, we would appreciate that because that 

is an issue of great concern. We have an immigration issue, but a 

violence related to it that should not be allowed. And we need to 

know more about it, not to mention the fact, and this is kind of a 

touchy subject to discuss, but there are people being hurt because 

they are perceived to be immigrants which was, you know, the concern that—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. The Latino community and many others had with the Arizona law, that it allowed police officers—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. To stop you if they thought you might 

be here illegally. And so it is a real big problem. 

Let me ask you about with regard to the proposed new race to 

the top. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

JUVENILE JUSTICE

Mr. SERRANO. Funding for juvenile justice. If given full funding 

in fiscal year 2012, how many states do you envision getting 

awards? How many states currently get awards under the program? 

This initiative is replacing the Juvenile Accountability Incentive 

Block Grant Program and the Part B Formula grants. Will some 

states be hurt by reductions in funding if we transfer many of our 

current state formula initiatives to this race to the top? 

You know, Mr. Chairman, I could add to this and say that these 

grants become even more important now that another source of 

local funding we used to have is no longer around, but I do not 

want to get into that discussion at this time out of respect to all 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
477 

of us. If anybody else knows what I am talking about, we can discuss it later. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Serrano and Mr. Chairman, I want to tell 

you that we have had a great deal of feedback from the states, from 

Capitol Hill, and from juvenile justice groups since the release of 

the President’s budget about this juvenile justice proposal. 

As you are probably aware, during the development of the President’s budget, it is a rather internal process within the executive 

branch, so you do not have time for a collaboration process, and so 

in many ways, that consultation process begins after the release of 

the President’s budget. 

We have learned a great deal since the release of the President’s 

budget and we have taken that consultation to heart. 

So I have been authorized to say at this point, at this time, during this testimony that we have reconsidered the President’s budget request as initially proposed and that we are now suggesting 

and proposing that this program move forward in a different fashion and that 90 percent of the funds be under the existing Formula 

Program of the original Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Part B and the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program—and so that would be $110 million of it, and that $10 million 

would be for a demonstration program. 

So we would be pulling back from the ‘‘Race to the Top’’ proposal 

as initially proposed. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Well, I thank you for your testimony. I 

thank you for your answers to these questions. 

You know, we are going through a difficult time here. I do not 

have to tell anyone. And I think we have reached the point where 

both sides agree there has to be cuts. The question is how to apply 

those budget cuts. 

And while you may not be one of the most famous agencies in 

the Federal Government, your department is certainly one that has 

a huge impact on a lot of folks. And I know the chairman understands that because he has spoken in the case of the juvenile justice programs, he has spoken about gangs for many years—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. And other issues. And he knows that 

issue well. So I wish you well and we will in any way that we can 

be helpful. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

The article we have to give you, I will go back to the issue before 

we go on, on Oxycodone, it says consider this. This is from War— 

Kids and Drugs, the war races on with no cease fire or surrender 

in sight by Bill Cornwell. We will submit it for the record. 

Consider this. David Aronberg, a former state senator who is 

now a special prosecutor with the State Attorney General’s Office 

in charge of tackling the pill mill problem, recently noted in the 

first six months of 2010, going slow so this can filter in, 41.2 million doses of Oxycodone were prescribed in Florida. The total prescribed doses of Oxycodone in every other state combined was 4.8 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
478 

million. In other words, almost 90 percent of the Oxycodone prescribed in the United States is ordered by Florida physicians. 

So I hope you can—we will give you this—that you can move 

ahead on this quickly. 

And we are releasing a letter today asking the governor of Florida who happens to be a Republican governor, and I guess the letter could be viewed as critical, to kind of deal with this issue. And 

I hope the Justice Department and you can kind of cooperate. 

DEFICIT REDUCTION

On this issue of the deficit, I have just got to. I was not going 

to say it, but I am going to say it now after looking at this article, 

too. We have record deficits under this Administration. That is a 

fact. This month it will be another record. 

The comments that I saw the other day, yesterday about Chuck 

Schumer to sort of put this in a context of playing a political game 

of crib sheets that had a comment on something is very depressing. 

It demonstrates that the Democrats, some Democrats in the other 

body are trying to make political hay out of dealing with this issue. 

Thirdly, until we deal with the issue of getting this budget out 

of the way, coming together on a bipartisan basis which I think can 

be done—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. But also dealing with the whole entitlement issue, of reforming the entitlements, no excuses, let’s just 

come together in a bipartisan way. And I was disappointed that the 

President and the Administration have failed to step forward and 

provide the leadership on this issue. 

And this article today, when you have the Deficit Reduction 

Commission signed by Senator Coburn and Senator Durbin, if 

those two can come together. 

Now, Senator Coburn is willing to push this thing and that is 

what they call the gang of six in the Senate and now Coburn is 

being attacked by Grover Norquist, but Coburn is pushing back 

and, yet, where is the President? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. And where is the Administration? They are AWOL. 

They are silent. So the Senate leadership is silent on continuing to 

try to come together in a bipartisan way. 

Speaker Boehner has laid this thing out. We want to resolve this 

thing. We do not want to see the government shut down. I think 

it is fair to say now that Chuck Schumer wants to see the government shut down. 

And so if this government shuts down, the blame should be on 

Chuck Schumer. The fact is if the government shut down, and I am 

opposed to the government shutting down—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Every person who calls my office, I am 

going to tell them Chuck Schumer was responsible for the government shutting down. And the failure of the Administration to come 

together and deal with this entitlement issue in a bipartisan way, 

the way that Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles, two people who 

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
479 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. So I know you are not—this is not your 

portfolio—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. But I think anyone who has a political 

appointment when given an opportunity ought to tell the White 

House the Congress expects, is urging, pleading for the President 

to come forward to provide the leadership, the same way that Senator Coburn. If Senator Coburn can stand up to Grover Norquist, 

then the President ought to be willing to participate in this. But 

to be silent is really not good leadership. 

So if the government shuts down, we can blame Senator Schumer. And if these programs are cut, which I do not want to see 

them cut—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. We can blame the Administration for not 

being willing to come forward to deal with a bipartisan package 

similar to the Erskine Bowles-Simpson Commission, that we need 

to get on with this, get on with resolving the continuance so we 

give some sense of order to government—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. As to what we can do and also to come 

together before the end of this year with a comprehensive, bipartisan, I stress the word bipartisan, and I think the fact that 

Coburn and Durbin could come together, I think if they can come 

together, I think the whole Congress ought to be able to come together. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Uh-huh. 

NICS AND NCHIP

Mr. WOLF. The budget request proposes to support both the 

NICS Program and the National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Program, which supports state and local domestic violence 

databases, under the funding for the National Criminal History Improvement Program, but in consolidating these programs, there is 

a significant net reduction. 

The National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction Program 

is targeted for elimination for a savings of $3 million and the NICS 

is reduced by $8 million, yet a mere $500,000 increase is proposed 

for the NCHIP. 

Will this proposal realistically support all these activities given 

the net $11 million reduction? So if you are increasing by only 

$500,000 and you are going to have the other cuts, the $8 million 

into $3 million, how do you deal with that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I did not know if you were finished. 

Mr. WOLF. I am. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Okay. These are also, of course, important areas 

and particularly as we look in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. We do have a total of $24 million between the two programs 

that we have requested. 

And I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that we have $10 million 

in carryover under NICS from 2010. Only nine states currently 

qualify for NICS funding and we were not able, despite out best efforts in outreach to the states, additional states were not able to 

qualify last year. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
480 

We are hoping more will qualify for the solicitation that is currently out on the street right now for 2011, assuming appropriations come through for that. But right now we have a $10 million 

carryover in the account. So that money is available currently. 

Again, budgets have been tight, but we are seeing some good 

growth in the number of mental health records, for example, that 

are coming into the NICS system. So we are optimistic about the 

degree to which states are continuing to build those records in the 

system. 

BJS has done, I think, a good job in the outreach, working with 

FBI and with ATF and working with states. It is a slow process 

of getting those records, both domestic violence and the mental 

health records on line. 

A lot of these states started out slowly—I think back to when 

NCHIP started back in 1994. We actually saw some states out 

there that were still maintaining their criminal history records on 

index cards, literally in shoe boxes. 

So we have come a long way, but there is a long way admittedly 

that we have to go. So clearly we could use a lot more money, but 

it is a tight budget year. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, the Administration bragged that their example 

of working together in a bipartisan way with the Republicans in 

the House and Senate last year was to pass the tax bill which gave 

a 2 percent payroll tax into social security which gave Jimmy 

Buffett and Warren Buffett a big break in their Social Security, 

which cost $112 billion to the Social Security system, and that was 

described as great leadership. It is not very tough to give candy 

away even if you are giving candy to Jimmy Buffett and Warren 

Buffett, it is the other side of the coin of how do you get control? 

PRISON RAPE

Since Congress affirmed its duty to protect inmates from sexual 

abuse, and I think that—I have been disappointed with the Attorney General on this issue, I thought he would be much more sympathetic particularly since he has served as a judge with Judge 

Walton, but apparently not. 

Since Congress affirmed its duty to protect inmates from sexual 

abuse by enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act the national 

prison Rape Elimination Commission has studied the cause of sexual abuse in confinement, developed national standards for the reduction of such crimes, and set in motion a process for eliminating, 

once and for all, prison rape. 

In a much delayed notice of proposed rule making, the department published its own version of the Commission’s national standards for combating sexual abuse in federal, state, and local correctional and detention facilities and it includes comments on many 

more standards for inclusion in the final rule. 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act authorizes grants for staffing, 

training, and technical assistance to prevent and prosecute prison 

rape and it makes it clear that the Department of Justice should 

provide assistance to states—many who resisted this—so that 

budgetary circumstances do not compromise efforts to protect inmates, yet this budget is reducing funding for the program from 

$15 million in fiscal year 2010 to $5 million. Can you tell us why? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
481 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. Mr. Chairman, in the fall of 2010 we pro- vided a $13 million cooperative agreement, a grant, to the National 

Council on Crime and Delinquency for a resource center on this 

subject to provide technical assistance and training for implementation of the standards that would be provided to the states and 

to localities, and that is a three-year grant. 

So that, coupled with funding that is in the budget, we thought 

would be sufficient going forward. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think it really will be to deal with this prob- lem, the budget reduces funding from $15 million to $5 million? 

Ms. ROBINSON. That was our best projection. 

Mr. WOLF. With a growing problem that it is, and have you read 

the report of the National Commission? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I have. 

Mr. WOLF. They do not seem to think it would be enough. 

Ms. ROBINSON. We also will have technical assistance from the 

National Institute of Corrections, and we can use other technical 

assistance through BJA. So that was our best projection looking 

forward. 

Mr. WOLF. To what extend will OJP be deploying other resources 

to get the necessary reforms? What do you plan on actually doing 

with regard to getting the reforms under way? 

Ms. ROBINSON. You mean in terms of PREA? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I think that there are other things that we 

can do. I think through broader technical assistance and training. 

Mr. WOLF. What will you do since this is a pretty significant 

budget cut? What do you plan on doing? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We have done a great deal of work over the years 

in corrections. 

Mr. WOLF. But the problem has increased, it has not really decreased, and—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. I think there is a great deal that we can and will 

do with regard to training and technical assistance. We can pull together people in a conference and do training that way. We can 

work with the National Institute of Corrections, which is a highly 

regarded body. I serve on their advisory board. 

Mr. WOLF. Do they support all the recommendations of the commission? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I could not speak for the National Institute of 

Corrections, so I do not know, but they have been very closely involved with it, so I would guess they would be very supportive. 

DNA AND FORENSICS

Mr. WOLF. With DNA and forensic analysis programs, the budget 

request would eliminate the Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Programs and also reduce funding for the DNA-related and 

forensic initiatives by $51 million and roughly by one-third. 

These programs fund state and local efforts to address the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples, including activities authorized by 

the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. 

They also support non-DNA forensic science activities and assist 

law enforcement with solving cold cases in efforts to identify deceased persons. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
482 

Will the elimination of these programs affect the achievement of 

the goals of the President’s DNA initiatives, specifically ensuring 

that forensic DNA analysis reaches its full potential to solve 

crimes? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I could not hear the 

last— 

Mr. WOLF. Will the elimination of these programs affect the 

achievements or the goals of the President’s DNA initiatives, specially ensuring that forensic DNA analysis reaches its full potential 

to solve crimes? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you so much. 

Again, we are not happy about the need to cut back on these programs. The DNA initiative at $161 million was one of the highest—if 

you are looking across the entire OJP budget it was one of the top 

three or four highest in dollar amount items in the entire budget. 

So not surprisingly probably, it was one of those that did get 

trimmed back. 

One of the things that we have seen in the last number of 

years—between 2005 and 2009—was that state and local DNA labs 

greatly increased their capacity to process DNA cases, a tremendous increase in their capacity, I think 3.7 fold. At the same time, 

the field has grown much more sophisticated about the use of DNA. 

They see so much more potential in DNA. 

For example, from NIJ research they know that DNA can now 

be used in property cases—in burglaries—so there is a lot more 

DNA business coming in the front door of the labs. 

So there are still a lot of backlogs in those labs, but it is much 

better than it was. 

So the answer to your question is that things are better at the 

state and local level in the forensics and lab area, but the needs 

still are big. So we are in a better place than we were several years 

back. 

This funding—$110 million—is still a significant amount of 

money to do a lot in both the DNA and the non-DNA forensic 

areas. I think we can still make a significant contribution here. 

In addition to this, there is a request in the 3 percent research 

set aside for $10 million for forensic science, so that is an additional piece here that should be recognized as well. 

So together, I think, these things can make a very significant 

contribution to the science both in the DNA and the non-DNA forensic areas. 

Mr. WOLF. My last question then I will go to Mr. Fattah, and I 

appreciate Mr. Bonner, I will be coming back. 

To what extent then do you expect the NIJ will be able to maintain the DNA analysis services in the absence of a Coverdell? With 

the absence of Coverdell what does that mean? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I think the Coverdell money is certainly an important one in helping support lab infrastructure, but it is an area 

where I think we have to, at some point, turn back to the states 

and say this is something that they, in a tight federal budget year, 

need to support. I think that if you have one or the other, the federal support on the science side is the more important area to be 

covering. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
483 

Mr. WOLF. Well, the follow up to go one more. With the National 

Institute of Justice, the National Research Council criticized NIJ’s 

mandated involvement with forensic programs saying that programs like Coverdell ‘‘diminish NIJ’s stature as a research agency,’’ 

and divert considerable time away from its core mission. 

Was the decision to eliminate this program a response to the report? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, although that is actually a very good question. It was not—though I think that that could be taken in that 

way—it was not in response to the National Academy of Sciences’ 

report, it was really more around federal versus state functions. 

I think that is a separate question that can be addressed, however, the question of who handles that function within OJP— 

whether that Coverdell program should be transferred, for example, to BJA—would be, I think, the proper question to be asked. 

Mr. WOLF. What do you think? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I think that is probably a good question, and that 

perhaps it should be transferred, if it is funded, to BJA. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. I have had a round so would be glad to yield, if you 

want, to our colleague. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I am going to go to Mr.—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Yeah. And then I will—— 

Mr. BONNER [presiding]. I have got a few questions, but Chairman Wolf has an appointment. My name is Jo Bonner from Alabama. 

Ms. ROBINSON. How are you, sir? 

Mr. BONNER. Does my friend from the Bronx have a question? 

Mr. FATTAH. I was not yielding to the guy from the Bronx. 

Mr. BONNER. Or you were not yielding. 

Mr. FATTAH. I was yielding to you. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 

Mr. FATTAH. Go right ahead. 

Mr. BONNER. And I guess the yield to me was with restrictions 

that I could not yield to my friend from the Bronx. 

Let me get a couple questions in—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. All right. 

GRANT PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY

Mr. BONNER [continuing]. And then we will see if Mr. Serrano 

has some. 

Ms. Robinson, I want to follow up and echo the concerns that 

Chairman Wolf was raising with regard to the DNA backlog issue. 

I do not know how familiar you are, but I hope after our visit I can 

encourage you to become more familiar with the Department of Forensic Sciences in my home state of Alabama and the good work 

that they are doing. It is important work, and they, like many others around the Nation have benefitted from this strong partnership 

with OJP. 

And so my question is really along this line. Short of a miracle 

occurring, the money issues that we are facing today, the financial 

crisis that we are facing today we will be facing next year and the 

year after. We are looking at a deep, deep hole to dig out of, and 

yet I do not think there is many programs in the Department of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
484 

Justice that have a better track record and a more direct relationship to state and local law enforcement than the programs that you 

are responsible for. 

Have you all been able to in anticipating that there is not going 

to be a lot of new money for these vital programs this year or in 

the out years, have you been able to spend any time looking at 

what flexibility you can give to the states and to these others that 

are seeking these grants, either extending deadlines or other ways 

to give them more flexibility to participate in the programs and the 

limited learning that are available? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, as a matter of fact we have. 

First of all, the Byrne JAG funding, of course, is probably the 

most flexible funding I have ever been aware of in my many years 

working either inside or outside government, so with Byrne JAG 

we give the states maximum flexibility both in categories and in 

the pretty broad number of years they have to spend that funding. 

So that would be one thing. 

But, secondly, the Administration has just come to us and asked 

us if we can look at existing guidelines and regulations for grant 

programs—if there are ways that we can either, through internal 

regulations and guidelines or through proposed changes that we 

might suggest to Congress to look at ways to make them more 

flexible for states and localities, and we just got this assignment recently from the White House. My chief of staff, Thomas Abt, who 

is here, is heading that for us at the Justice Department. I take 

that very seriously. Because having been on the outside of government and applying for grants myself, I know it is a tough thing to 

do and you want to make this very user friendly for people who are 

applying and who have to grapple with dealing with the government. 

Sometimes, Mr. Bonner, I sit in my conference room at the Justice Department and I am dealing with the folks in the agency and 

I say how many people in this room have written grants, and I and 

my deputy, Mary Lou Leary, we are sometimes the only people in 

the room raising our hands. But you know, having that consumer 

perspective is important to have in the room. We want to make this 

flexible, we want to make this work for people who are our consumers. 

So I hope that is responsive to what you are saying. 

Mr. BONNER. It is. And a natural follow up would be, and maybe 

Tom could give you some idea or you may know, how long do you 

anticipate taking to look into the scope of this challenge and being 

able to report back not only to the Administration but perhaps to 

this committee as well? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We are going to turn this around pretty quickly, 

but I will tell you one thing that would help would be suggestions—suggestions from the field from your constituents as to 

things that would be helpful to them. So we would love to get some 

ideas. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. I will make sure you get some with a southern accent. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Excellent. Thank you so much. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
485 

TRIBAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE NEEDS

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask you one last question and I also want to reference the success over the last two years in the reduction of the 

crime rate nationwide. 

The Attorney General and the department have to be very proud 

of the achievements in terms of the reduction in the murder rate, 

which is now over a 7 percent reduction nationwide. In each of the 

major categories there have been reductions, but in the tribal law 

enforcement area I think that there are still very significant challenges. I know you mentioned this in your prepared testimony, but 

if you would take an opportunity to talk about what we are doing 

to assist in terms of tribal law enforcement. 

I know this is a high priority for the Attorney General, for the 

Administration, and for our committee, so if you could comment on 

that, that would be helpful. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, thank you so much. 

Yes, this is indeed a very high priority for the White House, for 

the Attorney General, and for the Associate Attorney General, who 

is my immediate boss, Tom Perrelli. 

Not just in OJP but the COPS Office and the Office on Violence 

Against Women—those are two separate entities from OJP—we 

have tried to collaborate across all three of these offices to coordinate our tribal assistance. 

One thing we have heard from the tribal nations is that applying 

to many separate grant programs is often very difficult for them. 

So both last year and this year we have issued a joint solicitation 

called the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation. Because everything in the government has an acronym, it is called CTAS. So 

this year the CTAS, the coordinated solicitation is right now on the 

street and will close the third week in April. 

We learned some things from the CTAS last year to make it 

more streamlined and simpler for them to apply for and have incorporated those kinds of ‘‘lessons learned’’ in this year’s CTAS application. 

This makes it easier for the tribal nations to apply and it coordinates their ability to have the application come in and meet their 

specific needs that are respective to their interests. 

We are doing the same thing with training and technical assistance. In fact just yesterday the Associate Attorney General told all 

of us that he is going to be looking at how we can do an even better 

job of coordinating all of the tribal technical assistance and training across, again, COPS, OJP, and the Office on Violence Against 

Women. 

So we have worked very hard to do this. Because as you point 

out, Mr. Fattah, the problems of crime, and especially crimes 

against women, sadly, are very severe in a number of areas in Indian country. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have concluded. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Ranking member. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
486 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I only have one more question and 

I am going submit it to the record. 

BYRNE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INNOVATION PROGRAM

Mr. BONNER. Okay. Great. Well, let me get a few more questions 

in. 

Ms. Robinson, you mentioned the Byrne Grant Program and the 

success that it enjoys, and I think many people around the country 

would agree with that, so let me focus a little bit more on the 

Byrne grants. The budget requests $30 million for a new Byrne criminal justice 

innovation program. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. This is not an authorized program as I understand 

it, so the department will not be limited by statute with regard to 

its scope; is that correct? 

Ms. ROBINSON. That is correct. This would be authorized through 

the appropriation. 

Mr. BONNER. This program would be a component of a government-wide neighborhood revitalization initiative to be coordinated 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

other agencies. 

Can you tell the committee what its over arching goal is and 

what is the specific role of the departments of the Justice Department and the necessity of Justice Department funding? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course, I would be happy to. 

It really builds on the success of the Weed and Seed Program 

that I know has been very active and very successful in Alabama— 

in Mobile, for example. I have talked many times with Senator Sessions about the Mobile Weed and Seed Program. 

It is an evidence-based, place-based program that is a collaboration, in collaboration, and in coordination with efforts at the Departments of Education, HUD, Treasury and HHS. 

Again, looking back over the decades of my career, I have seen 

efforts at coordination with other departments across the executive 

branch, but this is one of the most successful of those collaborations. 

There is a lot of lip service given to coordination, but to see it 

actually take place in a way that works for localities. 

You know, we often expect local jurisdictions, in fact we tell them 

as a requirement of applying for grants, that they have to have a 

memoranda of understanding with other entities, you know, the police department has to get the local public health agency and this 

one and that one all together, but at the Washington level we do 

not do as good of a job. 

In this case the departments have actually worked together on 

the applications. In most cases the locality will only have to file one 

application. They will not have to apply separately. They can have 

one braided and blended application to get funding, and I think 

that will make it much easier. Again, this is the whole point of 

being consumer oriented for the localities. 

The focus will be on neighborhoods that are in bad shape, and 

the goal will be to help with things like housing and business development and to get them in better shape. But one of the things 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
487 

we have stressed is you cannot get businesses in, you cannot get 

housing to be built, if you do not have safety in the neighborhood. 

So Justice has got to be a key component here. This was certainly a lesson with Weed and Seed that we learned early on. So 

justice has got to be a key component at the table here. 

So it is a multi-part, cross-departmental initiative. 

Mr. BONNER. So you would file one application and then from 

that all of the participating agencies would receive their funding. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. Look forward to getting a status record on that. I 

am sure Senator Sessions would as well. 

ADAM WALSH ACT

Let me switch gears to the Adam Walsh Act. The Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act, which is a component of the 

Adam Walsh Act, establishes a comprehensive set of minimum 

standards for sex offender registration and notification in the 

United States. 

I understand that the cost of complying with the requirements of 

this program are a substantial hurdle for the states to overcome. 

What accounts for the fact that complying with this act is so challenging from the states from your perspective? 

Ms. ROBINSON. That is a very, very good question. 

When I came to OJP—or I should back up for a minute. I worked 

on the Obama transition in November of 2008 and as part of that 

I met with about 90 outside organizations, different interest 

groups, National Governors’ Association, National Conference of 

State Legislatures, and others. The issue I heard more about than 

any other was the Adam Walsh Act, which kind of surprised me. 

At that time, by the way, I had no intention of going into the 

government. I had a nice position at the University of Pennsylvania teaching, and I had no intention of going in. Mr. Fattah is 

smiling because I knew him from up there. 

But I heard more about it. I ended up, in fact, going into the Department, and one of the first things I did was to meet with the 

staff in the SMART office, which is responsible for working on the 

Adam Walsh implementation. I said to them—and they are a very 

devoted staff, very passionate about working on this subject—and 

I said to them, how can we be more flexible in working with the 

states within the four corners of the statute, and how can we be 

most flexible in working with them? And they were terrific and 

they said, let’s see how we can do that. 

I think one thing by the way, for whatever set of reasons, in the 

last Administration it took them a while to get the guidelines out. 

The guidelines took about two years to get out, so that, maybe, was 

one issue here. 

Beyond that, we were able this past year to get out some supplemental guidelines which have been again, within the statute, more 

flexible and have provided some help. 

We have four states, one territory, Guam, and two Indian tribes, 

that now are in compliance. We have some additional states that 

are near coming into substantial compliance, and so we have states 

that are moving toward this, but there are some areas that states 

are having difficulty with. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
488 

One is cost, one is on juvenile registration, one is on the offense 

versus risk assessment and the tiering, one is on retroactivity. So 

there are areas on the policy end where there are differences, and 

I think the budget crisis at the state level is causing consternation 

or a barrier, I guess I would say, but we are working hard and we 

are in close collaboration. We have met with John Walsh about it 

and Ernie Allen at the National Center on Missing and Exploited 

Children has been very helpful and a very strong supporter. 

So we are committed to it, we are passionate about it, and working hard on it, but at some point the states need to make their decisions about it—whether they want to do it or not. 

Mr. BONNER. But you mention I think that there were four states 

and one territory that were in compliance. 

Ms. ROBINSON. That is correct. 

Mr. BONNER. So there are 248 jurisdictions that are working to 

implement the requirements, and is Puerto Rico one of—the territory that is compliance or was it Guam? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, it was Guam. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. I know my friend, Mr. Serrano would be interested in making sure that all of the territories are able to fully 

participate. 

Am I correct though that the rest of the jurisdictions face penalties for non-compliance if they do not come into compliance by 

this July? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. BONNER. And if so, going back to the previous question, what 

type of flexibility can these jurisdictions, states, and others hope to 

receive from the Department of Justice? July is just around the corner, you attributed that there were some problems in the previous 

administration in terms of getting the guidelines out. 

Ms. ROBINSON. By statute we have no flexibility; however, the 10 

percent that they would lose of their Byrne JAG funding can be 

given to them to work toward the compliance. So they can use it 

to work toward that. 

Mr. BONNER. And would you be able to keep the committee informed in terms of how you proceed between now and July in 

terms of others that do come into compliance? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. BONNER. It just seems to at least this member that there are 

a lot more that are struggling to get into compliance and those that 

have already found a way to be there. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course, we would be happy to do that. 

Mr. BONNER. A few more questions until the chairman comes 

back, and he may have some additional ones and I apologize for 

shifting gears. 

DOMESTIC RADICALIZATION

Mr. BONNER. Domestic radicalization. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. Of the $45 million requested for youth mentoring 

grants—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
489 

Mr. BONNER [continuing]. $5 million is proposed to be set aside 

to support domestic radicalization grants. What types of programs 

could such grants support? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. What we are contemplating here would 

be the kind of thing like an after school program, something that 

would be perhaps for a basketball program, you know, any kind of 

athletic program, or maybe some kind of vocational training. It 

could be any kind of thing. 

Mr. BONNER. And has OJP identified any promising evidencebased efforts for preventing domestic radicalization among our 

youth? 

Ms. ROBINSON. This request for 2012 includes $2 million for the 

National Institute of Justice to do some research in this area because there is not a lot of research that exists that we are aware 

of, so we are requesting funding to explore that. 

Mr. BONNER. And who are some of the likely candidates that 

would apply for this grant? 

Ms. ROBINSON. This is the kind of area that we would do, as we 

do in many such programs, and that is to look to the state and 

local level to consult. We would turn to the U.S. Attorneys, who 

know their districts; we would look to state and local law enforcement; we would look to mayors; and through the normal solicitation process to ask for applications and then go through the peer 

review process as we do on competitive grants and see what comes 

back to us. 

Mr. BONNER. So the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Kenyen Brown, 

might suggest a Boys and Girls Club that would be interested in 

would be a good partner for that, just hypothetically? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. The budget also proposes two and a half million dollars for community engagement to address radicalization 

and a set a side of $2 million for domestic radicalization research 

through NIJ. 

With regard to your proposal for a program of community engagement to address radicalization what can this program do to 

improve cooperation between communities and law enforcement, 

and how can it address the potential for radicalization in places 

where it exists? 

Ms. ROBINSON. What we are anticipating or hoping for here, Mr. 

Chairman, is as I indicated before—and by the way, there would 

also be in the budget request $2.5 million for the COPS Office for 

a complementary effort that would draw in their expertise on community policing. This part in OJP, and specifically in BJA, would 

draw on our expertise in working, for example, in Weed and Seed, 

the kind of on the ground work that OJP has done over the years 

in working with communities. 

It is the kind of outreach that I think we do quite well, that we 

do in kind of listening sessions and going into a community and 

working on the ground as we have done with gang work, outreach 

involving ministers and parents, and local police chiefs, in going in 

and doing the kind of outreach—and this is not necessarily targeted to any particular ethnic or religious group per se. We will 

wait and hear what comes back from the field with particular areas 

that are identified as problems—but doing that kind of outreach, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
490 

and what we hear back with looking at what kind of fairness and 

procedures can be developed. 

AUTOMATED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION

Mr. BONNER. And let me shift gears one more time if that is 

okay. I am going to focus our attention on the automated victim 

identification and notification. 

The budget proposes to eliminate statewide automated victim 

identification and notification program for a savings of $12 million. 

This program helps protect victims of crime and insures that their 

legal rights are upheld by providing important information relating 

to criminal proceedings, including offender release. It increases victim safety while minimizing the cost associated with keeping victims informed. 

Is it your expectations that the states, I think all but maybe one 

or two which are under severe financial pressure as well, that they 

will be able to sustain these programs on their own, and if so, how 

many do you think will be able to? 

Ms. ROBINSON. This is an example, Mr. Chairman, in a tight 

budget year where we looked back at funding history and track 

records. In 2009, we ended the fiscal year with money left on the 

table. In other words, we did not have enough applications to even 

spend the money that had been appropriated by Congress. 

This past fiscal year, in 2010, we did not have any new applications that came in, only requests for enhancements of existing programs. 

So when you have a situation like that you wonder whether 

when Congress asks you where to cut and you have very tight 

money, whether it makes sense to request new funding. 

Mr. BONNER. And please do not take this as a scolding for finding ways to cut the funding, I just wanted to have a good understanding about the type of participation that the states have had. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Sure. 

RISS

Mr. BONNER. The last question that I have for the record, and 

I am sure the members will have additional ones that will be submitted, focuses on the Regional Information Sharing Systems. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. As you know this is a secure environment that allows law enforcement, public safety officers, and private sector 

partners to share critical information. 

Your budget proposes to cut this from $45 million to $17.5 million. What is your justification for such a sizable reduction to this 

program? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I would say first of all that Jim Burch, who is the 

acting director of BJA, and I are huge fans of RISS. 

As you know RISS has been around since 1974. It has been an 

important part of the law enforcement landscape for a long period 

of time. This has been a very tough budget year, and I know I have 

said that any number of times here, as I think all of us have. 

This is an area where the Department of Justice has provided 

over the last decade $335 million to RISS; it is a very substantial 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
491 

amount of money that we provided. Congress has provided to RISS 

over the last—— 

Mr. BONNER. The American people have provided. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. Very well stated, Mr. Chairman. 

And in a tight budget year this is a scenario where we felt we 

could provide something, but perhaps not as much as we have in 

the past. So it is an important initiative to continue to support. 

How would we suggest that be supported? Perhaps through a 

couple of methods. One would be based on it’s over 8,000 members. 

Could there be some kind of user fees charged? That would be one 

potential suggestion. 

Two, would there be some way that the JAG Byrne state agencies could provide some support? So those would be the two suggestions I would offer. 

Mr. BONNER. And is OJP planning to work with the RISS centers 

to implement a user fee type of system? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Absolutely. Jim Burch and I have both met with 

their policy board very recently and said we would collaborate with 

them in every way we could. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. Then the last comment, not a question, I 

think you said earlier that you report directly to Tom Perrelli. 

TOM PERRELLI

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. If you will extend greetings from this member, if 

not this committee, I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. 

Perrelli on the frustrations that those of us—I hope the ranking 

member will forgive me for excelling the virtues of a justice department employee that has really become a hero to South Alabama. 

Mr. BONNER. We have been very frustrated that in the creation 

of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility that the administration pushed 

hard for and that Mr. Feinberg was named the head of that there 

are still so many unanswered questions in terms of making sure 

that the people who were harmed by the worst environmental impact in our Nation’s history are struggling just to survive. 

Tom Perrelli—and I told this to the attorney general when he appeared before the full committee earlier—is the only person that I 

can say in Washington that has now been a part of the privilege 

of putting his name on a ballot who really has stepped forward and 

has put pressure on Mr. Feinberg to do the right thing, to fulfill 

the promises that President Obama made and that BP made in the 

creation of that. 

So if you will tell him we continue to say thank you for the work 

he is doing on behalf of the Administration and on behalf of the 

American people. 

Ms. ROBINSON. I would be delighted to. 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Ranking Member, do you have any other comments? 

Mr. FATTAH. Just again let me thank you for your testimony and 

let me thank the Attorney General and the department for two 

years of crime going down. 

I know we are in a tough budget year, but we cannot eat our own 

seed corn as the saying goes, so we are going to have to reconcile 

the President’s request with what we think as a subcommittee is 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
492 

the direction we ought to go in and hopefully we can keep those 

crime numbers continuing to go in the right direction. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BONNER. And again I know Chairman Wolf regrets that he 

had to leave for a few minutes and it was noted from the staff that 

he would be detained longer, so thank you for your testimony today 

and for visiting with us and for the good work you are doing at the 

Office of Justice programs. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you so much. 

Mr. BONNER. This hearing is concluded. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
493 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1095 here 67259C.025
494 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1096 here 67259C.026
495 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1097 here 67259C.027
496 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1098 here 67259C.028
497 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1099 here 67259C.029
498 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1100 here 67259C.030
499 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1101 here 67259C.031
500 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1102 here 67259C.032
501 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1103 here 67259C.033
502 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1104 here 67259C.034
503 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1105 here 67259C.035
504 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1106 here 67259C.036
505 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1107 here 67259C.037
506 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1108 here 67259C.038
507 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1109 here 67259C.039
508 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1110 here 67259C.040
509 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1111 here 67259C.041
510 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1112 here 67259C.042
511 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1113 here 67259C.043
512 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1114 here 67259C.044
513 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1115 here 67259C.045
514 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1116 here 67259C.046
515 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1117 here 67259C.047
516 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1118 here 67259C.048
517 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1119 here 67259C.049

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(519) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011. 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

WITNESSES 

JAMES J. SANDMAN, PRESIDENT 

ROBERT J. GREY, JR., MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Mr. WOLF. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome both witnesses here today. 

James Sandman was appointed president of Legal Services Corporation this past January. Mr. Sandman brings more than three 

decades of legal experience to the LSC. He had over a 30-year career at Arnold & Porter before becoming general counsel for the 

District of Columbia Public Schools in 2007. 

I think the public is going to miss Michele Rhee, the fact that 

she left. 

Welcome, and congratulations, I think, on your new position. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Our other witness, Robert Grey, Jr., was nominated 

to serve on the board of directors of Legal Services Corporation by 

President Obama in August of 2009. He has served as president of 

the American Bar Association. And he is a Virginian having received his undergraduate degree from Virginia Commonwealth 

University, which we are sorry did not make it to the game last 

night, but I watched the game the other night and I thought they 

were going to win up until the last five minutes. He got his law 

degree from Washington and Lee University. 

I appreciate both of you being here to testify regarding the Legal 

Services Corporation fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

Throughout my career, I have been a supporter of Legal Services 

for Americans who would not otherwise have adequate access to 

civil legal assistance. In the mid 1990s, I fought to protect the LSC 

from efforts to eliminate the agency. 

As chairman of this subcommittee, I worked closely with LSC 

leaders in the past to mitigate partisan issues that endanger the 

corporation. Most recently I opposed an amendment to H.R. 1 that 

would have completely eliminated funding for LSC basic field 

grants. 

Yet, today the country is facing an extremely challenging budgetary environment. The American people have made clear that they 

want Congress to rein in federal spending as part of the solution 

to reducing the unsustainable debt and deficit. 

I am keenly aware that the pending budget cuts cannot come at 

a worse time for those in need of legal assistance. Foreclosure, unemployment, and other recession related cases are more common 

than ever in the offices of LSC grantees. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
520 

Rather than wait out the uncertainties of the budget process, I 

encouraged the legal community to seize the opportunity to mitigate the effects of potential funding reductions now. 

That is why in January I reached out to the American Bar Association requesting that they work closely with LSC to augment the 

provision of Legal Services during this period of budgetary austerity. 

I am grateful for your willingness to engage in a dialogue about 

how we can best maintain the support for indigent Americans and 

I am pleased that LSC is planning to establish a pro bono task 

force. 

I am concerned, however, that yet another audit of LSC has uncovered material weaknesses in LSC’s governance and internal controls. This comes just one year after LSC testified to its commitment to aggressively implementing GAO’s recent recommendations 

for improving its oversight. 

And I was dismayed by a State Legal Aid publication that has 

come to my attention—a publication that contains needless political 

representations. 

We look forward to asking you some questions about these issues 

and about your efforts to address unmet needs such as your support for efficient and cost-effective automated legal services. 

But before we recognize you, I want to recognize the ranking 

member, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank you again for your holding this hearing and 

for your long-term support for these and other issues under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. 

Since President Nixon, the country, a host of presidents and Congress has had a commitment to Legal Services and there are some 

50 plus million Americans who are eligible for services under the 

Legal Services Corporation. 

And my understanding is that last year, you closed more than a 

million cases. Three out of four of those seeking services by the 

Legal Services Corporation are women and you have also done extraordinary work in terms of providing legal services to veterans. 

It is impossible to escape the fact that under our system of laws 

there is no real opportunity for justice absent a lawyer being able 

to take your case. And so for many, particularly these three out of 

four who are women who are facing domestic abuse in need of a 

restraining order or facing foreclosure, you really stand as the last 

line of defense of our American system of justice in ensuring that 

there is representation in civil litigation in our country. 

So I want to thank you for your service. 

And obviously as a person whose both wife and daughter are attorneys, I do not want any debates at home. I do not want any with 

my chairman, you know, but I am happy to be here. 

I did note Mr. Grey, that your team had a great coach with a 

great name, Shaka Smart. I just thought it was a great name and 

now I understand he has announced he is going to stay at Virginia 

Commonwealth versus chasing dollars in some other program 

somewhere, which I think is an extraordinary commitment. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
521 

I would note that he got his start in Pennsylvania and coached 

there and got his graduate degree at one of our universities, Mr. 

Chairman, California State University of Pennsylvania. 

But this is serious business. And, you know, in our bill, we have 

close to $70 billion. We spend a lot of money on a lot of different 

things, on satellites and fish and fish hatcheries, and we have our 

NASA efforts, but there is nothing more important, there is nothing that even comes close to our constitutional responsibilities of 

ensuring justice in the work of the Justice Department, the federal 

courts and prison systems, but most importantly for the huddled 

masses, the Legal Services Corporation. 

So I want to thank you for the work that you are doing on behalf 

of our Nation and I look forward to the hearing. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. Sandman, you can summarize. Your full statement will appear in the record. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Chairman Wolf, Congressman Fattah, thank you 

for holding this hearing and for inviting us to testify on the fiscal 

year 2012 budget request of the Legal Services Corporation. 

It is my privilege to appear before you for the first time and to 

be joined by Robert Grey, a long-time champion of pro bono services for low-income Americans. 

I joined LSC at the end of January and as you have noted, Mr. 

Chairman, I spent most of my career in the private sector before 

entering public service a few years ago. 

I look forward in this new position to making the best possible 

use of my management experience and my time as president of the 

District of Columbia Bar. 

These are hard times for low-income Americans. Requests for 

legal assistance are increasing and the poverty population is growing. We estimate that more than 63 million Americans are now eligible for legal assistance from LSC programs. Twenty-two million 

of them are children. 

Since 2008, the eligible population has increased by more than 

17 percent. The clients at LSC programs are the poorest of the 

poor. Every day Legal Aid attorneys and pro bono volunteers help 

families facing foreclosure and individuals who have lost jobs and 

find themselves sliding into poverty and entangled in serious legal 

problems. 

Last year, LSC programs closed nearly one million cases which 

affected 2.3 million people. Another five million received legal information and self-help services. 

The caseload of LSC programs reflects the impact of the economic downturn. Last year, foreclosure cases increased by 20 percent. Unemployment cases rose by ten and a half percent and domestic violence cases increased by five percent. Programs also 

closed more cases involving landlord-tenant disputes, bankruptcy 

and consumer-related matters. 

We started an awareness and training program to assist veterans. With the assistance of a technology initiative grant from 

LSC, a national website, statesidelegal.org, has been created to provide information to veterans about their rights. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
522 

LSC programs help communities avert more costly interventions. 

When a family escapes domestic violence, we save on the cost of 

medical care for injured victims and the follow-up counseling for affected children. When we resolve landlord-tenant disputes, we keep 

families together and avoid homelessness and emergency shelter 

costs. When we create automated standard legal forms, we save 

time for lawyers and courts. 

LSC is the single largest funder of civil legal aid in America. LSC 

programs receive other funding from non-federal sources, but those 

sources have been essentially flat or declining in recent years. 

Interest on lawyers’ trust accounts, or IOLTA, for example, has 

declined from 13 percent of total funding in 2008 to only seven percent in 2010. State and local grants and United Way contributions 

have also declined. 

For fiscal year 2012, LSC requests an appropriation of $516.5 million. Ninety-four percent of our requested appropriation, $485 

million, would go directly to LSC programs as basic field grants to 

fund legal assistance for low-income Americans. Our request also includes $6.8 million for technology initiative 

grants to expand Legal Services in rural areas and develop additional self-help forms for unrepresented litigants. 

In addition, we seek funds for our Student Loan Repayment Assistance Program, for grants oversight, and for our Office of Inspector General. 

LSC is a steward of public funds and I am committed to running 

a tight ship. I believe the tone at the top is important and I will 

work to foster a culture of integrity, accountability, and commitment to high standards of performance and quality. 

Mr. Grey will provide you with an update on our work with the 

GAO. I want you to know that LSC management is committed to 

implementing the recommendations of the GAO. 

Federal funding for civil legal aid is critically important. LSC is 

at the center of the Nation’s access to justice efforts and the 

progress we have made will be jeopardized if access to justice is denied. 

We know that you value equal access to justice regardless of income. We request your support for our budget request. 

Thank you for all you have done for our programs. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
523 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1130 here 67259C.050
524 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1131 here 67259C.051
525 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1132 here 67259C.052
526 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1133 here 67259C.053
527 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1134 here 67259C.054
528 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1135 here 67259C.055
529 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1136 here 67259C.056
530 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1137 here 67259C.057
531 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1138 here 67259C.058
532 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1139 here 67259C.059
533 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Do you have a comment, Mr. Grey? 

Mr. GREY. Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, I would like to 

share a few thoughts with you. 

First of all, thank you again for inviting us. 

Congressman Fattah, thank you for your support as well. 

I am delighted to be here with Jim Sandman. The Board of Legal 

Services, as you know, is a bipartisan group. And I have got to tell 

you when you first start working with each other, you learn a lot 

about your colleagues. 

We have formed a very strong board. We work very well with 

each other. We listen to each other and we respect each other’s 

views. I am very happy to be a member of the board, very honored 

to be nominated to be on the Legal Services Corporation Board. 

Mr. Chairman, you have been a great supporter of Legal Services. I want to personally thank you for that because I have had 

a chance to talk to you from time to time about it. 

We are here because of your efforts during the 1990s. We appreciate your continued support. And the board is committed to be 

vigilant about looking after the dollars that we have. As stewards 

of this budget, we are going to maintain a very careful eye over 

this. 

The chairman, John Levi, and the board through me are expressing to you and the Congress that we are going to be there and we 

are going to report to you. We are going to be held accountable for 

what we do. 

All 17 of the recommendations from the GAO report of 2007 have 

been implemented. In addition, 13 recommendations out of the 

2010 report regarding grant awards and program effectiveness 

have been implemented and documentation has been provided to 

GAO while keeping informed of our full implementation of those 

recommendations. 

As a new board member, we had an important task in front of 

us and that was identifying the CEO. We cannot be more pleased 

with Jim Sandman who stepped forward to accept that responsibility. We are very confident in him. And I am sure you will agree 

with us that we made a good decision. 

Now, the chairman before John Levi said, you know, one of the 

first things we are going to do is we are going to put our arms 

around the issue of fiscal responsibility and I am going to appoint 

an oversight committee. 

As the new chairman of the finance committee, I am one of the 

co-chairs with Vic Maddox who is the chair of the audit committee. 

We have got a fantastic group that we are working with. Three 

senior executives of Fortune 500 companies, six leaders from national foundations, two experienced accounting executives, two 

former inspector generals are on this group. 

We have had a couple meetings. They had some very detailed 

questions. I think we have got a good start in helping and providing assistance to our grantees to understand their responsibility 

in managing with oversight and auditing the money that is given 

to them. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
534 

We expect to have a recommendation this summer, sometime in 

July. And as soon as that is available, we want you to know about 

it. 

I know you are champions of pro bono, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

something that is near and dear to my heart. And it is part of 

something that I have done my entire legal career. And I am vice 

chair of the pro bono committee as I sit here today. 

We have got some challenges, though, but we have also got great 

opportunities as well. Indeed, 12.5 percent of every LSC grantee 

budget requires them to go out and to work with the private Bar 

in establishing pro bono programs. They do that with training and 

they maintain that relationship that is so important. 

As a matter of fact, as we have had these increases in our budget 

over the last few years, we have also increased the level of pro bono 

activity that has occurred as well so that leverage has provided us 

with the opportunity to engage the private Bar and they have gone 

from 10 to 12 percent of the cases that have been closed by LSC. 

The pro bono task force, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned is 

going to be chaired by Martha Minow, who you know is the dean 

from Harvard Law School, and Harry Korell, a member of our 

board, a private attorney. 

And they will be looking at as many ways in which we can engage the private Bar. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We 

have done a pretty good job over the years of doing that, but we 

have got technology and, quite frankly, we have got some challenges. 

And one of the challenges is expressed and outlined in the handout that we provided you that illustrates that the concentration of 

lawyers is generally in metropolitan and urban areas, but the vast 

majority of those that are in need are outside of those areas. 

And so, for example, in Georgia, that concentration of lawyers is 

in five counties and 69 percent of those lawyers are in those five 

counties. When you get outside of that, you have got six counties 

with no lawyers, 29 counties with one to five lawyers, and the vast 

majority of those people are underserved, even by the private Bar. 

So we have got to figure that out. And the task force is looking 

at more creative and innovative ways to not only use technology 

but to engage the private Bar to do that. 

One of the great things about the private Bar is they can be creative. A couple of examples: Hunton Williams, where I now am employed has three offices, one in Richmond, one in Atlanta, one in 

Charlottesville, that are storefront shops in low-income communities, and our lawyers populate those storefront operations that 

we have and invite the community there through the LSC offices 

so that we can manage their cases. That presence is important and 

the opportunity to do that is very gratifying not only to our lawyers 

but to the population that we serve. 

Joint relationships between corporations and the clients at the 

law firms have been a great help. We have got a partnership in 

northern Virginia with Exxon Mobil that has given us the opportunity to do wills for the elderly and now and representing victims 

of domestic violence is a part of that partnership. 

For the first time, for the last two years, 800 lawyers at Hunton 

Williams have now contributed 100 percent, each attorney contribVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00534 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
535 

uting time to pro bono services. That was a goal that we tried to 

achieve last year and we got it. And we did it again this year. 

That is the kind of effort I think you are looking for for us to encourage and we are looking forward to providing those best practices and enlarging the opportunity for the private Bar to do pro 

bono work. 

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

these remarks. I stand ready to answer any questions you might 

have. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
536 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1145 here 67259C.060
537 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1146 here 67259C.061
538 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1147 here 67259C.062
539 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1148 here 67259C.063
540 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1149 here 67259C.064
541 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1150 here 67259C.065
542 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1151 here 67259C.066
543 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1152 here 67259C.067
544 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1153 here 67259C.068
545 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1154 here 67259C.069
546 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1155 here 67259C.070
547 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1156 here 67259C.071
548 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1157 here 67259C.072
549 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1158 here 67259C.073
550 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1159 here 67259C.074
551 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1160 here 67259C.075
552 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1161 here 67259C.076
553 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1162 here 67259C.077
554 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1163 here 67259C.078
555 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1164 here 67259C.079
556 

POLITICAL ACTIVISM

Mr. WOLF. Thank you both. 

Temporary agriculture workers, H–2A, are one of the only categories of non-citizens that LSC grantees are permitted to represent. A ‘‘know your rights’’ booklet published by Legal Aid of 

North Carolina featured on its web page contains an unflattering 

caricature of President Bush in a cartoon in which he is depicted 

as burying, or lowering, the wages of H–2A guest workers into a 

grave. 

The booklet goes on to declare that President Bush and North 

Carolina farmers want to lower wages for H–2A workers, while the 

Obama administration and the North Carolina Legal Aid supports 

federal efforts to increase wages. 

Is this an appropriate use of federal funds and why should Congress be asked to pay for this grantee’s political activism? 

It is currently on their website now and if you look at it, just for 

people who do not have it in front of them, it lists their telephone 

number as 1–800–777–5869. I was almost going to call them up 

during the hearing and ask them about it. 

One page says, if you look at it, in Spanish, we had to translate 

it, ‘‘If you have been coming to the United States under H–2A contract for many years, you know that in the past few years, the pay 

has not been as high as before. Why has the pay changed?’’ 

‘‘Four groups have had an effect on the pay, those who want 

lower wages, the Bush administration, ranchers, and associations 

such as the North Carolina Growers Associations, and those who 

want higher wages, the Obama administration and farm workers 

and friends such as Legal Aid.’’ 

Your comments. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was not aware of this. I will look 

into it and would like to supplement the record with a response 

when I have an opportunity if I could. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, this ‘‘know your rights’’ H–2A booklet goes on 

to create discord between willing, legal guest workers and their employers by depicting H–2A workers passed out from exhaustion, living in squalor, being poisoned by pesticides and suffering numerous 

other injustices at the hands of their employers. 

In contrast, none of the information for non-H–2A farm workers 

depicts such uncharacteristic suffering at the hands of an employer. 

Do you agree that such representations are defamatory in nature 

and border on political activism? And Bush is no longer the President. This is dated 2010. This is part of the problem. 

There was a tape years ago that was circulated where Legal 

Services got together and were talking about what Member of the 

Congress they were going to defeat. The Member of Congress that 

I worked for when I was a staff person was Congressman Pete 

Biester who worked very hard in helping to establish the Legal 

Services. 

But what is your reaction about this? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I think I share your reaction, Mr. Chairman. I do 

not think it would be appropriate for an LSC-funded program to be 

using LSC funds to engage in political statements on their website. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
557 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Grey, do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. GREY. Mr. Chairman, you know, this is something that as a 

new board, we are committed to looking at and engaging grantees 

in the work of LSC. 

Things outside of that parameter of trying to evoke other kinds 

of responses from the community are not in our wheelhouse. I 

think what we want to try to do is get people focused on what they 

do best and that is representing the poor. 

Mr. WOLF. I understand that. Years ago, we worked with Mr. 

John Erlenborn, he has since passed away, who was a Member of 

the House, who really brought sort of an element of sanity back 

into this issue, took it out of the political process, and then everyone felt very, very comfortable. 

And when I became the chairman of this committee before, back 

in the year 2000, we literally removed the political controversies 

that surrounded the Legal Services. There are some Members, you 

know, who are never going to be happy with Legal Services. I 

mean, I understand that. There will always be an element when 

an amendment comes on the floor. 

But things like this just set it back. It is dated 2010 and it is 

inflammatory. I guess the other question I would ask with regard 

to this is, is there anything else like this that we should know 

about that we do not know? 

Is there anything else out there like this that you could tell us 

before we find out about it. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of anything else 

like this. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Grey. 

Mr. GREY. I am not either. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, you know, these things always eventually 

come to light. Sometimes they come early. I would say that if you 

do find there is anything like this going on, I would ask you respectfully to come and tell both Mr. Fattah and myself before it 

comes out and hits the media because I guarantee you there is 

somebody somewhere that will tell someone here and it will be on 

the floor of the House in a raging debate. 

PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES

And what can you tell us about the American Bar Association’s 

effort to help respond to the increasing need for pro bono legal 

services since January when I reached out to them and encouraged 

them to get more involved in this cause than they already have? 

And I would insert in the record at this point the letter that we 

sent to the American Bar Association. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
558 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1170 67259C.080
559 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1171 67259C.081
560 

Mr. WOLF. We also wrote every State Bar Association. We did 

not hear from many of them. I think we heard from four, but we 

can submit them for the record. But there are a number that we 

did not. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
561 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1173 67259C.082
562 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1174 67259C.083
563 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1175 67259C.084
564 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1176 67259C.085
565 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1177 67259C.086
566 

Mr. WOLF. What have you heard from them? 

Mr. GREY. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I think you are absolutely on the right track and that we will follow-up with the 

ABA. We are going through our regional meetings. The board meetings are actually in the regions that we serve. And when we do 

that, Chairman Levi has been very particular about making sure 

that we reach out to the private Bar each time we go out. 

I can tell you they are coming to Richmond this month. And we 

have a group of law firms called Firms in Service that is putting 

on a presentation in terms of what they are doing to support pro 

bono activities. So it is now a critical part of what we do. 

But specifically I happen to know the president of the American 

Bar Association and when I leave here today, he is going to get a 

call from me about the letter that you sent. I will tell you what he 

says. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. What percentage of your funding comes from 

non-federal sources? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Fifty-seven percent of our programs’ funding in 

2010 came from non-LSC sources. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. And could you tell us, for instance, the top 

three or four or five categories? 

Mr. SANDMAN. The top categories would be state and local appropriations, IOLTA funds, interest on lawyers’ trust accounts, although that is—— 

Mr. WOLF. Which is down? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Down considerably over the last few years with 

the decline in interest rates. Private and foundation support. Those 

are the principal categories. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. How many of the law firms or how many of the 

lawyers in the country, and I know everyone does not practice law 

in the traditional sense, but of those who are practicing, how many 

participate with Legal Services or in pro bono work? Do you have 

any sense? Have there been any studies by anyone? 

Mr. SANDMAN. The American Bar Association has attempted to 

estimate that, but there are many different kinds of pro bono work, 

everything from working with our grantee programs to people representing Boys and Girls Clubs and doing unpaid legal work for 

their local churches. 

It is difficult for any one organization to capture all the different 

kinds of pro bono work that different lawyers do, but I do recall 

an American Bar Association survey that said that 70 percent of 

American lawyers were doing pro bono work. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Is that a pretty tight definition or do you think 

it is a pretty liberal definition? Because there are some people that 

really do not have the time to do it and they are not going to do 

it. And you understand because you may be a sole practitioner 

some place. But has there been any thought of some sort of assessment? 

You know I am a member of the D.C. Bar and I pay my Bar 

dues. I am a member of the Virginia Bar and I pay my Bar dues. 

Is there any assessment that any of the Bar associations add on 

to that? You may very well be an attorney, with only two or three 

people in your firm and no time to donate. Some people give in difVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00566 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
567 

ferent ways. They give with their time and others will give with 

their resources. 

Is there a mechanism whereby the Bar associations have looked 

at some sort of assessment like the combined federal campaign? 

Does Legal Services compete or participate in the Combined Federal Campaign? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Our individual programs and their local jurisdictions are often members of United Way and I believe the Combined 

Federal Campaign. There are things that Bar associations do. 

Some of them allocate a portion of their mandatory dues. 

Mr. WOLF. How many do that? Do you know? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I do not know off the top of my head, Mr. Chairman. I also know that here in the District of Columbia, the courts, 

both the federal court and the local courts, have recommended to 

lawyers that if for any reason they are not able to engage in pro 

bono work that they make an annual contribution of at least $750 

to a local Legal Aid organization. One of the—— 

Mr. WOLF. Is that mandatory or is that—— 

Mr. SANDMAN. It is recommended, but it is not mandatory. The 

State of Maryland I know requires that lawyers report annually as 

a part of their registration how much pro bono work they have 

done in the prior year, so that gives the Bar authorities a way to 

assess who is doing how much pro bono work. 

Mr. WOLF. Do many other Bars do that, Bar associations? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Some do. I do not think it is widespread, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Would it be a good idea to have some sort of cooperative arrangement whereby it is an either/or? You may want to 

spend your time and someone else may be in a situation where 

they cannot for whatever reason, but they would make a contribution. 

Mr. SANDMAN. That is the theory of what the courts in D.C. have 

recommended, but not required. 

Mr. WOLF. How widespread is that? Nationwide? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I think what has been done here is uncommon. I 

have been involved in the committees that have recommended to 

the courts that they adopt that recommendation and I have not 

seen a lot of comparable initiatives in other jurisdictions. 

But there are a lot of lawyers who do find it difficult to do pro 

bono work. Only 15 percent of American lawyers work in big law 

firms. The vast majority of them are solo practitioners or in small 

law firms. And sometimes their financial circumstances, the demands on their time are such that it is difficult for them to take 

on a pro bono case. 

Mr. WOLF. Oh, I understand that. That is why I am not being 

critical of that. But if they had an option of either/or, could not the 

Bar Association put that in as a requirement. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. If every lawyer nationwide gave a very small amount, 

I mean, if D.C. Bar wants to add on to my—I have not practiced 

for years, but if they want to add on, it would be fine to add on. 

They could add on a couple dollars. And I think if you did that, 

that would make a big difference. Lawyers could give it to either 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
568 

the National Legal Services Corporation and you could disburse it 

or give it to the states. 

Is that one of the things you are looking at in this pro bono 

group? 

Mr. GREY. As the president said, that actually happens. And, Mr. 

Chairman, you ought to know that each one of your suggestions is 

a suggestion that in some form or fashion is incorporated in every 

Bar Association around the country. 

It is not a centralized approach because each State Supreme 

Court is responsible for the rules of practice in those states. And 

each Bar Association may or may not be the governing body reporting to the Supreme Court. 

And so the mechanism for getting that done is not the same in 

each State, just as the IOLTA funds are mandatory in some states 

going to Legal Services and other states, it is not. 

Mr. WOLF. So did I write to the wrong group? Should I have also 

written to every Supreme Court justice, State Supreme Court justice? 

Mr. GREY. Yeah. I think that in terms of understanding the landscape that the chief justices of the State Supreme Courts have the 

ultimate responsibility over the practice of law in those states. And 

it is not the American Bar Association that determines how you 

practice. They provide what are commonly called the model 

code—— 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. GREY [continuing]. For how you do it. But it has to be implemented at the state level. 

Mr. WOLF. So it is the State Supreme Court? Well, if you can 

give me a list or we can find it through our own mechanism. 

Mr. GREY. We have got that. 

Mr. WOLF. I will write each chief justice and ask if they would 

they consider implementing something whereby every member of 

the Bar Association or however—you can help me word it because 

you would know better than I would. 

Mr. GREY. They have got a conference. There is a conference of 

chief justices. And I think that would be, Jim, I think that is probably the best place to get access to all of them in a way that would 

be effective. But we would be happy to work with you on that. 

Mr. WOLF. Who is the head of that now? Who is the chairman 

of it? 

Mr. GREY. I do not know. 

Mr. SANDMAN. I know that later this year, the chief judge of the 

D.C. Court of Appeals is going to become the head of that conference. It is the Conference of Chief Justices. It is the most efficient way to reach them all at once. 

Mr. WOLF. If you can give us that, we will do a letter. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Be happy to. 

Mr. WOLF. I will do a letter to all of them and ask them. 

Bill Mims was my administrative assistant for a number of years 

and I will contact Bill and ask him that Virginia lead the way. 

Mr. GREY. We could do that. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
569 

IOLTA FUNDING

Mr. WOLF. Virginia has led the way in so many other ways. This 

is my last question and then I will go to Mr. Fattah. The IOLTA 

funding has been in a steep decline since 2008 when it was nearly 

$284 million. 

How much were IOLTA revenues in 2010 and do you have a reliable projection for what they will be in 2011? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I do not know the absolute number in 2010 off the 

top of my head, Mr. Chairman. I can get that for you. I do know 

that IOLTA funds as a percentage of total funding for LSC programs has declined from about 12 percent a few years ago to seven 

percent last year. And I also know that the projection for this year 

is that the funds will be no better than they were last year. 

Mr. WOLF. Solely because of interest rates? Is that the main—— 

Mr. SANDMAN. Solely because of interest rates. Also, some of the 

IOLTA programs had set aside reserves anticipating that interest 

rates might fall at some point. But their reserves are depleted now 

and their ability to tap them, which has seen them through the last 

few years, is now much more limited than it was. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Fattah. 

LSC IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OVERALL FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will share this with your staff, but I want to provide it for the 

record. This is a statement from the group that is going to receive 

your letter, the Conference of Chief Justices. And it just is in support of Legal Services, but I think it lays the foundation for the fact 

that they like to try to find ways to support this very worthy activity. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
570 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1187 67259C.087
571 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1188 67259C.088
572 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me start in a couple different places all at once. 

I am a politician. We can embellish as we go. 

So, you know, we have in our subcommittee a lot of critical agencies. I mentioned this in my opening statement, NASA handles our 

activities in space. And I am very committed to their work and so 

are the chairman and others. 

But they had a satellite they were launching a couple of weeks 

ago. It is called Glory. And it just did not work out. It did not make 

orbit. That is a $500 million deal. It did not work out. 

We are going to send more satellites and, you know, we are 

never going to be in a situation where success is guaranteed. But 

we spent $500 million on that effort, right? And we are going to 

spend a billion dollars on marine life and the NOAA agency. 

I just put this in perspective because of the million plus cases 

that you settle, and what this means. I read about some of these 

cases. 

I read about a woman who was badly assaulted by her husband, 

and had to come to Legal Services to get a restraining order. And 

she did not live in Pennsylvania. I mean, this was not a constituent 

of mine. I just read it. 

But I think that it is so very important that we understand what 

is at stake here. And the Congress, rightfully as stewards of taxpayers’ money, has to ask important questions. 

I was one of the cosponsors of the bill that created the IG’s operations and GAO has to do audits and so on. 

But it is amazing to me because I was down in the Capitol Visitor Center earlier this morning for a meeting. This is a building 

that we were going to put up for $260 million. It came in at $621 

million. The cost overruns were enormous, right? This is an activity 

of the United States Congress. 

So I just think that we need to put these things in perspective 

as we go forward here because we are talking about the life 

chances of tens of millions of Americans who are in the balance, 

their access to a fair hearing in court. 

And I say this as a father of three daughters. When you have 

three out of four of the clients of Legal Services being women who 

are already—I mean, they are in poverty, that is why they are eligible for services, so they are already in the shadows of our society. 

They are in a desperate situation. They need access to redress in 

the courts, which is ensured under our Constitution. 

And the way that, since Nixon, we have done this is through the 

work of the Legal Services Corporation. So, when I look at your request—and I know that we talk about this being a tight budget 

year, you may not have noticed this, but we spent a little bit of 

money in Libya over the last ten days, and nobody has a calculator 

out. Nobody is saying, well, you know, Tomahawk cruise missile, 

$1.1 million every time we send one off, you know. 

And we are spending $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. We have 

spent more than your budget in Iraq just in trying to create a legal 

system so that Iraqi citizens could have a court system they could 

have access to. Now, this is on the generosity of American taxpayers. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
573 

And this pro bono work is critically important and I want to 

work with you to encourage it. I know people who provide pro bono 

work. 

Ken Frazier is a neighbor of mine. He has moved up in the 

world. He is the CEO of Merck. But in his spare time every summer, he takes a case and usually in the deep south handling, you 

know, some of the ugliest cases in the world, a criminal case, and 

he does his pro bono work when he is not running one of the 

world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. 

A lot of attorneys provide pro bono work and they do it on the 

criminal side. The difference with Legal Services is that your work 

is on the civil side. And I would say that we have seen lawyers who 

are volunteering to represent and they should, you know, people in 

Guantanamo and on and on and on. 

But when a woman is being abused by her husband, almost beaten to death and needs a restraining order and needs a lawyer to 

help get one, we just need to make sure that the door of Legal 

Services is open. 

And I do not think you can get any auditor to do an audit in 

which they do not find something. That is what they get paid to 

do. They come back and they have got some recommendation—and 

we have been through this. I have been in this committee for years 

and there is always something. 

But I know that we see this in these other agencies. The FBI has 

spent tens of millions of dollars on an IT system that just has not 

worked out very well. And $150 million or so later, it is like, well, 

okay, we are going to try something different. 

And when we come to poor people, I think that we need to be 

balanced in our approach on these issues because we cannot give 

people justice on the cheap. We can encourage pro bono work, but 

we should not have this woman’s opportunity to get a restraining 

order contingent on the generosity of some lawyer who is trying to 

figure out how to pay their—you know, my daughter who is trying 

to figure out how to pay her bills from law school, right? 

You have got to be careful that we keep the courthouse door 

open. And that is what this all about. This is what the chairman, 

—and he has been true to the support of this agency from my first 

days on this committee, and there have been some tough political 

times. But the politics, we need to push it aside because there is 

no—as best as I can tell in these million clients, nobody is trying 

to figure out whether they are Ds or they are Rs or independents. 

They are in the main, women with, in many instances, this particular case, with children who need to be protected. And the only 

way that they can find that protection is through the work that you 

are doing. 

LSC STRUCTURE

So I want to get to my question. My question is not in the North 

Carolina instance. I was trying to look at this Web site. I have not 

found this document yet. But the way Legal Services works is this 

is not a top-down operation. These are local decisions made by local 

communities and local boards. 

So in Philadelphia, decisions are made about what is an important priority, what cases are going to be handled, and so forth and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
574 

so on so that the first thing is that—and I think that, in a bipartisan way, we think decisions are better made at a local level. 

So I want you just to talk for a minute about the structure of 

how the board is working on the dissemination of these grants and 

how decisions are made about which agencies are going to have a 

veterans’ outreach effort and which are going to get technology 

grants and how this is working from the top down. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Congressman Fattah, our 136 programs, the 136 

programs that LSC funds, each is a separate 501(c)(3), an independent corporation. We are a grant maker, but we do not control 

them. We do have restrictions associated with the money that we 

grant and we monitor our grantees’ compliance with the restrictions that Congress has mandated go along with LSC funds. 

Each of the programs does have a local focus. They are required 

each year to do a local needs assessment and do priority setting 

based on what the needs of the population they serve are. And 

those needs vary. The needs in rural areas are different from those 

in urban areas. The mix of cases can vary from one grantee to another. 

And we do not attempt to mandate from a national level exactly 

what the mix of cases for any individual grantee should be. We do 

think that is a decision that is best made at the local level by people who know their local communities. 

LEGAL SERVICES FOR VETERANS

Mr. FATTAH. Now, this veterans work that is being done, this is 

an important issue. More than a million of our young men are rotated through battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and they come 

home and they have a lot of challenges. 

So can you talk a little bit about what is being done particularly 

in terms of veterans by Legal Services. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Our veterans’ initiative has two components. We 

have a web site, statesidelegal.org, which was the creation of Pine 

Tree Legal Services in Maine in cooperation with Arkansas, the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership. 

And that is a web site that contains information of interest to 

veterans and military families. It also has information about state 

and local issues of interest to them. 

The second component is outreach to what are called readjustment counseling centers that the VA runs, facilities. There are 

about 300 of them around the country where veterans can go for 

assistance. 

And we have done outreach to them so that they are familiar 

with the availability of legal services by the area Legal Services 

providers, the LSC grantees, so that they can make referrals and 

connections and so that we can go to where the clients are and get 

connected to the veterans who are likely to need the services of our 

local Legal Services programs. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now, are many of these services related to foreclosures and other kinds of challenges that these veterans are facing? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes. We have seen situations where returning veterans are facing financial difficulties. They have been out of the civilian workforce for some time. They are coming back into an enviVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00574 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
575 

ronment where the economy is depressed and where jobs are hard 

to find. And they are facing issues like foreclosures or evictions if 

they are in rental housing, real subsistence issues. 

Mr. FATTAH. I met with a group that is providing some effort to 

work with veterans in the Philadelphia area. What was amazing to 

me is that, Mr. Chairman, the number of suicides has risen almost 

to the level that we have lost young people on the battlefield itself. 

So the numbers are like parallel now. And it is because, in large 

measure, they face an extraordinary set of dynamics in the war, 

but some of them are losing their homes while they are away. And 

they are getting notifications and so on from loved ones about it. 

So they have a lot of challenges. 

So I think this work is vitally important. I want to know whether 

you—you said you are working with these 300 local readjustment 

counseling centers. Are there other efforts of coordinating between 

the VA and Legal Services to make sure that whatever can be done 

is being done? 

Mr. SANDMAN. We are working on that. We have started with the 

300 centers, but we have made contacts at high levels in the Veterans Administration to be sure that we are doing all that we can 

to make veterans aware of the availability of Legal Services and 

our programs and to figure out how we can better serve their legal 

needs. 

LEGAL AID CLINICS

Mr. FATTAH. Now, along the line of this pro bono side, a number 

of law schools have set up clinics, Legal Aid clinics. I know at Temple Law School, they are now trying to create one focused on 

healthcare law because a lot of people are running into challenges 

in that respect. 

But does Legal Services work in conjunction with law schools in 

the establishment or staffing or utilizing the resources of law students who may be able to help people with some what we would 

consider more mundane matters? 

Sometimes when you are in a difficult circumstance, what may 

seem simple to one person is a very complex matter to someone 

else. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes. Our programs do reach out to the law schools 

and their communities to try to connect to the clinics that they are 

operating and to use the law students as a source of pro bono legal 

assistance. 

I know, for example, that our program in southern Arizona has 

an active outreach program to the law schools and actively involves 

law students in their work. 

IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS

Mr. FATTAH. Now let’s talk about the budget numbers themselves, the appropriations request. So your request in fiscal year 

2012 is the same as it was in fiscal year 2011. 

The cuts that have been suggested by the Congress, can you tell 

us how the board, Mr. Grey, or the Administration would handle 

it if you had to deal with these cuts, how you would proceed in 

making what would be unpleasant—what would be the results of 

the cuts as outlined around this $70 million number? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
576 

Mr. SANDMAN. Well, if we were to look at the impact of the $70 

million cut provided in H.R. 1 for the current fiscal year, that 

would come entirely out of what we call our field grants to the programs, the 136 programs around the country that serve poor people. 

Our best estimate is that that would require the layoff of 370 

full-time Legal Aid lawyers, that it would reduce the number of 

cases we could handle by 60,500, and the number of people who 

would not get legal services would be about double that, about 

121,000. 

I think it would have a devastating effect on service. The particular consequences would depend on each individual program and 

to what extent it gets its funding from LSC. 

On average, our grantees get 43 percent of their funding from 

LSC, but that varies. Our program in Alabama gets 86 percent of 

its funding from us. So obviously the impact there would be much 

greater than in the average program. 

JUSTICE GAP

Mr. FATTAH. Let me just conclude with this question. It is about 

what we call the justice gap, and that is that notwithstanding your 

best efforts, there are people who are not getting help, right? 

So part of the impetus was trying to create more pro bono opportunities. It is not to fill budget cuts, but it is to reach out to people 

who are not yet being able to be helped with the limited amount 

of dollars that you have. 

So can you talk a little bit about what the gap is, how it literally 

plays itself out in communities throughout the country. 

Mr. SANDMAN. There have been different studies trying to measure the gap. I think the most conservative was one that was done 

a few years ago by LSC itself and it estimated that the justice gap 

is at 50 percent, that we are meeting only 50 percent of the legal 

needs of poor people. And that is a generous estimate of how well 

we are doing. Studies at the state level have set the figure much 

lower than that in different areas of the country. 

But the matters that we handle for the clients that we see and 

those that we would like to be able to serve but cannot are often 

matters of safety and subsistence. They have to do with the availability of housing, avoiding eviction or foreclosure, being out on the 

street and being in a homeless shelter. They have to do with the 

safety of abused women. 

I was up in Pennsylvania the week before last in one of our programs out in western Pennsylvania, the Laurel Program. And a six 

county area handles virtually all of the civil protection orders 

sought by poor women in the area. Almost none of them were 

served by the private Bar. These are the matters that we handle. 

Unemployment compensation, these are matters that are often 

life or death matters to our clients and that if we can have an appropriate legal intervention and get people the help they are entitled to, we can save society other costs. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Thank you very much. 

POLITICAL ACTIVISM

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
577 

I am going to go to Mr. Austria. But before I do, I want to make 

a couple comments. 

We will give you a copy of the whole article, the whole publication, and I want you to get a copy too. And, you know, I mean, it 

just goes after Bush. It is a replay of what has gone on before. 

I happen to have been here for 30 years. I am not going to take 

a back seat to anybody here in this place, no one, zero, Democratic 

side or the Republican side on this issue. I am not going to do it. 

But this becomes the issue that people go at. 171 people voted 

to eliminate funding for LSC. I thought we helped protect Legal 

Services very much in this. There were times we told the staff protect this, and let’s try to take it from other areas. 

Secondly, the political activity hurts. I mean, if I am the only one 

who agrees, fine. If you all do not agree with it, fine. I agree with 

it. I know it is the way it is because I have watched it over the 

years. We have taken it out of the political process and people want 

to put it back in. It hurts. And if nobody believes it hurts, then 

they can keep doing it and keep violating the law, but it hurts. 

And, again, there were 171 Members that voted to eliminate 

funding. I have already had letters criticizing me for voting for not 

zeroing out Legal Services from people that I know and like. They 

are saying, Wolf, you missed an opportunity. You should have been 

for that. And I did not do it. 

Third, regarding all this talk about the poor, in my neighborhood, 70th and M, we did not have a lawyer. I did not know a lawyer growing up. I did not know anyone who was. I do not think 

there was a law firm in my neighborhood. So I understand that. 

And I think for the cases that you are supposed to work on, there 

is a compelling need. 

KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMAD

In contrast, some big law firms—silk stocking firms—made a big 

deal that they represented Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at Guantanamo Bay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad beheaded Daniel Pearl. That 

is their pro bono work? Their pro bono work should be to help the 

poor here in the United States with so many unmet needs. Instead, 

they were tripping over themselves to represent Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, a man who brought about the death of 30 people from my 

congressional district, who brought about pain and suffering in this 

country in 2001, on September 11. 

And just look at some of the big law firms. They brag that this 

was their pro bono work. But they do not go down into the ghetto 

and help and they do not come to southwest Philadelphia and help 

and they do not come out into the Winchester area and help. It was 

like of the liberal left kind of felt good by saying that it represented 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. 

I mean, I did not watch it, but there is a video of a terrorist literally beheading Daniel Pearl. That is pro bono work? Everyone in 

this country deserves the right to representation. 

But if you have got an opportunity to assist the poor in an inner 

city or in a rural area versus Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, I think 

you should choose to assist the poor. To choose Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls that cheap grace. That is cheap 

grace. If that makes you feel good and you are with a big law firm 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
578 

and you can go to your cocktail parties and tell them that you are 

representing people who devastated this country and brought 

around pain and suffering and agony at the World Trade Center 

and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, then so be it. That is 

every right under this. 

But what we want to do is make sure there is not this political 

process, which I have to assume both of you do, because you said 

you do. There was not a raging debate on the floor on this issue 

because we funded LSC at the number it ought to be rather than 

coming in low knowing that there would be efforts to increase it. 

But you have got to get rid of this political stuff that goes on. It 

has gone on over a long period of time. 

INCREASING PRO BONO SERVICES

And, lastly, I think most lawyers are good people. I will stipulate 

they are. They would want to help if given an opportunity. And I 

know there are going to be some cuts. I know it. Do I like it? No. 

But I know there are going to be some. 

So how can we help Legal Services to meet the needs, to meet 

the poor, and, yet, see if we can bring in some of the law firms? 

There is a policy here that if you invite the preacher to give the 

opening prayer, they will take you into the speaker’s office and you 

get a picture taken. I had not invited this gentleman in, but the 

former congressman whom I replaced had invited him in. And I remember Tip O’Neill had a group of us in the ceremonial office. Of 

course, I had just arrived here. I did not really know the speaker. 

And two things stick out in my mind. One is I was standing on 

the edge of the picture and he pulled me in the middle. He said 

never stand on the edge because they can crop you out. 

And he was talking about the story of when he ran for office. He 

did not get the vote of the lady across the street. And he said something to the effect of ‘‘Ms. McGillicuddy, why didn’t you vote for 

me’’ and she said, ‘‘Tip, he asked me for the vote.’’ 

And sometimes you have to ask. And I think what I want you 

to do is to ask the law firms who are made up of good people if 

they can help supplement. 

And so that is why I wrote all the Bar associations. That is why 

I wrote the ABA. There is going to be an effort. Let’s see if we can 

maintain it. Let’s see if we can bring in the pro bono and, lastly, 

not give the opportunity for people to throw rocks at it by having 

things where we do caricatures of President Bush and get into the 

political process that used to bring controversy here. That is not 

going to be good for the poor. 

And the programs you have all mentioned ought to be helped and 

people that are in those circumstances, they ought to be helped. 

But some of those guys who took the time to represent Khalid 

Sheikh Mohammad ought to consider going into the inner city and 

helping some of the people that need the help in the inner city or 

the rural areas. 

Mr. Austria. 

LSC SPENDING

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sandman, Mr. Grey, thank you for being here. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
579 

Mr. Chairman, I think you are hitting right on the line of questioning that I had. And I know Mr. Fattah started to go down the 

budget route. And I wanted to talk a little bit more about that because there has been debate and there is going to continue to be 

debate. 

When you look at the budgets that have been rolled out with this 

Congress with H.R. 1 and the reductions that were in H.R. 1, the 

$350 million, I believe it was, an amendment on the floor to pretty 

much eliminate, my understanding was, to zero out the program. 

Certainly there is a perception here versus the President’s budget request at $450 million in fiscal year 2012 for LSC which is, my 

understanding, 7.1 percent above 2010 enacted level and 28.6 percent above 2008 enacted level. 

And I just want to say during these difficult budget times that, 

you know, expansion of any program by 28 percent for a fiscal year, 

it does not matter how large or small, in my opinion is not sustainable even in good times, but especially when we are borrowing 42 

cents on every dollar in the Federal Government and we are trying 

to get our spending under control here in Washington. 

And you have talked about some of the justifications, some of the 

needs that you have out there, but help me better understand how 

you expect to continue to grow at what I am considering 

unsustainable rates while we are asking other agencies and more 

importantly the American people to tighten their belts and tighten 

their budgets and reduce their budgets at this time? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I appreciate the question, Congressman Austria, 

and it is something that our board wrestled with in terms of what 

the right amount to put in our budget request for the fiscal year 

2012 was. 

The board was focused on the two purposes that the Legal Services Corporation Act established for the corporation. One is to provide access to justice and the other is to provide high-quality legal 

services to low-income Americans. 

The request is driven by the need and also I think by the special 

place that access to justice has in the pantheon of American values. 

Hard times test values. And this is a test of what the country 

places a priority on. 

The very first line of the Constitution says that establishing justice is a purpose of the Federal Government. The framers mentioned establishing justice even before they mentioned providing for 

the common defense or ensuring domestic tranquility. 

The last three lines of our Pledge of Allegiance, justice for all, 

that was our focus, that compared to other matters, the types of 

things that Congressman Fattah mentioned, it is a matter of setting priorities. And we believe that access to justice needs to be a 

paramount national priority. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Well, help me understand then what efficiencies 

and what accountability measures are Legal Services Corporation 

putting into place to save taxpayer dollars. And how is Legal Services Corporation working with other states and local governments, 

as you described, to reduce the overall cost of civil legal services? 

And we have talked a little bit about the pro bono side of things, 

but if you could. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
580 

Mr. SANDMAN. We do work hard to coordinate with all of the 

players in the Legal Services delivery system, the state and local 

appropriators, the state IOLTA programs, the judiciary. It is a cooperative effort to try to identify what the needs are and to be sure 

that they are met as efficiently as possible. 

We do leverage our federal money very successfully. On average, 

as I mentioned, the funding for the programs that we made grants 

to, only 43 percent of that comes from LSC. The rest is coming 

from other sources which I think is a sign of the effectiveness of 

the federal dollar as an investment with the programs that we 

fund. 

Our programs make good use of technology to try to reach poor 

people in rural areas, to make forms easier to understand, forms 

available to people, to provide on-line resources for those who 

might not be able to make it into a Legal Aid office. 

We do have rigorous oversight of our grantees. We visited 72 of 

our 136 programs last year, more than half, to monitor their performance and to oversee their compliance with our regulations and 

with the requirements of federal law. 

So we are very focused on getting bang for the buck and getting 

the best value that we can out of the money that the Congress invests in our programs. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. All right. Well, let me just say, you know, as we 

go through these difficult times, I mean, cuts are inevitable. We are 

looking at each program, the efficiencies, what plans are in place 

as far as operating within sustainable budgets over the long term. 

And I certainly want to continue to work with you and keep an 

open line of communication on what plans you have as far as in 

the future as far as trying to reduce these costs in addition to the 

services that you are providing. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. And thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Austria. 

RESTRICTIONS ON COLLECTION OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

In fiscal year 2010, Congress removed the restrictions on LSC 

grantees related to the collection of attorney fees. 

Can you give an estimate of approximately how much in attorneys’ fees have been recovered by LSC grantees in the period since? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 2010 was the first full year 

in which we could see the impact of the lifting of that restriction 

and we saw an increase in 2010 of $540,000 in attorneys’ fees recovered by our programs. Averaged across our 136 programs, that 

was about $4,000 a program. I think it is still too early to tell what 

the long-term impact of the lifting of that restriction might be, but 

that was the figure last year. 

TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE GRANTS

Mr. WOLF. Okay. We have one more question we will ask on 

that. But the technology initiative grants, the budget requests $6.8 

million for technology initiative grants for fiscal year 2012, a figure 

that is twice the current level. 

While the program has been credited with increasing access to 

legal representation, in December, LSC’s Office of Inspector GenVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00580 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
581 

eral released an audit of the program and they found appropriate 

internal controls over the grant funds to be lacking. 

I think you briefly mentioned that in your opening statement. As 

a result, the IG recommended that LSC suspend its awarding of 

these grants until an adequate internal control system could be designed and implemented. What is the current status? 

Mr. SANDMAN. The suspension has been lifted and we have 

begun the process for—— 

Mr. WOLF. How long was the suspension in effect? 

Mr. SANDMAN. It started before I became president, sir. I am not 

sure exactly when it became—in December, I believe. 

Mr. WOLF. And have you met all the concerns of the IG and is 

your IG convinced that that has been resolved? 

Mr. SANDMAN. The IG made 36 recommendations in December. 

We have closed 12 of those. We are working closely with our inspector general to address the others. I think we are making good 

progress. 

Mr. WOLF. If you could keep us informed then. 

In 2010, LSC awarded 42 TIG grants including grants for the development of mobile phone applications. As your budget justification notes, Montana Legal Services is developing a mobile website 

platform to provide information by phones and hand-held computers. The platform you hope will be replicated in 27 other states. 

Does that mean these applications are being developed for people 

with BlackBerries and iPads or what does that mean? 

Mr. SANDMAN. For some of the clients that we are trying to 

reach, their telephone is the most effective way of reaching them. 

It is part of our effort to get to where clients are as best we can. 

Mr. WOLF. So it is more for telephones and not for—— 

Mr. SANDMAN. It is for whatever application will reach them 

most effectively, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. But they are designed to serve the indigent who need 

the help? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. In light of LSC’s efforts to adopt and implement 

GAO’s recent recommendations, did the results of the IG’s audit 

come as a surprise? 

Mr. SANDMAN. The TIG audit? 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. SANDMAN. That was before I started, Mr. Chairman. I am 

not able to answer the question. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. One of the major concerns of the IG was that 

LSC did not properly apply its sub-grant rules when grantees paid 

TIG funds to third parties. Sub-grants must be submitted to LSC 

for approval and must contain certain terms specified by regulation 

including a term to ensure compliance with LSC restrictions such 

as prohibition against lobbying. 

This deficiency is certainly a concern as Congress takes the LSC 

restrictions seriously. Did the IG find that any LSC funds were 

used by sub-grantees engaged in activities prohibited by the LSC 

restrictions? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I am not aware of any finding to that effect, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Is the IG here now? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
582 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes, he is. 

Mr. WOLF. Did they find any? 

Mr. SCHANZ. No, sir. We did not drill down quite that far. We 

were taking it more from the internal control point of view to make 

sure that controls were in place to ensure the stewardship of the 

funds that were being applied to the technology grants. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Since you are here, if you would just identify 

yourself for the record. 

Mr. SCHANZ. I am Jeff Schanz, the inspector general for the 

Legal Services Corporation. 

Mr. WOLF. And also, if you would take a look at this North Carolina—— 

Mr. SCHANZ. I would be happy to. When I first saw that, that we 

do risk assessments to leverage our resources and that, of course, 

is right on top of the list. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. We have some questions about that. If you 

would look at it and get back to us and see if there is any other 

activity like that. 

How long have you been the IG? 

Mr. SCHANZ. I have just passed my third year. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Are the relationships better than it was with 

the previous IG? I know they were rocky. 

Mr. SCHANZ. Mr. Chairman, I think significantly so. I came to 

this job after 34 years with the Department of Justice, the last 30 

years of those with Glenn Fine, the IG of the Department of Justice. So I came to this job trying to make a difference. And we are 

making a difference. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. We will get you a copy of the booklet—— 

Mr. SCHANZ. Okay. That will be very helpful. Thank you. 

FISCAL OVERSIGHT

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Before you leave. I am going to just ask 

a couple more and then go to Mr. Fattah. 

In 2010, the LSC Board established a special task force on fiscal 

oversight to review its oversight responsibilities. 

Who makes up this task force? 

Mr. GREY. Mr. Chairman, I am co-chair of that with Vic Maddox. 

Included in my materials submitted are the members of that task 

force. In the testimony I provided, I talked about the work that 

they do in the private sector. It is I think by all accounts a pretty 

impressive group. 

We have got senior executives of Fortune 500s, six with foundations, two with accounting experience, and we have two former inspector generals on this committee. So from the standpoint of expertise, I think we are well suited to undertake the responsibilities 

of looking at the oversight responsibility of LSC with its grantees. 

Mr. WOLF. And when will there be a report released? 

Mr. GREY. I am looking to July as the opportunity to provide a 

draft. 

Mr. WOLF. Is it your intention that the task force will cease to 

operate when the review is concluded or when the report is issued? 

Mr. GREY. We would cease to conclude once it has performed its 

responsibility, but we expect that there will be ongoing activities in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
583 

terms of training and monitoring of the recommendations that are 

provided. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Last question and then we will go to Mr. 

Fattah. 

The budget requests an additional $2.5 million over the current 

level for grants management and oversight. That is an increase of 

15 percent. 

How would that additional funding be used? 

Mr. SANDMAN. A good portion of it, Mr. Chairman, would be used 

for training activities for our programs to help them do a good job 

of fiscal oversight and compliance with federal requirements. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. I will have some questions I can submit for the 

record, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr. WOLF. I just have a few more and then we will just conclude. 

We will have some others for the record too. 

But in response to the surge of pro se litigants, Legal Aid programs and libraries are working in partnership to help library patrons obtain legal services. 

To what extent can libraries help to alleviate the workload of 

Legal Aid offices? 

Mr. SANDMAN. They can do a good job in conjunction with the 

Legal Aid offices. People often go to libraries looking for information when they do not know about the availability of a Legal Services office down the street. The librarian is often the general information source for people. 

So we worked to reach out to librarians through our programs 

to make sure that they are aware of what online resources are 

available that people can access right there in the library and what 

is available down the street at a Legal Aid office. 

Mr. WOLF. So do all your Legal Aid people go to libraries and tell 

them that here we are, we are here, and is that a formal program 

or is it just that if somebody takes the initiative and does it, fine, 

but—— 

Mr. SANDMAN. I think it is going to vary from program to program depending on what their local circumstances are. As I mentioned, each program is independent and different from one another, but it is an emphasis that we are trying to—— 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Mr. WOLF. Are there standards, though, that every program 

should meet to be certified though? I mean, I know they are different, but is there—— 

Mr. SANDMAN. We do have performance standards that we use 

in evaluating our programs and that are the guide that our teams 

use when they go out to visit programs and assess them. 

Mr. WOLF. Have any ever been dropped? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Can you tell us for the record who? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I cannot name names of particular programs off 

the top of my head, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
584 

Mr. WOLF. Can you just supply it for the record? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Can you give an estimate of the percentage of grantee 

clients who are aided by self-help resources such as forms or advice 

regarding the availability of internet-based information? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I am not able to give a number, but it is a very 

significant percentage of the clients that we serve. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. You know, the others we will just kind of submit for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

1. Can you give an estimate of the percentage of clients who are aided by selfhelp resources such as forms or advice regarding the availability of internet-based 

information? 

Answer: Last year, LSC grantees closed nearly 1 million cases, involving households of approximately 2.3 million people. In addition, another 4 million people received pro se assistance from a variety of sources that included court kiosks, selfhelp materials posted on websites, and distributed at workshops and clinics in 2010. 

Mr. Fattah, do you have any last questions before we leave? 

Mr. FATTAH. No. 

I thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. FATTAH. It was a western Missouri case related to a husband 

who tried to kill his wife and their daughter by setting the house 

on fire. And when his wife ran from him, he found her and 

smashed her head in with a gun causing serious brain injury. Legal 

Aid of western Missouri enrolled her in the State Protection Program and helped her get a divorce and sole custody of her daughter. And there are an ample number of other cases. 

But, again, I want to thank you for the work you are doing. I 

know that the chairman and the committee will work hard to do 

the best we can with your appropriations request. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Grey, you wanted to—— 

Mr. GREY. Mr. Chairman, just one thing to add. Having been the 

president of the ABA at one point in my life, I think it is important 

just to observe that the association takes pro bono work very seriously. It has a standing committee on Legal Aid and indigent defendants and also works to establish a summit on an annual basis. 

And it is my understanding that the chairman also plans to have 

the ABA representative on this task force. 

So what we understand to be the way you have championed this 

is similar to our approach to this is that we want to have the players involved with us as we make this happen. But I would like to 

do a little bit more research and work to assist you in reaching out 

because I think your outreach is important as well. 

PRO BONO REQUIREMENTS IN LAW SCHOOLS

Mr. WOLF. Well, we will share. If you can assist us, because you 

understand better than I do. We will share with you the letters, 

and we will share with you the responses that we get. 

The other thing is in law school, they had some pro bono program, but it was really not serious. It was—— 

Mr. GREY. It has changed. 

Mr. WOLF. And it has changed a lot. 

Mr. GREY. Oh, yeah. 

Mr. WOLF. So like—— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
585 

Mr. GREY. It has changed a lot. 

Mr. WOLF. Would a whole course involve, for example, being with 

a Legal Services provider in south Philadelphia? 

Are there any that are so intense that way? 

Mr. SANDMAN. Oh, yes. There are a number of law schools that 

have mandatory pro bono hours as a requirement for graduation. 

Also some of the law schools are very generous in providing loan 

repayment assistance to graduates who go into Legal Services. 

They will forgive portions of their law school debt depending on 

the—— 

Mr. WOLF. How do they do that? 

A young woman who worked for me for a number of years just 

graduated from a good law school. And she is going with a big firm 

here in town. And she says that because of the cost of tuition, she 

really does not have any other choice. 

Mr. SANDMAN. The loan repayment assistance programs have 

been very important in allowing law students who might not otherwise be able to afford to to go into—— 

Mr. WOLF. How many have that? How many law schools have 

that? 

Mr. SANDMAN. I do not know how many of the law schools have 

it. I know that the bigger, wealthier law schools have very generous programs. Part of our funding request also is—— 

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield. I know, for instance, 

the great law school in Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, that my wife graduated from, it does have a 

mandatory, Mr. Chairman, requirement for credit, where the thirdyear student must do this pro bono work as part of their activities. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, that is good. 

Mr. SANDMAN. That is my law school too. 

Mr. WOLF. The closest I got to Penn is a weekend—they let me 

play in the sandlot football team on their practice field down by the 

Schuylkill River if you recall. 

Well, that is good. I think the more you are reaching out to the 

major law schools with regard to the payment of tuition the better. 

Very seldom do you go with a big law firm in New York City or 

Washington or Philadelphia and then leave to go out and practice 

either in a district attorney’s office or practice in a Legal Services 

program. It is usually you do that for a couple years and then you 

go the other way. 

So it would be interesting to see for the record how many law 

schools actually give help with regard to the repayment of loans. 

What is the traditional time that people stay with Legal Services? 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
586 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1225 here 67259C.089
587 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1226 here 67259C.090
588 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1227 here 67259C.091
589 

Mr. SANDMAN. The average tenure, I am not certain of. It is difficult, though, because the starting salary at the programs we fund 

averages $43,000 a year and after 10 to 14 years, the lawyer might 

be averaging $59,000 a year. 

So we do see significant turnover at the bottom. We also, though, 

have many long-serving people who stick it out for decades. But 

there is significant attrition after those first three or four years because of the financial burden that people bear when they decide to 

go into Legal Services. 

Mr. WOLF. So when they go into Legal Services, do they sign a 

contract for a specified period of time and then they continue or is 

it just you just join and maybe stay six months, maybe stay six 

years? 

Mr. SANDMAN. They typically would not have a fixed commitment 

except that if they are getting loan repayment assistance—— 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. SANDMAN [continuing]. Either from a law school or from us. 

Part of our funding request is for loan repayment assistance so 

that our grantees can attract people who otherwise—— 

Mr. WOLF. How much is in your budget request for loan repayment? 

Mr. SANDMAN. A million dollars is our request. 

Mr. WOLF. So if you could give us for the record what the normal 

course of time of the average attorney spends with Legal Services. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

3. What is the traditional (or average) amount of time that lawyers stay with 

Legal Services offices? 

Answer: Based on data collected from LSC grantees for 2010, on average, staff 

attorneys stay in their positions at LSC-funded program from six to seven years. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. With that, we thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. The hearing is adjourned. Thanks. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
590 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1230 here 67259C.092
591 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1231 here 67259C.093
592 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1232 here 67259C.094
593 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1233 here 67259C.095
594 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1234 here 67259C.096
595 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1235 here 67259C.097
596 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1236 here 67259C.098
597 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1237 here 67259C.099
598 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1238 here 67259C.100
599 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1239 here 67259C.101
600 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1240 here 67259C.102
601 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1241 here 67259C.103
602 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1242 here 67259C.104
603 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1243 here 67259C.105
604 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1244 here 67259C.106
(605) 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2011. 

ASSESSMENT OF REENTRY INITIATIVES, RECIDIVISM 

AND CORRECTIONS SPENDING 

WITNESSES 

ADAM GELB, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC SAFETY PERFORMANCE PROJECT, 

PEW CENTER ON THE STATES 

THE HON. MARK L. EARLEY, MEMBER OF THE BOARD, PRISON FELLOWSHIP INTERNATIONAL, AND IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, 

PRISON FELLOWSHIP USA 

MICHAEL THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, JUSTICE CENTER, COUNCIL OF 

STATE GOVERNMENTS 

R. SETH WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

Over the past 25 years, the U.S. prison and jail population has 

skyrocketed to an all-time high with 2.3 million people incarcerated. We are the world’s incarceration leader confining 23 percent 

of the world’s prisoners. Therefore, it has become imperative that 

the U.S. modernizes expensive, unsuccessful, and unsustainable 

corrections policies. 

The Nation spent $68.7 billion on corrections in 2006, a $660,000 

increase from 1982. In fiscal year 2010, we spent $100 million on 

reentry programs at Justice and today, the Justice Department 

oversees the Second Chance Act grants, and numerous other federal agencies oversee others. And we are really not sure what the 

response has been. 

Despite the dramatic increase in corrections spending over the 

past two decades, re-incarceration rates for people released from 

prison are largely unchanged. And as the report points out, by 

some measures, they have worsened. National data show that 

about 40 percent of released individuals are re-incarcerated within 

three years. 

As the acting inspector general of the Justice Department reported recently, because of certain design flaws, it is difficult to determine the effect that some of our programs have had on reducing 

recidivism. 

As this report states, ‘‘if a program does not reduce recidivism, 

agencies are wasting their investments.’’ Clearly what we need are 

strategically designed programs based on demonstrated evidence 

with vigorous evaluation components to alert us to what is and is 

not working. 

The report released early this week is a culmination of nearly 

two years of collaboration between the Congress and these private 

foundations to identify the best practices in recidivism reduction 

and reentry programs. 

Two years ago, in this subcommittee, Alan Mollohan, Chairman 

Mollohan, held some of the best hearings that I have been involved 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
606 

in, and I know Mark and others were here during that time, on 

correction reform. 

The witnesses demonstrated that a number of state and local 

governments have taken the lead in correction reform. There are 

innovative policies that have dramatically reduced recidivism and 

reduced spending on corrections. 

The testimony confirmed to me that it is time to stop studying 

this issue and instead start widely implementing the best practices 

from these successful reforms. 

At the end of this hearing, I challenged the hearing witnesses to 

host a national summit to bring together the best minds from state 

and local governments to identify the best practices for reform. The 

national summit was held in the Capitol one year later on January 

27, 2010, with more than 300 experts and policymakers from the 

state and federal governments. 

The excellent information that was presented at the summit has 

now been distilled into the report that is being released this morning. This report has been written to serve as a best practices manual for policymakers and correction practitioners. It is a practical 

resource that will serve as a handbook for reform. 

The report is a rich summary of the growing body of evidence 

that suggests that we can turn around the failure rates associated 

with outdated reentry efforts. It describes promising innovative efforts that are being tailored to specific populations and jurisdictions. And I hope the lessons can be applied to our federal prison 

system. 

I am encouraged by this pursuit of real solutions that I believe 

can achieve the critical objectives of reducing costs, prison population, and crime because things need to change. We need to actually make a difference. 

With that, I am pleased to welcome our four witnesses here 

today. Mr. Adam Gelb is the director of the Public Safety Performance Project at the Pew Center on the States which helps states 

advance fiscally sound, data-driven sentencing and correction policies that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and control correction costs. He was recently executive director of the Georgia Sentencing Commission and vice president of the Georgia 

Council on Substance Abuse. 

The Honorable Mark Earley, a former state senator and Attorney 

General of Virginia, and somebody who really made a great contribution to the State, is the immediate past president of the Prison 

Fellowship USA, having served for more than eight years as president of the Nationwide Ministry founded by Charles Colson. He is 

currently a member of the board of directors of Prison Fellowship 

International which is now active in over 110 countries. 

Mr. Michael Thompson, director of the Justice Center at the 

Council of State Governments, Mr. Thompson has worked on criminal justice policy issues with the Council of State Governments 

since 1997 where he has launched and overseen various initiatives 

to improve outcomes for people with mental illness in the criminal 

justice system, enhance the ability of people released from prisons 

and jails to succeed in the community, and increase public safety 

while reducing the spending for corrections. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
607 

The last witness, who I will defer to Mr. Fattah to introduce, will 

be Seth Williams of the City of Philadelphia. And with that, I will 

just defer to Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this important hearing today. It is a very important subject 

in our criminal justice system. 

And to contribute, I have invited and you have agreed to hear 

testimony from the district attorney of the City of Philadelphia, 

Seth Williams, who I have known since the mid 1980s. He went to 

Penn State. He was the head of the student government there. And 

you have some affinity for this school, and I served on the board 

of trustees. 

Mr. WOLF. Have the colors on today, blue and white. 

Mr. FATTAH. I did not matriculate there, but I did get a chance 

to serve at some later point on the board of trustees. It is a great 

university. 

But Seth is a product of the Philadelphia public schools. He runs 

a 600-employee shop of the district attorney’s office responsible on 

the front line of protecting one and a half million citizens from 

crime and prosecuting wrongdoers. 

But he has taken an unusual interest in this issue of reentry because we have literally hundreds of people released from prison 

back to Philadelphia every week and they are trying to figure out 

how not to have them victimize others and return to prison. We 

have a 70 percent recidivism rate in the Philadelphia area. 

So Seth is a major in the JAG Unit for the Army Reserve, and 

I will stop there because I could go on forever. He is an extraordinary young man who is making a real impact in Philadelphia. I 

am glad he is here and I want to welcome him. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, thank you. 

And I want to welcome you, too, and I looked at, as we mentioned earlier, your bio. I went to John Barshom High School which 

is pretty close to where you live and went to Penn State and also 

went to Georgetown Law School. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You made a good choice. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. I admit to the Georgetown law thing, you know. 

And at one time, I actually considered returning when I graduated 

from law school, returning to Philadelphia to run actually for district attorney. It had been a dream that I had. My dad had been 

a Philadelphia policeman. 

No, I am not going to go back. I fell in love with Virginia. But, 

you know, really got interested in this issue and I am glad you are 

here. 

Mr. Fattah, I was a probation officer, parole officer for the county 

courts of Philadelphia and, you know, and maybe we can help work 

with Philadelphia to make this a model to see, but I think in the 

recidivism rate and to do what we can. So I am glad somebody with 

your practical experience is here, and I appreciate Mr. Fattah, you 

know, in inviting you. 

With regard to that, we will just sort of open up and maybe go 

in order. And then, you know, we will have a lot of questions. 

Maybe just go down. 

Mr. GELB. Great. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
608 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and Ranking Member 

Fattah and other Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity 

to testify this morning. I am Adam Gelb with the Pew Center on 

the States and run the Public Safety Performance Project as you 

described. 

All of us at Pew applaud you for your leadership in drawing attention to promising strategies for reducing crime and victimization 

in America. States increasingly are moving toward the adoption of 

cost-effective solutions to pressing corrections issues and the Federal Government has played and has an incredible opportunity to 

continue to play an important role in that. 

Mr. Chairman, you cited some of the statistics here. Over the 

past three decades, the United States has built a prison system 

that is the largest and most expensive on the planet. There is no 

question that violence and career criminals need to be locked up 

and for a long time. 

But as we reported in 2008, with those 2.3 million prisoners and 

jail inmates we now have one in a hundred adults in this country 

behind bars. That is the equivalent of locking up every single person in Virginia Beach, Louisville, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Seattle, 

and Cincinnati, every single person in those states and those cities. 

The cost of this has been consuming state budgets. State prisons 

now cost over $50 billion a year. It has been the second-fastest category of state spending, trailing only Medicaid, and it now accounts 

for one in every fourteen state general fund dollars, twice the share 

it did about 20 years ago. 

And even though two-thirds of the offender population is in the 

community, about 90 percent of the corrections spending is on prisons. And at this point, about one in eight state government employees works for Department of Corrections. 

What have we gotten for all this spending? No question crime 

rates have fallen since the mid 1990s, and research shows that increased incarceration can claim a modest part of the credit. The 

crime rate is still too high, particularly in certain areas, and recidivism rates, as you said, do not appear to have come down. 

The average inmate released today spends a good bit longer behind bars, but is not necessarily any less likely to come back than 

he would have been 25 years ago. 

The good news, though, is that we now have solutions, new strategies revealed by research that can both cut crime and lower costs 

for taxpayers. More than a dozen states have now engaged in a 

comprehensive data analysis and planning process that we call justice reinvestment. 

With this assistance from Pew, other funders, and certainly the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Justice Department and the 

Congress, states are making significant shifts in policy, making 

better decisions about who goes to prison, how long they stay, and 

how they can do a better job reducing the recidivism rate. 

Now, there is a presumption, I think out there, that states are 

sort of being forced to do these kind of things because of the budget 

situation. They are sort of holding their nose and saying we have 

got to find budget savings and sort of make some bad policy decisions. And we are out there on the ground working with them and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
609 

can just say unequivocally that is not the case. There is much more 

to the story. 

There is no question that the fiscal pressure is partly responsible 

for the interest in these approaches, but states, particularly tough 

on crime states like Texas and South Carolina, would not be engaged in justice reinvestment just to save money. They are simply 

not folks who are going to try to balance their budgets on the back 

of public safety. And, in fact, a number of states including Texas 

started down this road well before the recession started in 2007. 

What instead is going on is that states are realizing that they 

can deliver taxpayers a better public safety return on their corrections dollars and they can do it because we do so much more today 

than we did 30 years ago when we started down the prison building path when prisons became our weapon of choice in the war on 

crime. We know so much better about how to stop the cycle of recidivism. I am just going to list a few things. 

We have much more accurate risk assessments than we did. Volumes of data have been analyzed and we are much better able 

these days to distinguish between high and medium and low-risk 

offenders, who needs to go to prison and at what levels to supervise 

people. 

Second, there have been tremendous advances in supervision 

technology. The short time you were in the system as a parole officer, there was no such thing, you could not have dreamed of a GPS 

tracking system, rapid result drug tests that turn around those results instantly. And those things just did not even exist. We have 

them now, ignition interlocks for drunk drivers, et cetera, ATM-like 

kiosks for low-risk offenders, all kinds of things that did not exist 

before. 

Third, we have improved our knowledge about how to change behavior. The treatment programs today are not the kind of treatment programs that were around, the effective ones anyway. They 

use cognitive behavioral therapy. They use motivational interviewing and swift and certain sanctions. They are much more effective. 

One example of a program that sort of brings these pieces together that collectively are known as evidence-based practices is 

the HOPE Program in Hawaii which I think, Mr. Chairman, you 

are familiar with. It is showing dramatic results with large numbers of offenders including those who have problems with meth. 

HOPE was started by Judge Steven Alm, the former U.S. attorney who was really frustrated with the revolving door. He said, 

let’s stop, let’s do things differently. We are going to test drug offenders twice per week and if they are dirty, they are going to go 

to jail immediately for two days, no ifs, ands, or buts. We are not 

going to wait for them to test positive 15 or 20 times and then at 

some arbitrary point sort of throw down the hammer and end up 

in prison for two years for a costly prison term. But each and every 

time, it is swift and certain. And if offenders do not stop and cannot stop on that testing and sanctions regime with swift and certain jail terms, then at that point, they are referred for treatment. 

The results have been powerful. There was a randomized controlled trial, sort of the gold standard research evaluation, and 

HOPE probationers were 55 percent less likely than the control 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
610 

group to be arrested for a new crime, 72 percent less likely to test 

positive for drugs, and they used about 50 percent fewer prison and 

jail bed days. 

So with these kind of results, states and localities across the 

country are beginning to adopt and experiment with the HOPE 

model. Pilots are up and running in Alaska and Arizona and under 

consideration in Virginia, in Fairfax County, in Kentucky, Arkansas, California, and Alabama. 

But in order to realize the fiscal benefits which are estimated at 

between four and eight thousand dollars per probationer, states 

need the technical assistance and start-up funds that are currently 

in short supply. So if we had even a modest investment in the 

HOPE model with those kind of results, we could make a profound 

impact on crime and drug abuse and on overall correctional costs. 

There is still one more reason why states are pursuing alternate 

strategies and that is public support. Last year, we worked with 

Public Opinion Strategies and the Benson Strategy Group to conduct comprehensive research on public attitudes towards crime and 

punishment. The survey found that without question, voters want 

a strong public safety system that holds criminals accountable and 

metes out consequences for illegal activities. 

At the same time, voters believe that such a system is possible 

while reducing the size and the cost of the prison system. And I 

will just give you one question from the poll. We asked whether 

voters agreed or how much they agreed with the following statement: ‘‘It does not matter whether a nonviolent offender is in prison for 21, 24, or 27 months, what really matters is that the system 

does a better job of making sure that when an offender does get 

out, he is less likely to commit another crime.’’ Ninety-one percent 

of the respondents agreed with that and 75 percent strongly agreed 

with that statement. 

So with that kind of support, it is clear to us the American public 

is ready for a shift from simply building more and more prisons to 

smarter strategies that actually make them safer. 

So in sum, the economic crisis is bringing states to the table, but 

it is not the meal. The demand we are seeing for justice reinvestment and better recidivism reduction strategies is happening because policymakers from both sides of the aisle increasingly know 

that there are research-based strategies for nonviolent offenders 

that produce less crime at less cost than prison. 

Thank you. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
611 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1260 67259C.107
612 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1261 67259C.108
613 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1262 67259C.109
614 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1263 67259C.110
615 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1264 67259C.111
616 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. Earley. 

Mr. EARLEY. Congressman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah, 

thank you for having us this morning. And along with my colleagues, I thank you for keeping the attention on what I think is 

probably one of the most significant pressing domestic issues in the 

country. 

I would like to begin just by sharing a little bit of my own personal story. I have had a bit of an evolution on thinking about the 

whole criminal justice system. I can do this fairly quickly. 

When I was first elected to office in 1987 as a state senator in 

Virginia, crime was a wedge issue in politics at almost every level 

in the United States, mayor, state legislature, governor, attorney 

general, Congress, even President. And so it was a hot topic and 

basically everyone pretty much tried to out-toughen everybody else. 

And there were some reasons people were responding to that. 

There was a pretty significant breakdown of the family going on. 

The high drug use was beginning to happen. And so there were a 

lot of things, percolating around the 1970s and 1980s. 

When I was elected, I was sort of right in the middle of that. And 

during my ten years in the Senate in Virginia, we did what everybody else in the Nation did, we got touch on crime. And it happened in Congress too. And, quite frankly, it was a pretty bipartisan effort across the board. 

And as a result of that, when you step back and look now back 

25 years later, we went in America from having less than 500,000 

people incarcerated in total to today having over two million. 

And as Adam shared, one out of one hundred adults in the 

United States are incarcerated. We incarcerate at a greater rate 

than any other nation and we have more people behind bars than 

any other nation, which is ironic based on how we perceive ourselves as a Nation and what we hold as some of our fundamental 

values. 

I was and am a social conservative if you had to describe me, I 

suppose. And so the things that were important to me were things 

like liberty and freedom, obviously wise stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars, and also limited government. 

And when I look back now, I see that the policies that we used, 

which was primarily viewing prison as probably the most effective 

tool in doing something about crime, going down that road led to 

a tremendous national loss of personal liberty and freedom. It led 

to one of the biggest growths in any government program we have 

seen in the last 50 years, which is corrections. And it is really 

spending an incredible amount of money and getting no better results. You know, we still have the same recidivism rates today that 

we had 25, 30, 40 years ago. They have not moved. Half of everybody who gets out of prison comes back within three years. 

So this is really something that needs a lot of attention. And the 

really tragic thing is when you look beneath these numbers of one 

out of every one hundred being locked up and then a more devastating number, I think, one out of every thirty-one adults are either locked up or under the direct or indirect supervision of a Department of Corrections, probation or parole. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
617 

It is having a devastating effect disproportionately on certain 

communities in America. In the African American community, this 

is having a generational impact that is unraveling the community 

I think for generations to come unless we do something different. 

Women are the fastest growing sub-population in prisons in 

America. The Hispanic population is significantly over-represented 

even when you take away immigration related issues. In California, 65 percent of the people locked up today are Hispanic. 

So that is the problem we are all trying to address and I think 

this committee is aware of it. I think the public is aware of it more 

today. I certainly see that. There has been a huge ground shift in 

public perception, and I think the main reason is once you put over 

two million people behind bars, everybody knows somebody who is 

locked up. And that was not true 25 or 30 years ago. 

You know, when I grew up, I did not know anybody who went 

to jail, but now I have had family members who have been to jail, 

good friends, colleagues, and I think that is true for everybody in 

this room. 

So it has touched the Nation in a very personal way, and I think 

everybody realizes that not everybody in prison is beyond redemption, beyond hope, and beyond the chance of a better life. 

So in response to the summit that you convened last year, we 

have got a great report that is in front of you. I agree with everything that is in that report, so I will not sort of go back over that. 

I do want to add some things that I think are not in the report 

that I think are as critical as what is in the report. And it is three 

things that I think are well within the reach of this Congress to 

do. 

The first is there is a really important piece of the puzzle in my 

experience both in getting tough on crime and now in the last nine 

years at Prison Fellowship going into prison and try to help people 

who are in prison get ready to come out. There is a very important 

piece missing in a lot of discussion and it is this. 

You cannot hire enough people at the state level or federal level 

to help inmates get ready to come home. Government at the federal 

and state and local level has to leverage the volunteers in the community, nonprofits, be they faith based or secular, but community 

people to get involved in the lives of these inmates. 

Over the last nine years, I have probably been in over 200 prisons in the United States and around the world. Most of the successful stories that I have seen of people whose lives have changed 

have been through human interaction. That human interaction 

may have come through a program, but it has been through human 

interaction and it is often expressed like this by an inmate. 

When these people started coming into prison, I wondered what 

they wanted and then I realized they love me. And there was something about being affirmed, being loved, being invested in which 

many of these men and women have not had before, that was the 

pivotal life-changing moment. It may have helped them to go on 

and believe they could get their degree. It may have helped them 

believe they could truly break an addictive habit of drugs or alcohol. But it was human interaction. 

We cannot hire people to do that and we should not try, but 

there are an army of volunteers around the Nation who are willing 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
618 

to do that and it is growing because everyone has been touched by 

this issue. So it becomes very important for states and the federal 

prison system to be volunteer friendly to let people in. 

The big emphasis in prisons in the 1980s and 1990s was on security. If the emphasis shifts toward success in reducing recidivism 

as well as security, then every level of correctional operation in the 

U.S. has to get better at welcoming volunteers and partnering with 

volunteers. It is absolutely key and it does not cost money at the 

end of the day. It does take some time and it takes a different approach within the prison, but it is not a big ticket item. So that 

is the first thing I would ask everybody to keep in mind. 

Secondly, one of the things that the justice reinvestment report 

points out that I think is very important is that we do not have 

enough research going on with programs that we fund. There are 

a lot of pilot programs that go on at the state level and the federal 

level and many of them are good. 

The problem is most of them when they are set up and funded, 

they are not funded with the idea of being really research evaluated at the end. So even if they are evaluated, it is usually not research. And if they try to be evaluated, they have not been set up 

in such a way to be a good experiment. 

So one of my suggestions is that both in the Second Chance Act 

and in the Justice Reinvestment Act, the Congress consider changing the language or doing what it needs to do so that every grant 

that is given, whether it is given to a state or whether it is given 

to a 501(c)(3) community-based program, built into that grant is a 

research requirement that is also funded within the grant, that 

part of applying for the grant is you have to apply for your program 

and you design the program to be studied. That is part of the deal. 

And when you get funded, you are funded not only to do the program but the research is funded as well. 

So then everything that Congress funds, it can really look back 

on in one or two or three or four or five years and see if this 

worked. And if it did, we are going to have a growing number of 

programs that prove themselves beyond the mere legend but prove 

themselves based on the data. So I think that would be a really 

good way to bring accountability into what are two really good acts 

and that is the Second Chance Act and the Justice Reinvestment 

Act. 

The third thing I would suggest is that though I think it is important for the Congress to continue to fund programs at the state 

level, provide the technical assistance like is going on through the 

Second Chance Act and the Justice Reinvestment Act, do not neglect the Federal Bureau of Prisons. There are 2.3 million people 

in prison in the Nation. I looked this morning. The Federal Bureau 

of Prisons every Thursday at twelve noon lists the current count. 

As of yesterday at twelve, there were 209,159 people in the federal 

system, a little less then ten percent. So Congress itself actually 

has an incubator. 

The Bureau of Prisons could be made to do a lot of the things 

we have talked about that the states need to do and become a 

model. When that happens, I promise you the states will copy it. 

Every state loves to find a program that is working and copy it. 

Every state correctional department has a very high view of the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
619 

Bureau of Prisons. And so I think it is really an opportunity for the 

Bureau of Prisons to be the leader. 

When I shared last year at the Justice Reinvestment Summit, I 

mentioned five things I thought the Bureau of Prisons could do 

pretty much fairly quickly that would help them to be a model. I 

think they all sort of still stand as needed. I will run through them 

real quickly. 

First, to establish a probation and parole system that punishes 

violators immediately like Project HOPE which you just heard 

Adam talk about. 

Secondly, to actually comply with I think an existing regulation 

to expand the beds in halfway houses to allow a 12-month stay 

rather than a six-month stay and to give reentry participants first 

priority. 

Third, and this is a really important one, put inmates as close 

to their families as possible rather than as far away. The research 

has been clear for three decades that the greater separation there 

is between families when people are in prison, the higher the recidivism rates. It does not necessarily mean we have to build new 

prisons. 

For example, in D.C., we have several thousand people returning 

to D.C. from prison every year. They could be staged back at the 

facility here in D.C. rather than brought back cold. But get them 

closer to their families. 

Finally, I talked about the mentoring aspect and then the last 

thing open the doors. In my experience in the last nine years, and 

this is limited experience so I would not die on this, but at Prison 

Fellowship, we have found it much easier to work with prisons in 

the states than we did the Federal Bureau of Prisons in terms of 

getting volunteers in, getting programming time. The Federal Bureau of Prisons just seem to be much more rigid and very, very security conscious that they had a difficult time creating opportunities for programs and interaction that could really change inmates’ 

lives. 

So with that, I thank you and appreciate you all’s continued attention to this subject. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
620 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1274 here 67259C.112
621 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1275 here 67259C.113
622 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1276 here 67259C.114
623 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1277 here 67259C.115
624 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1278 here 67259C.116
625 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1279 here 67259C.117
626 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1280 here 67259C.118
627 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1281 here 67259C.119
628 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1282 here 67259C.120
629 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the invitation 

to testify today about issues concerning corrections and public safety. 

This committee’s constant focus on unacceptably high recidivism 

rates in this country has begun to yield significant and exciting 

dividends. I am pleased today to provide you an update about what 

is happening across the country. 

In 2009, this committee convened a series of hearings on reentry 

and recidivism. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it was an unprecedented examination by Congress on challenges confronting 

government officials and community-based organizations across the 

country trying to reduce the Nation’s high rates in recidivism. The 

hearing also spotlighted innovative, promising reentry programs 

underway across the country. 

Congressman Wolf at the time challenged the Council of State 

Governments and the Pew Center on the States to convene a summit of the Nation’s leading corrections and criminal justice experts 

as well as researchers and practitioners. 

The instructions that we received were not simply to catalogue 

programs but zero in on the strategies relevant to all jurisdictions, 

boil down the research and experience of places and the experiences of places across the country, and report on the key elements 

to reduce recidivism. 

We convened the summit with the support of BJA, a division of 

the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice and 

the Pew Center on the States and the Public Welfare Foundation. 

As you mentioned, it happened about a year ago, pulled together, 

including Mr. Earley and others, 300 people across the country, 

State Supreme Court chief justices, state corrections directors, jail 

administrators, police chiefs, victim advocates, a real who’s who of 

criminal justice from across the country. 

We released the report earlier this week. We thank you very 

much for helping to speak at that event. And I want to focus on 

the four strategies that the summit report highlights. 

The first is to focus on individuals most likely to re-offend. We 

need to stop making gut decisions about who represents a risk to 

public safety and, as Mr. Gelb mentioned, use the science-based 

tools that now exist to really distinguish about who is high risk of 

re-offending, medium, and low risk of re-offending. 

Texas does this. Every parole decision now that is made is informed by and driven by a risk assessment instrument that helps 

predict what the likelihood is of re-offense. Recidivism rates of parolees in Texas have never been lower. 

Second, we need to base programs on science and ensure quality. 

Like never before, we know now about the services and reentry 

programs that have an evidence base to them. We need to make 

sure that that is what we are funding. 

Three, we need to make sure that we are implementing effective 

community supervision policies and practices. Both witnesses so far 

have talked about the importance of swift and certain responses. 

For too long, when a probationer or a parolee does not comply with 

conditions of release, we wait for weeks before taking any action. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
630 

We now know and the evidence shows that we need an immediate 

response. Georgia does this with its probation and it has seen extremely significant reductions in revocations as a result. 

Fourth, we need to apply place-based strategies. As Mr. Earley 

mentioned, we are talking oftentimes about people not from and 

evenly distributed across the state. They are returning to very specific neighborhoods in the state. We know, for example, in Arizona, 

a neighborhood that is one percent of the state’s population, yet 

seven percent of the state’s prison population. We need to focus on 

those particular places and make sure that people are safely and 

successfully reintegrated there. 

The bipartisan Second Chance Act and the funding that was 

made available through it enables states and county governments 

and community and faith-based organizations to incubate the kinds 

of programs that the strategies talked about in the summit. It 

helps them translate them into actual practice. 

The Second Chance Act grant programs have been extremely 

popular among state and local governments and community and 

faith-based organizations. 

In the first year since the act’s authorization, nearly a thousand 

sites applied for Second Chance funding. Of those nearly thousand 

applications, 67 grants were actually approved, spanning 31 states. 

The level of demand for the Second Chance Act Grant Program 

makes it about the most competitive program the Department of 

Justice manages with just a seven percent approval rate. 

In fiscal year 2010, nearly 1,200 applications were received 

under the Second Chance Act. This time, thanks to increased funding made available through this committee, 200 awards were made 

to grantees in 45 states. Even with the increase in funding from 

2009 to 2010, less than 16 percent of the applicants actually received support. 

One grantee that I would want to spotlight for just a second is 

the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. It actually took some of 

the strategies that the summit report that you commissioned from 

us, Mr. Chairman, actually takes those and operationalizes them. 

It focuses, for example, on medium to high-risk offenders. 

And what it does is it recognizes, as was said earlier, that the 

people coming out of the prisons, and this group in particular 

comes out to no supervision whatsoever, is in one remote part of 

the state, returning to Oklahoma City. With the Second Chance 

Act grant funds, it actually creates a transitional reentry program 

in downtown Oklahoma City. We are very optimistic and confident 

it is going to show dramatic impact on recidivism. And we are looking forward to reporting on that soon. 

Unfortunately, pilot programs and an improved knowledge base 

are not enough to help states navigate the dilemmas they face as 

they are trying to figure out how to cut tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in spending while still trying to increase 

public safety. 

In 2009, you heard testimony from a legislative leader in Texas, 

a corrections secretary in Kansas, and they talked about how their 

states were facing significant growth in their prison population and 

they were receiving instructions to somehow cut correction spendVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00630 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
631 

ing and increase public safety. It is against this backdrop that they 

employed a justice reinvestment approach. 

By justice reinvestment approach, what they did is they took a 

real data driven detailed look at what was driving their prison populations, worked across party lines with all the people on the front 

lines of the criminal justice system with help from BJA and the 

Pew Center on the States and really determined what would actually make the biggest impact on public safety. 

What we found after the results of those policy changes was that 

Texas and Kansas actually avoided building several new prisons 

that were initially projected, actually saw declines in recidivism 

and saw a decline in crime rates. That was a success story that resonated with policymakers across the country. We saw governors 

and legislatures quickly scrambling trying to see how they could 

replicate the successes of those two places. The demand, however, 

for support quickly exceeded whatever kind of capacity was available. 

This committee, Mr. Chairman, you recognize the immediacy of 

the challenges that state and local leaders were facing, made available $10 million in 2010 for state and local governments that wanted to pursue justice reinvestment. 

BJA has since moved exceptionally quickly since receiving that 

funding. They already identified five states where the governor and 

the legislative leaders and the chief justices stepped up and said 

they wanted to employ a justice reinvestment approach. Alabama, 

Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio are the states where 

the Department of Justice is already actively helping them and 

providing intensive support. 

I want to spotlight real quickly Indiana and the work that they 

are doing. Between 2000 and 2009, Indiana’s prison population 

grew by over 40 percent, a rate that was three times faster than 

other states in the region. Now, if the existing policies in Indiana 

remain unchanged, Indiana’s prison population is going to continue 

to grow. It is going to grow by about 21 percent over the next six 

years. They are going to need to spend $1.2 billion to build more 

prisons and operate those prisons on top of what they are already 

spending over the six years to accommodate that growth in the 

prison population. 

And Governor Daniels and others have said that they wanted to 

take this justice reinvestment approach. They examined what was 

driving the prison population, found that a high rate of probation 

revocations was in part contributing to that, looked at the different 

counties and found that one county had an 11 percent failure rate 

for probationers. Another county had triple the failure rate. 

How can you have such a wide disparity in failure rates from one 

county to the next? Governor Daniels said this needed to be a priority for the State of Indiana and in the State of the State, he 

made it one of his top three legislative priorities for this session. 

We are looking forward to continuing to work with him. 

Fourteen states in addition to those that I have mentioned have 

written to the Department of Justice, governors who have just been 

in office for a couple of weeks, saying this needs to be one of their 

priorities. Department of Justice is now in the process of reviewing 

those applications. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
632 

In sum, what we have before us is an historic moment. High recidivism rates that once seemed an unfortunate but inescapable reality, now, thanks to the work that you have done and, Mr. Chairman, as you said, it looks like we are turning a corner, there are 

concrete examples that have actually demonstrated significant reductions in recidivism. 

We also have the summit report that distills those experiences 

and tells us what the core strategies are. And states and counties 

can replicate those now across the country. 

And the constant relentless bipartisan focus of this committee 

has changed the mind set about reentry across the country. Fifteen 

years ago when you asked corrections directors about reentry, few 

were talking about it. Now today every corrections agency has a 

point person assigned specifically on the issue of reentry. Mayors, 

sheriffs, governors have all a point person in their administration 

to focus on the topic of reentry. 

Now what we need to do is harness the momentum that exists, 

capitalize on the tools that have been assembled because we have 

created an extraordinary window of opportunity to make our communities safer. It is because of this committee’s work and we are 

looking forward, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, to continuing to work with you. 

Thank you very much. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
633 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1292 here 67259C.121
634 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1293 here 67259C.122
635 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1294 here 67259C.123
636 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1295 here 67259C.124
637 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1296 here 67259C.125
638 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1297 here 67259C.126
639 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1298 here 67259C.127
640 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1299 here 67259C.128
641 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1300 here 67259C.129
642 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1301 here 67259C.130
643 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1302 here 67259C.131
644 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1303 here 67259C.132
645 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1304 here 67259C.133
646 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1305 here 67259C.134
647 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1306 here 67259C.135
648 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1307 here 67259C.136
649 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1308 here 67259C.137
650 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1309 here 67259C.138
651 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Good morning, Chairman Wolf and my good 

friend, Ranking Member Congressman Fattah. 

And first, Mr. Chairman, I am glad and proud to see another 

Philadelphia boy that went to Penn State and Georgetown doing 

pretty well for himself. 

And, again, my name is Seth Williams and I am the district attorney of the City of Philadelphia. I am indeed grateful for this opportunity, one just to be here and to share whatever ideas I can 

share with you, but equally important for me just to hear from 

other distinguished people, always the great ideas about what we 

can do to improve the criminal justice system, what we can do to 

improve public safety for all Americans. 

I am very thankful because I really believe that the ideas and 

the goals of reentry and reinvestment are bipartisan. And I have 

come to learn that the hard way. And I think as you heard from 

other people here, my own evolution to this point was when I was 

an assistant district attorney for ten and a half years. 

And it was my job every day to get all of my cases ready and 

to try all ready cases. And it was referred, and I mean not to be 

vulgar, but that we had a verdict orgasm, that all of our energies 

were focused on getting to the verdict, but very little of our energies were really in line with trying to prevent crime or trying to 

reduce recidivism. 

As you may know, my predecessor was known as the tough cookie. And for generations of prosecutors, that was the goal. No matter 

what the question was, the response was to just be tough, no matter if it was from kids writing graffiti on walls to homicide. And 

my predecessor took great pride in being known as America’s deadliest DA for having more people on death row. But Philadelphia 

still led the Nation in the rate of homicides caused by handguns. 

So there was no cause and effect between the one stance and on 

the other hand reducing homicide. So I ran for district attorney 

originally in 2005 and what was on my tee shirts was that we had 

to be smart on crime, not just tough. I wish I had copyrighted that 

because the current attorney general for the State of California 

wrote a book, Smart on Crime, and I do not receive any of those 

royalties, Mr. Chairman. I could pay for my kids to go to school if 

I had. 

But really that I think is what my philosophy is now as the district attorney of Philadelphia. Now, we have to be smart on crime, 

that my goal as the district attorney is public safety and public 

safety is about preventing crime. 

Great members of Congressman Fattah’s family would prefer 

that he was not shot, not that he was shot, and the district attorney’s office handled the case very well. So we have to do all we can 

to prevent crime and to reduce recidivism. 

In Pennsylvania, we have seven times the number of people 

today incarcerated than we did 30 years ago, but we are not seven 

times safer. When I came to this, as I said, I was an assistant district attorney for ten and a half years. In 2000, I was asked to create a unit called the Repeat Offenders Unit to deal with the phenomena that in Philadelphia, five percent of the defendants were 

committing 60 percent of the crimes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
652 

And so I was not a trained criminologist. You know, I did very 

poorly in math and Algebra II when I was in high school, but I had 

to try to come up with ways to try to figure out, well, what can we 

do, what should we do. And what I learned along the way is that 

we have to do all that we can to reduce recidivism. 

Defendants that made it into my unit were people who had been 

arrested 25 times or more or had three or more prior felony convictions or a total of seven convictions including misdemeanors and 

felonies. 

What I really began to realize was that we did not do enough the 

first time these people were arrested. We did not do enough for 

them while they were on probation or parole or while they were incarcerated to ensure that they did not get arrested over and over 

and over again. 

So that was what I meant when I ran, that I wanted to be smart 

on crime. And being smart on crime does not mean being soft on 

criminals. And, again, it is not the severity of punishment that 

changes behavior. It is the certainty of punishment. It is not the 

severity of punishment that changes behavior. It is the certainty. 

So I tell people this everywhere I go. 

The honest truth is, I know I was not sworn in today, but I hardly ever wear my seat belt. And it is rare that when I am driving, 

I have police officers that drive me now, but it is rare when I drive 

that I drive the speed limit. But I always drive the speed limit and 

I always wear my seat belt when I am on a military installation. 

You heard I am a major in the United States Army. I always wear 

my seat belt. I always go the speed limit. 

Why? Because if I do not, if I go one mile per hour over the speed 

limit, I get pulled over on a military installation. And it is not 

going to be a big fine, but I am going to be yelled at. I am going 

to be made, you know, a laughing stock by my peers. So it is not 

the severity of punishment. It is the certainty of punishment that 

changes behavior. And that is true if you are raising children, if 

you are trying to house break a dog, or if you are trying to change 

criminal behavior. 

So this morning, I want to discuss how we can look to reduce corrections spending by reducing recidivism. And that way is through 

justice reinvestment. With our limited budgets and struggling economy, it remains a challenge to find the necessary capital to invest 

in programs that will improve public safety. 

As district attorney of Philadelphia, I want to invest in good programs that will reduce recidivism and reduce the size of our prison 

population, but the money just is not there. 

Justice reinvestment affords prosecutors like me, as well as other 

public officials, the opportunity to have a real impact in making 

our communities safer and saving precious taxpayers’ dollars. 

To that end, I have three primary points this morning. First, I 

want to talk about justice reinvestment generally from the perspective of a big city prosecutor. Second, I want to provide examples of 

the kind of public safety investments we are trying to implement 

in Philadelphia and how justice reinvestment would help us in that 

mission. And, finally, I want to address the practical importance of 

obtaining and using good data. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
653 

Justice reinvestment, there are three elements of justice reinvestment: one, improving public safety; two, reducing correction 

costs; and three, utilizing good and reliable data to inform our decisions. 

Justice reinvestment teaches us that we cannot reduce correction 

costs merely for the sake of trying to save a few dollars. Such misguided policy will lead to more crime and increase costs. Instead 

we know we can reduce correction costs by reducing recidivism. 

And by reducing recidivism, we make our streets and neighborhoods safer. 

And when we decide what programs we are going to invest in to 

reduce recidivism, we must always look to accurate data and research, as you heard earlier, not merely anecdote, legend, or gut 

feeling about things. This approach is more than a theoretical aspiration. 

In these difficult economic times when our states and municipalities are struggling for dollars, it is the most responsible and economically sound approach we can undertake. Investing in the right 

programs and reinvesting those savings simultaneously make our 

communities safer and saves precious taxpayer dollars. And that is 

what I call being smart on crime. 

As we talk about justice reinvestment and as we continue to 

show that this is the most effective way of saving money and making our cities and towns safer, I believe there will be more innovations, efficiencies, and data-driven approaches to public safety. 

But here is the challenge. In many cases, programs that will 

lower recidivism rates require us to spend some money well before 

we can realize the greater savings. For those of us on the municipal level, it remains a challenge to receive the up-front capital to 

invest in the first place. 

More than 90 percent of my office’s budget is for salary. Therefore, I have little discretionary funds that I can merely set aside 

for new programs or things that I think are great. I have made the 

argument of our mayor, Michael Nutter, that such investments will 

yield Philadelphia both greater financial savings as well as safer 

streets and neighborhoods. Mayor Nutter and his staff understand 

this argument and we continue to work together to fund improvement investments. 

The tough economy and the absence of Recovery Act dollars 

should incentivize all of us to find the necessary funding to implement public safety programs that will save taxpayer dollars. 

Let’s use my office as a brief case study. I have undertaken a 

number of initiatives, some with other public entities that have 

saved Philadelphia millions of dollars, made our criminal justice 

system far more efficient and victim friendly, and, most importantly, improved public safety. 

Specifically I have revamped our charging unit. The charging 

unit is with the district attorney’s office and I have the full discretion to determine who gets arrested and who does not get arrested 

and what they are charged with. 

My predecessor used the charging unit as a place to punish people. If you dance too close with the boss’ wife at the Christmas 

party, then you were sent to the charging unit where you spent 

maybe a year or two, 12 hour shifts in a room that had no sunlight, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
654 

and you reviewed documents that the police sent. Well, I have 

changed that. 

And I travel. And we talk about the best practices. I went and 

I met with Bonnie Dumanis. I flew to San Diego. She is the district 

attorney for San Diego. And she takes great pride, she says, in 

being America’s only openly gay Republican Jewish district attorney. She has a very small caucus. 

And I learned a lot from her when I visited her. And she only 

puts the most qualified and competent prosecutors who have demonstrated great judgment in the charging unit to determine who 

should be charged, what they should be charged with. 

And so I took a unit that had five people and I have expanded 

it to 15. And we are holding the police to task to ensure that we 

have all the proper evidence at the front end and that just makes 

sense. And we are seeing that now in the quality of cases that we 

are putting into our system. We are not just abdicating my responsibility to the judges and let the judges figure it out. We are doing 

that in our charging unit. 

Diverting low risk and nonviolent drug offenders. In order to 

move thousands of nonviolent cases out of our main court system, 

we now process cases involving small amounts of marijuana as 

summary cases rather than misdemeanor trials. By this method, 

there are no appointment of counsel costs, no police, no necessity 

for witnesses. We just save a lot of money. We do not incur the lab 

costs. 

My predecessor, one of her parting shots when I tried this, she 

said, oh, the Mexican drug cartels will be jumping for joy. Well, the 

truth of the matter is in Philadelphia, about 75,000 people get arrested every year. About ten percent of them, the most serious 

charge was that they possessed marijuana. And of that 7,500, more 

than half possessed what our General Assembly says is a de minimums amount. It is less than 30 grams. We were spending thousands of dollars, appointing attorney, passing discovery, having police wait in the courthouse, doing analysis on the drugs for thousands of dollars for what is about a $10.00 weed case. 

So what we are doing now is we have more certain punishment, 

not severe, but more certain that the defendants are paying a $300 

fine very quickly. It just makes sense. And we are reinvesting that 

in the criminal justice system of Philadelphia. 

Our accelerated misdemeanor program. I have implemented a 

program that accelerates appropriate misdemeanor cases for diversion into community service with no misdemeanor trial. The city 

saves counsel costs and reduced police overtime costs. There were 

464 such cases in the first six months of this program. 

Smart rooms, I also learned this from the DA in San Diego. 

There about 75 percent of all their cases result in negotiated guilty 

pleas before the preliminary hearing, before the trial. We might not 

even have had seven of those cases in Philadelphia last year. We 

are trying to ensure that we charge the right people, that we get 

discovery to the defense counsel as soon as possible so they can 

evaluate that and review it with their client, and we give a very 

reasonable offer as the first offer that everyone in the system 

knows is the best offer anyone will get. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
655 

Zone courts. I have initiated a program in Philadelphia known as 

Community-Based Prosecution. Crimes occurs geographically. I am 

now assigning my district attorneys geographically. Police are assigned geographically. Probation officers for the most part are assigned geographically. 

There are patterns of crime based on geography, time, temperature, and season. So my DAs are assigned geographically and only 

work in specific neighborhoods to get to understand the good, the 

bad, and the ugly in those neighborhoods and see the patterns of 

crime, know who the good people are, the clergy, the business leaders. It is making them more accountable, but it is also improving 

the efficiencies. 

As you heard earlier, all these accomplishments are because of 

several reasons. One, the economy. I mean, every one in the criminal justice system has fewer dollars, so people are now willing to 

sit together and say what can we do to solve our problems. 

Secondly, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the newspaper of record in 

our city, did a long and exhaustive study about the criminal justice 

system and how broken it was in Philadelphia, how Philadelphia 

had the lowest conviction rate of the 40 largest urban areas in 

America despite having had this tough cookie. 

So trying to come up with ways to be smart on crime made sense 

economically and it makes sense in trying to reduce recidivism and 

assign the DAs geographically where they work with the police. All 

the courthouse now is assigned geographically and we are improving the efficiencies in our courthouse. And we are going to hopefully reinvest that again into preventing crime. 

Prison legislation. In 2008, my office working along with Governor Rendell, Adam Gelb of Pew, and Michael Thompson and Dr. 

Fibello of the Council of State Governments obtained four legislative enactments designed to improve many aspects of sentencing, 

parole, and state and county prison practices. These legislative enactments have dramatically reduced our county prison population 

by more than 1,000 individuals. 

Preliminary hearing changes. Working collaboratively with the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we have issued rule changes that 

will no longer require the presence of civilian witnesses at preliminary hearings in certain nonviolent crimes. People who are there 

just to give ownership and non-permission testimony will no longer 

have to come. And this will help save significantly and reduce the 

number of preliminary hearings and police court overtime. 

All told, we estimate the total cost savings of these improvements to be around $15 million just this year alone. To be sure, we 

could not have made these changes without the cooperation of the 

other agencies in Philadelphia including the courts and police. But 

the principles of justice reinvestment will permit me to receive a 

portion of that money back to use for programs that would reduce 

recidivism which in turn we could save even more money. 

The next question is what kind of program will we invest in with 

such savings. And you learned when you were at Penn State and 

at Georgetown that generally plagiarism is bad. I believe as a district attorney plagiarism is a good thing. I try to take the best 

ideas from Joe Hynes in Brooklyn to Kamala Harris in San Francisco or Bonnie Dumanis in San Diego and places all in between. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
656 

And one of those is a program that the now attorney general of 

California created when she was a district attorney of San Francisco called Back on Track to deal with the phenomena again that 

many young men made a terrible decision to be drug dealers for 

whatever their reason. And I do not care what their reason is, it 

is wrong, of course. 

But what we have seen in Pennsylvania is that we are filling our 

state prison with people that are often first-time nonviolent offenders who have sold or possessed drugs with the intent to deliver a 

mandatory amount. So in Pennsylvania, if you have two sugar 

packets worth of crack and you are found to be in possession with 

that with the intent to deliver or you do, in fact, sell it, you go to 

jail for a minimum of one year. 

So we are sending people to jail for one to two years who had 

no prior record. When they come home, it is like an economic death 

sentence because they are a convicted felon. By the act of the General Assembly in Pennsylvania, you cannot get a job cleaning toilets in a nursing home if you have a felony conviction. And they 

were nonviolent when they went to state prison. Often now when 

they come home, they are violent people. And we are spending 

$40,000 a year. 

So I say it does not matter what your partisan position is. What 

we are doing now just does not make sense. If you are a right-wing 

fiscal conservative or a person that is a bleeding heart liberal for 

these people who have been to prison, the fact is we are spending 

$40,000 a year to send these folks to state prison and there is a 

73 percent recidivism rate. So it is just not making any sense. 

The Back on Track Program, which I am going to change the 

name in Philadelphia and call it the Choice is Yours, takes these 

first-time nonviolent offenders and instead of spending $40,000 a 

year, we will spend about $5,000 a year trying to address the 

criminogenic needs, helping them address their drug and alcohol 

addiction, are literacy skills. 

I learned as the chief of the Repeat Offenders Unit in Philadelphia that the number one thing people have in common that get 

arrested in Philadelphia is they did not finish high school. So we 

have addressed their literacy needs, peer relationships. And the 

more of those criminogenic needs we can address, we will reduce 

recidivism and it costs about $5,000 a year versus $40,000 and the 

recidivism rate is about five percent. 

So many of you have talked about reentry. This is what I call 

pre-entry. So if they successfully complete the program, there will 

be a community service program component to this, if they successfully complete the program, not only do they have no conviction, 

they have no record. And I think this will give them the second 

chance that they need to move forward. 

Historically the federal justice system grants, JAG, have provided much needed funding for important and innovative programs 

like our drug and mental health courts, technology improvements 

and the establishment of our local Criminal Justice Advisory 

Board. I know the Department of Justice already has a solicitation 

pending for Justice Reinvestment programs and I hope that JAG 

funding going forward will allow law enforcement officials to impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00656 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
657 

ment innovative programs that will promote public safety and reduce correction costs. 

And there has been discussion earlier about the Bureau of Justice Assistance and a lot of the great work that they do in allowing 

local governments to serve as incubators and to gather the data 

that can then be replicated in other places across the country 

which leads me to the importance of reliable data. 

Another critical aspect of justice reinvestment, as has been mentioned earlier, is the importance it places on basing decisions on 

data, good data. It is fitting that I am sitting with Mr. Thompson 

and Mr. Gelb because both individuals worked with members of my 

staff and officials in the Commonwealth to develop legislation that 

I have spoken about earlier enacted in 2008 to among other things 

reduce recidivism by providing earned time credits for those offenders who complete programs likely to reduce the likelihood of re-victimization. Their work was invaluable. 

There are a number of possible explanations for why this has 

happened, but among them is poor data. To be sure, without this 

legislation, the size of Pennsylvania’s prison population would be 

higher than it is now and it can be said that at a minimum, the 

legislation slowed the rate of prison population growth. 

All this is a long way of saying that data matters and that we 

have to be smart on crime and work to find not just how we can 

be tough or make good sound bites but to really reduce recidivism. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity. There are 

many programs and changes that we can make to reduce recidivism, to improve the safety in our neighborhoods, and reduce corrections. I hope to work with many of you in the future to achieve 

these goals. And, again, I am available to any of the questions you 

may have. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
658 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1326 67259C.139
659 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1327 67259C.140
660 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1328 67259C.141
661 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1329 67259C.142
662 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1330 67259C.143
663 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1331 67259C.144
664 

Mr. WOLF. Well, thank you very much, all of you, for your testimony. 

And before we have questions, too, I want to again thank Adam 

and Mike or the Pew people and the Council of State Governments 

for sort of pulling this together and using your own funding to do 

this and not really relying on the Federal Government. 

EFFECTUATING REFORMS AT THE STATE LEVEL

Secondly, I appreciate all your testimony. You know, I am a conservative Republican. There is no doubt about that. And my first 

job out of college was given to me by Frank Rizzo. And my father 

was a policeman in the City of Philadelphia and the neighborhood 

that I come from is not a pretty—it is a—so I am not naive about 

this, and have been into a lot of prisons. 

But I am committed to doing with and working with Mr. Fattah 

to see if we can honestly do something during this two years that 

really makes a difference. And we can maybe make Philadelphia 

one of the targets that we use because there has been a lot of talk 

about it and nothing really seems to make that much of a difference. 

Parenthetically, I should not say this, but I will say this, I think 

one of the big decisions that Governor Rendell made and former 

mayor was bringing gambling to the City of Philadelphia. I think 

it will be a very bad, bad thing. Destination gambling is one thing, 

but convenience gambling where it is just right there, and I remember doing a press conference at Independence Hall criticizing 

Rendell when he was trying to do this, I remember, but bring gambling to the City of Philadelphia, I was the author of the National 

Commission on Gambling, it will be a bad, bad thing. 

But that is not the subject of this hearing, but I just felt I had 

to get that out there. But let’s see what we can honestly do working together and maybe Philadelphia can be one of the places. 

One of the things I would like to do is we are going to do a letter 

to all the governors and maybe what we should do in the letter is 

put all four of your names and also telephone numbers and addresses whereby they can come to a place, one from a practical, one 

from an intellectual sort of place. 

Secondly, I want to ask you before we have a lot of other questions, how should we do this so it is just not another hearing, another thing and it moves on? Should there be a team developed 

whereby you all can get the Texas people, the Kansas people, the 

whoever so that there is someone able to go out to a governor and 

really practically do something rather than just say here is the 

printed report? 

But should there be an offer that we will put somebody together, 

that every governor ought to have a reentry program and recidivism person like you were talking about, and that will have an 

availability? Would that make sense before you think to actually 

have a group of people rather than saying, you know, give a 

speech, this is a great idea, this is important, somebody will do a 

magazine article on it and then it will just kind of move on? 

Should there be a team put together that actually is available to 

go out to any governor or any district attorney, any board to sort 

of sit down with them? What do you all think about it? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
665 

On every question, all of you should comment. So what do you 

think that we should do so that we really do something rather than 

just talk about it? 

Mr. GELB. Right. So I think you are selling yourself a little bit 

short here. You are doing this already right now by funding that 

you have provided, the Justice Department has been providing for 

the last couple of years and that it is formalized in the justice reinvestment initiative that you have funded. 

There are a number of things going on. Mike made reference a 

few minutes ago to the applications that have just come in from 14, 

15 states that have said we want this type of assistance. I think 

there are probably about another 10 or 12 that maybe did not file, 

did not make this deadline but that are interested and that the 

various among us are in contact. 

We are doing presentations at the National Governors Association, at the National Conference of State Legislators, at ALEC, 

American Legislative Exchange Council meetings, and also the National Center for State Courts. 

So I think what has been happening over the past couple of years 

through federal funding, through funding from Pew and other private funders is I think a pretty significant level of awareness out 

there that there are resources available. I will not say that this is 

enough. We always want to try to hit all 50 states. 

But also I would say quite honestly there are a dozen or so 

states, maybe 15, that are not ready to do this kind of work. And 

I do not think you want to see the federal money and we at Pew 

certainly do not want to see our time and energy and resources 

going into states that just simply do not have the political will, do 

not have the data systems at this point and are not ready to engage in this process. 

But between us, we are doing a pretty darn good job of covering 

the landscape at this point. 

Mr. FATTAH. You know, Adam, I think what the chairman is say- ing is in addition to the $10 million and the initial work here, what 

more we could be doing in this area, so—— 

Mr. GELB. Well, let me say something quickly and then turn it 

to Mike and that is that the money is important. There is no question about it. It takes a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot 

of people to do the justice reinvestment process at a state level. I 

will not go into the gory details of that, but it is a long intensive 

process that takes between 12 and 18 months and lots of folks involved at lots of different levels, at political levels as well as very 

technical data levels. 

But also at this point, I think what you have heard in the testimony that the problems we are seeing in the system and getting 

these reforms at this point are at least, and see the results that 

you want to see, are at least as much problems of management as 

they are of policy. 

I think what you have heard is that we pretty much know now 

what needs to be done and the tough work is about sort of how to 

actually get it done. 

And so do not also sort of understate the importance of the leadership that you are showing by having this hearing and this continued focus on these issues because the agencies that are responsible 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
666 

for actually putting these policies and evidence-based practices into 

place have been, in my view, long been sort of the stepchild of the 

criminal justice system, parole and probation agencies. 

They do not get very much attention. They certainly do not get 

a lot of resources. And the extent to which you continue to provide 

focus and funding to improve those agencies is absolutely critical. 

Mr. WOLF. Mark, do you have any? 

Mr. EARLEY. I would agree with Adam. I think probably, too, the 

governors are obviously really key at the state level in this as are 

the attorney generals and I would not underestimate—— 

Mr. WOLF. Should we write every attorney general also? 

Mr. EARLEY. I would. And they have a growing interest in this. 

I spoke at the NAAG meeting just a couple of months ago on this 

issue and there was a lot of interest. It is the second time I have 

been asked to do it in the last few years. 

Mr. WOLF. We will do that. We will send the same letter maybe. 

If you all can sort of agree, we will wait. We were going to try to 

get something out today, but I think if the four of you can sort of 

talk and we can have something by Tuesday, but that we will do. 

And maybe since both of you are in that area, you can rework 

it a little bit for an attorney general or a DA. The language at the 

outset may be a little bit different than the governor. So we will 

do that. We will send a copy to all of them. 

Mr. EARLEY. The governors are clearly important for obvious reasons not the least of which what Adam just mentioned is that in 

many instances, there is some political will to do this, but it is a 

management issue in corrections and in government execution 

itself. And the governors are absolutely key to that because their 

agency heads will pretty much do what they give them orders to 

do. 

The reason the AGs are so important is because when they become convinced this is a public safety issue, that is very important 

leadership then at the state level for people in the House and the 

Senate to see that this is not something that somehow we are going 

in and saving money at the expense of public safety because we are 

in a crisis. So I think it is very important that this be framed as 

a public safety issue. 

And the one concern I have, and I was invited to speak at Stanford Law School at their Criminal Justice Center about this earlier 

this week, the one concern I have is I think a lot of times when 

the tough work has been done like over the last couple of years and 

putting together something like these concepts on justice reinvestment, we need to think a little more about branding it in such a 

way that it can translate easily into the political arena. 

Justice reinvestment in my opinion is a very boring way to talk 

about what we are talking about. I think it really needs to be 

framed in public safety. It is not that I disagree with the notion. 

It is just at the end of the day, if I walk into an AG’s office or a 

state senator’s office or a congressman’s office to talk about this, 

if I talk about justice reinvestment, I mean, they do not know what 

that means. I have to explain it. If I talk about making neighborhoods safer and saving money by doing it, that makes a lot of sense 

and that is how they are going to have to talk to their constituents 

about it. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
667 

So somewhere along the line, some thought needs to be given to 

how we sort of brand this larger concept. I think justice reinvestment is fine for us in this room, but as it translates out, I think 

it is a weak brand. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, maybe when you do the letter, you could do 

that. I want to make sure that people know that we are not talking 

about opening up the prison doors and allowing dangerous people 

to get out on the street. 

Mr. EARLEY. You would be amazed how often that is the hurdle. 

When I testify before state legislators, that is the hurdle I find I 

am having to get over in the first ten minutes because that is oftentimes the thing they have sort of pigeonholed us in as I walk 

in, so—— 

Mr. WOLF. I do not want to do that. And I do not want to be 

there. I just do not want to do that. 

Mr. EARLEY. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. So maybe as you are drafting, and we did not hear 

from the other two, but you can sort of put language in that makes 

that clear, particularly I think both to the governors and to the attorneys general. 

I mean, what do we do? 

Mr. THOMPSON. First of all, I think your point is dead on that 

we have so much of the data we need now. Now is the time of action and we need to be able to take action. 

And the important point is, Mr. Earley’s point, is that the focus 

here that we are talking about is using this research and the data 

to increase public safety and these strategies actually cost less than 

the strategies that we are employing. And so absolutely increasing 

public safety and less spending are messages that resonate with everything. 

I like the idea very much of letters right now to the governors, 

to the attorneys general. I just spoke to Attorney General DeWine 

in Ohio, for example, about this and it was great talking to him. 

I also think, in effect, your counterparts in the states, the legislators who are chairing these appropriations committees and the judiciary committees, for example, or public safety committees, we 

can definitely make that happen. And I think that is a great idea. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if you could get us the list. 

Mr. THOMPSON. We can easily generate that and we would be 

happy to help. 

I think the second point is, and I mentioned I think earlier or 

at some point, I actually went down to the national convening of 

all the state corrections directors and corrections leadership just to 

sort of give them an advanced peek at the summit report. And they 

are just thrilled that there is this kind of interest and focus coming 

from this level of government on this. 

And I think, convening them with the leadership in their states 

to actually walk through the strategies themselves and make sure 

they are applied, I think that is a second thing that makes a lot 

of sense. 

To your point about making sure that there is a team of people 

that can respond to these requests, as Adam said thanks to what 

you all have made possible, that that team exists now, it is in 

place. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
668 

One example of something that has already happened is you had 

this Speaker of the House in Oklahoma, the corrections director, 

the chairman of the Finance Committee all going to Austin, Texas 

to try to learn what exactly had been done in Texas and how they 

can replicate that in the state. 

So now you have all of these applications coming in from states 

which BJA is working incredibly quickly to process. But at the end 

of the day, there is just going to be more demand than there is supply. 

And so to your point, Ranking Member, I think that we are going 

to need to understand that there is going to be more states and 

counties that need assistance that will not be able to get it this go 

around. 

The other fact of the matter is is you have in a number of states 

governors that, are still just getting settled, term limits where you 

have just cleaned out legislatures in a lot of places, and they are 

just not ready to seize the moment right this minute. I think they 

will be better positioned next year through the convenings and the 

letters. 

So I think that three-tiered approach of essentially writing to everybody now, a national convening, and then being immediately responsive to places that are ready and then recognizing there is 

going to be a new round of places that are ready next year, I think 

that is the combination of strategies. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful just 

from a practical standpoint, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, each 

state has a District Attorneys Association and there is also nationally the National District Attorneys Association, so I can speak on 

behalf of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. 

I serve as the chairman of our Legislative Committee. And what 

is interesting is that there are 67 district attorneys across the 

state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and there is only about 

five that are elected that are Democrats. But really there is no blue 

way or red way of trying to promote public safety until one of those 

decides to run for governor and then things kind of change. 

But when we are sitting at our table for just the district attorneys, there is almost unanimous agreement on reinvestment and 

what we need to do and to work together and to work collaboratively. 

So with me today is Mr. Greg Roe who is the chief of my Legislation and Policy Unit. He does all the work really in lobbying, I 

have an assistant chief of that unit as well, doing all the lobbying 

on behalf of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association in our 

State Capitol in Harrisburg. 

So I am sure that we would be willing to work. And as an example, we worked with our new governor, Tom Corbett, in making his 

application grant for the Reinvestment Grant last month and we 

helped him with that. 

So I am sure that you could get our assistance and maybe from 

the National District Attorneys Association as well because as the 

role of the prosecutor has evolved in America—it used to be in England, they had private prosecution. You really had to use your own 

attorney. But here we have the public prosecution and the DA has 

almost unlimited authority to decide who gets prosecuted. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
669 

And we are at the fulcrum of the criminal justice system, but everybody is coming at us to help reduce prison costs and the 

changed policies that in many ways could put these elected people 

on the hot seat—— 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Mr. WILLIAMS [continuing]. But no one wants to say, you know 

what, you helped us. Like in Philadelphia, we reduced the costs so 

far by $15 million, but no one is saying, well, some of that money 

needs to go back to further reducing recidivism or any of these 

great ideas. 

So you know what? We will use that for whatever might help 

somebody else get reelected or that will help the potholes or something else. But it makes sense if, of some set number, some part 

of that money could go back into public safety. And so you will 

have our support. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will put Greg to do whatever you need him to 

do for you. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I remember in high school, they said there 

were 67 counties in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia was one of the 

counties. You thought of it as a city, but a county. Why don’t we 

do that? 

And I see Mr. Yoder came in and I think he has one of the best 

governors in the country, Sam Brownback. And you mentioned 

Kansas. Maybe we could also get two Republican governors and 

two Democratic governors to also do. 

And maybe Mr. Fattah will sign a letter with me here so we can 

send it out. And then if we can get two Republicans, maybe Mitch 

Daniels and Sam Brownback, with two Democratic governors because I think there will be a comfort level if they are going to hear 

from a couple congressmen. Okay. 

But if a governor contacts a governor and then maybe we can 

even take this and you all could help us, we could get two attorney 

generals to follow up two Republican and two attorney generals 

who are Democrats so that then you are sort of getting Republican 

and Democratic congressmen from here, Republican and Democratic governor, Republican and Democratic attorney general, and 

then you sort of take this thing out of the political. 

So we will do, Mr. Fattah and I will do the letter, the one that 

you kind of get us to go out with, and then we will sort of work 

on that second level and if you can kind of help us on that, and 

then we will do the same thing with regard to the attorneys general. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank all of you for your testimony. 

And I want to thank the chairman again for convening this hearing. But throughout a number of hearings, a number of these 

issues have been raised. 

I will be happy to sign on to the letter. I also would like, at least 

for purposes of my few minutes here today, to broaden this issue 

because I think that the district attorney from Philadelphia talked 

about pre-entry. The chairman in an earlier hearing this week 

talked about making the incarceration itself a useful part of stopping recidivism through Prison Industries and other activities. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
670 

INCARCERATION AND ITS EFFECT ON FAMILIES

I think we have got to look at the broader picture here. And one 

of the things that we know about this whole area is that the younger a person is who becomes connected to the criminal justice system, the longer they stay in it, the more severe the crimes, and the 

longer the sentence. I mean, it is kind of like an education, a higher education system except in the wrong direction. So diverting 

people from the system earlier is critically important. 

One of the things that the Federal Government is supporting, 

and we have a Philadelphian very involved through our former 

mayor, Wilson Goode, is a nationwide effort to deal with the children of people who are incarcerated. There is an almost 90 percent 

correlation between a parent being in jail and eventually the child 

becoming incarcerated at some later stage in their life. 

And so intervening on behalf of these children and making sure 

that they get the kind of assistance that they need is important. 

And, Senator, you spoke about how the arrest of a parent has a disastrous effect on the family, and now we have so many women who 

are increasingly being incarcerated. The lack of stability in these 

homes creates much more challenging circumstances, so this is an 

area that is kind of very pre-entry, you know. 

But we talk about evidence-based work in this area. This is 

clearly an area where a great deal of effort can be rewarded because this is a stream of eventual tenants in the incarceration system that can be diverted. And then there are other diversion efforts. It was Governor Thornburgh or Shapp who closed Camp Hill 

and took youthful offenders out. 

My parents created a reentry group home for boys and Ronald 

Reagan in 1981 saluted my parents for the work that they were 

doing in Philadelphia helping youthful offenders not get rearrested. 

I know we are celebrating a big event, Reagan’s 100th birthday. So 

it reminded me of that. But I think that it is important to note that 

there is work that is being done. 

And we used to have things we called earmarks and one of the 

things that I earmarked on this committee with the chairman’s 

help was the Youth Violence Reduction Program, which in Philadelphia meant an intensive probation effort focusing on young people who, by the empirical evidence, were either going to be the victim of a homicide or were going to kill someone based on empirical 

data. And this program, which required these young people to 

check in daily, to be seen once a week by a combination of both the 

probation units and other people, really had reduced recidivism, I 

think, in the 1,700 young people who were focused on. I think less 

than nine of them ended up being re-incarcerated over that twoyear period. 

So there are efforts. Now, this was a costly effort. There was 

some cost associated with it, but obviously not to the degree of 

what it would be if they committed a crime or ended up being incarcerated. 

So there are things that we can do and I would be glad to sign 

on to the letter. 

I want to thank all of you for the work that you are doing. This 

is not one of those sexy issues, but it is something that the chairVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00670 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
671 

man—and one of the proudest things I did was as one of the original co-sponsors of the Second Chance Act and pushing to have this 

subcommittee increase its support for that, but we are in for some 

tough times. There are going to be savings that have to be found 

in the full committee. 

One of the things I was thinking about, Mr. Chairman, is maybe 

what we end up with is something like the Debt Commission but 

focused on this question of looking at and trying to get the country 

around a set of policies that could deal with pre-entry, could deal 

with what is happening. 

If we know that people are incarcerated and some part of the 

problem is that they cannot read, then maybe one of the ways that 

they can earn good time or even be considered for taking advantage 

of some type of reentry is to learn how to read while they are in 

prison. We need to look at some of the facts and apply them to the 

problem in ways that might make some sense going forward. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Yoder. 

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT

Mr. YODER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate just the opportunity to be here today. You know, 

Kansas has made this a priority and I notice that several of the 

speakers noted that fact that several years ago, when I was in the 

Kansas legislature in 2007, several representatives including one 

from a city very close to mine, took this up as a personal project. 

And I think we have made some progress. 

Our numbers are going back up again now and that may be the 

result of the economy and strain that is being placed on families. 

And we are back in a position now where we do have a prison capacity problem. But we were able to curb the projections in prison 

population by focusing on lower recidivism rates. And so I think 

this is an area in which taxpayers get the biggest bang for their 

buck in terms of the future expenses. 

And we focus a lot and we are going to focus on this subcommittee and we focus in legislative bodies and congressional bodies across the country about cost. And I noted that there was a note 

here that that is one of the main drivers of these types of policies. 

But certainly there is, I guess, a warmth and an understanding 

that we might help people not return to prison. I do not think anybody enjoys the idea of individuals in our community having to 

spend their life in prison. That is a very depressing, sad story. 

So if we can find something that actually saves us money and 

puts us in a position where we can turn people back into the society as productive citizens, I would feel like that is a win-win for 

everyone. And I am glad to see that this subcommittee is focusing 

on that. 

You know, as we are under the constraints at state levels and 

at the federal level with spending, for anyone on the panel, and 

this may have already been covered, but how do we, if we are not 

going to increase public safety spending and take it from another 

area, and we know that money comes directly from taxpayers, and 

if we are either going to go back and get more money from taxpayers to produce these reentry programs or they are going to come 

from other programs within government, and none of us have the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
672 

interest in raising taxes at this moment, we are trying to find ways 

to produce better results with less money, how do we balance these 

things and particularly in light of many of our beliefs and the public belief that we do need a punishment portion of the system and 

that if you commit a crime, you are incarcerated, you are punished, 

which is solely separate from rehab? 

Do we reduce some of the punishment expenses or do we reduce 

in another area? Can we fit more people into a smaller space and 

reduce overhead? How do we balance the competing financial interests so that we can find the resources to invest in the types of programs that might save us money in the long run without having 

to go back to taxpayers and say we need more money for this or 

having to take it from other areas such as education or, you know, 

social services? So I do not know who might answer that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it is important that we make a crime pyramid. So what you see as the lead story on TV every night, like 

the top like five percent is violent crimes. The super majority of 

things that we deal with are nonviolent crimes and things that we 

can address by changing some of our policies. We can address and 

reduce recidivism for them. 

So you ask, you know, what is the shifting of the use of the 

money. Well, just some of the policies themselves on who we are 

going to send to prison and is our goal going to be to reducing recidivism and we have all this data that shows that we can reduce 

recidivism if we address this, this, and that. 

And I think again and in speaking to the chairman earlier is that 

it is really about understanding the difference between—we have 

to be smart on crime, but people that are violent, that are shooting 

people and, you know, raping people, that is something a little bit 

different than the super majority of crimes are people—you know, 

my wife loves the movie Ocean’s Eleven with, you know, Brad Pitt 

and George Clooney, right? So these guys spend months preparing 

to rob the Bellagio. 

Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. Just a knucklehead sees 

you left your garage door open and takes your lawn mower and 

then goes and sells it, crimes that for the most part we can prevent 

and that these are people who commit the most crimes over and 

over. The highest rate of recidivism are people that commit lowlevel property crimes. 

And those are the types of people that if we address their 

criminogenic needs, what is it about this person, where did society 

fail that person, what can we do to teach this person to be a barber 

or a cobbler or auto mechanic or some real job in the economy, that 

we will not see them again. So a lot of it comes with the fact that 

we do not need to send so many people that are nonviolent through 

mandatory sentences for nonviolent things to prison. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, I appreciate your question on this 

and I did enjoy working with you when you were in Topeka in the 

legislature, you and Senator Rattle and a number of others in the 

legislature. It really was a trend setting moment when the legislature came together. 

Then Senator Brownback called. His directive was I want to see 

recidivism cut by 50 percent in this country and I want to start in 

Kansas. And really coming out of that—at that point in 2007, as 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
673 

you know, the legislature was looking at a growth in the prison 

population that was going to cost about $500 million to build and 

operate new prisons and the State was looking at the driver of 

that. And part of it, in fact, was that two out of every three people 

coming to prison was someone who had violated the conditions of 

their release and the question was, how do we actually reduce that 

rate of admissions. 

And as you know, one of the things that you did was you set up 

that County Grant Program which really sort of forced counties to 

sort of deliver on a reduced revocation rate. And it did do that and 

crime dropped at the same time. 

Now, what has happened in the past year or so is that funding 

for some of those initiatives has been cut and recidivism has gone 

back up among that subgroup. And so you have put your finger on 

it. You know, how do you in effect maintain funding for those 

things because it is going to cost the State more. You cannot cram 

any more people in. If you do, you end up with such a crowded system. Sooner or later, the federal courts become involved and then 

you have got a California situation on your hands. So that is not 

an option. 

The states are running these systems as leanly as they possibly 

can. I mean, they get the meals down to a one day meal, the $1.99 

to $1.98. There are no more savings to be had there. The only 

places that they can cut are in these programs that actually have 

some impact on recidivism. 

And, again, if they are cut, then you see the prison population 

go up and the State is going to have to build more which will cost 

even more. So how do you get out of this sort of vicious circle without a net increase in spending, you know, your question, and it is 

one that so many states are dealing with. 

This is where they need to go back, look at the data, and it is 

sort of our hypothesis that there are ways in which they can make 

further reductions in recidivism which would further slow the 

growth coming in. 

And to your point earlier, are there a group of people for whom 

length of stay could be shortened in a particular case. I mean, the 

point was made repeatedly by this panel. What we know is not always the severity of the punishment. It is the certainty of it and 

knowing that it is happening. Some people we want to lock up and 

put away for as long as we possibly can. But there is going to be 

a cohort of folks that if they complete certain programs while they 

are incarcerated, then you can actually, if you are a nonviolent offender, go from 85 percent of your sentence to about 75 percent. 

That saves tens of millions of dollars. 

And so I think the State needs to sort of get that data in front 

of them. If they do not, if they just simply take a blunt instrument 

and make some of the cuts, then they are going to be back in that 

same sort of problem that they found themselves in 2007. 

Mr. EARLEY. I am really glad you asked that question, Congressman, because I think this goes back to my point a little earlier. I 

think that some of the way this is branded when you talk about 

reinvestment, people automatically thing it means an increased expenditure of money. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
674 

The great thing about almost the vast majority of the proposals 

in the justice reinvestment report and the things we have talked 

about here earlier today is that they do not require additional 

money. They require a re-prioritization of how current money is 

being spent and they beg for a willingness on the Departments of 

Corrections around the country to partner more fully with community-based organizations, nonprofits, be they faith based or secular, 

to allow them greater access to prisoners to provide the kind of programming that would cost the State literally millions upon millions 

of dollars to provide. 

You have a great example in Kansas. Prison Fellowship has been 

there for almost ten years. I think it is at the Lansing unit. It was 

at Ellsworth. In fact, Governor Brownback has spent the night 

there not as an inmate, he would want you to know, but he spent 

the night with the inmates. 

But that program has probably had close to a thousand people 

go through it, if not more, over the last eight years and, for the last 

five years, all of it has been provided free. What we needed from 

Kansas—I was the president of Prison Fellowship at that time— 

was simply the green light to be able to do the program. 

Now, there are a lot of groups, small, big, medium, who are willing to do things like that, but oftentimes because of the management philosophy of the Department of Corrections, well, we cannot 

make that much space for programming, we cannot give the inmates that much time, we do not want the inmates to be able to 

spend more time with their families. 

In other words, it is a way of looking at how you do corrections 

that has such an intense focus on security and warehousing that 

it cuts off opportunities for the kinds of things that really can bring 

about change, increased educational opportunities. 

I mean, the data is there that if an inmate is willing to get more 

education in prison, his chances of recidivism drop drastically. If an 

inmate has more contact with his family in prison, the chances of 

recidivism drop drastically. 

So much of this is not about paying for something new. It is 

about re-spending the money we have and, quite frankly, it will 

leave you with money left over because it usually is not going to 

cost as much as what it is costing to house those inmates. So it is 

not a question of more money. It is a question of a different way 

to approach the time that an inmate stays in the system. 

Mr. GELB. Let me put some numbers on that really quickly. It 

costs about $79 a day to house someone in prison. That is the national average, $79 a day. We are spending an average of about 

$3.42 a day on probation. So it costs 23 times as much to have 

somebody behind the walls as it does in the community. 

And I think that disparity is what is becoming compelling here 

in providing the sort of win-win. Often when you say stuff like this, 

we are going to do justice reinvestment, I think we feel a little bit 

like it is snake oil, like how is this possible, we are going to have 

this win-win, we are going to improve public safety and we are 

going to save money, is that too good to be true. 

But when you see that kind of disparity between the numbers, 

it does not take too long to realize we can substantially improve 

the level of supervision that we are providing. We could substanVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00674 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
675 

tially improve the quality of services that are provided. You could 

double, triple, quadruple that $3.42 a day and really have a strong 

system in place that is much more likely to reduce recidivism and 

do it at a fraction of the cost of that prison cell. 

So the math works out easy. I think we have discussed it is a 

lot of hard work to get there and to build the political will to make 

those decisions. But in Kansas and elsewhere, they have been 

made and I think that is why we are seeing this level of activity 

around the country. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the problem, and my 

colleague is back, so I am only going to speak for a few seconds 

here, is that we have this myth operating, which the public somehow believes, that we lock someone up and they are going away 

and they are never coming back. And the truth is the exact opposite. Almost every single one of them is going to come back. 

My question is, are they coming back in a circumstance in which 

they are going to victimize someone else and go back to prison or 

are they coming back in a way in which they are going to live a 

life that would not require them to be incarcerated again and 

would not have them victimize anyone else? 

And that is really the only issue. And we have somehow convinced people that, well, if they do not get an education while they 

are in prison, if they do not have Prison Industries, if we are tough 

on them, then somehow they are never coming back. We have to 

have people understand that almost every single person, 90 plus 

percent, are coming right back to the neighborhoods and the communities that they left from. 

And now under our present system, they are coming back more 

violent, more disconnected, and a large percent of them are going 

to be re-incarcerated, but only after victimizing someone else before 

they are re-incarcerated. 

Mr. WOLF. Let me just say, I am going to comment on that and 

then go to Mr. Schiff, Mr. Fattah is right. And I hope you will tell 

Sam Brownback that, and we do miss him, he was a voice in this 

town for human rights, religious freedom that frankly we have lost. 

And maybe you can help fill that role because really Sam made a 

tremendous effort. 

Sam and I were the first two persons in Congress to go to Darfur 

to see firsthand the genocide and he was the leading advocate in 

the Senate on that issue. So maybe the two republican governors 

can be Daniels who has done a great job and Sam Brownback and 

then you can find us or you can find us two democratic governors 

to do that. 

Mr. GELB. Lots of choices. 

Mr. WOLF. I have been in a lot of prisons and a lot of people you 

send there come out hardened, hardened criminals. It is almost like 

a graduate school for crime. 

Also, you are finding a tremendous problem, we are not going to 

get into it here, a radicalization. I mean, the Saudis have been 

funding radical textbooks of Wahhabism going into prisons to 

radicalize people. And so they come out of prison. 

So what Mr. Fattah said is exactly right. It is not being soft. It 

is being smart because if you send somebody away for ten years, 

give him or her no work—and this Congress unfortunately has reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:39 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 067259 PO 00000 Frm 00675 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A259P2.XXX A259P2

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
676 

duced the prison work, the Prison Industries is literally dying on 

the vine—they come back to the neighborhood and then they commit a crime that is actually worse. So I think that is exactly right. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more. And I think 

actually some of the most powerful testimony on that subject was 

someone who I have a long history with who was a political opponent of mine back when I ran for the state legislature. He was an 

incumbent assembly member, Pat Nolan, who later went to prison. 

And he testified that when he got out of prison, and he was the 

guy who was the majority leader on the State Assembly, very 

smart, served a relatively short sentence compared to many others, 

I think it was probably around two years or less, and when he got 

out, he was invited to have lunch with some of his colleagues in 

Sacramento. They went out to a delicatessen for lunch. And he 

opened up the menu and there were so many choices, he was rattled. He did not know how to cope with it and he got up and left. 

Now, here is someone who you would expect has every advantage 

in terms of being able to re-assimilate and found it difficult even 

to know how to operate in a restaurant. You can imagine people 

sent away for a long time who have no job skills, who have a substance abuse problem. The only time we should be surprised is 

when they do not recidivate under those circumstances. 

I want to thank you for your leadership and our former colleague, Alan Mollohan, who have really always been tremendous 

supporters of being smart as well as being tough on crime. And I 

want to thank the panelists today. 

During the last session, Dan Lungren and I introduced legislation on justice reinvestment. Ted Poe and I introduced legislation 

on Project HOPE both to try to expand those promising programs. 

And, Michael and Adam, I want to thank you for all your efforts 

in assisting me and my staff and helping to draft that legislation. 

Mark, I think you are absolutely right. Justice reinvestment is 

a terrible term. And, I mean, the whole concept is hard to explain. 

And every time I try to explain it, I struggle with it. It just sounds 

so wonkish and wonkish is hard to sell in the area of public safety. 

But we have 170,000 people in custody in California. It is ten 

percent of our budget. It is bankrupting our State. It is not doing 

much for our federal budget either. And we have to find strategies 

of reducing those costs and the terrible waste of human capital. 

I would like to ask you. I had an interesting meeting with our 

sheriff, Lee Baca, recently and we were talking about some of the 

changes in California and among them the possibility of the local 

government taking over some of the parole responsibilities. 

One of the things he emphasizes, he has really begun an aggressive program of education in the jail system, people who are in the 

jails for a year or less, but then they often go to prison from the 

jail once the trial proceedings are done, et cetera. A lot of work that 

he has done in terms of rehabilitation or education may or may not 

be carried on once they leave jail. 

And I would be interested to know, Seth, from your experience 

and your colleagues on the panel how much of a focus we should 

put on the jail as opposed to the prison. Is that an important period 

as well? Is there any coordination between jail and prison because 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
677 

they are run by different agencies or is there like a big falling off 

of the cliff? 

DRUG TREATMENT

And then the final question I have is, I think it is just insane 

for us not to make drug treatment available on demand for anybody in custody. To release somebody back into the population with 

a substance abuse problem that has been unaddressed is just crazy 

and cost inefficient. So I would be interested to know your sense 

of where are we with that. Have we conquered that problem or are 

there still lots of people who are on waiting lists to get into a substance abuse program in an incarcerated setting? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will tackle it first a little bit. One, I think there 

is almost virtually no communication between our county prison facility and the state. And also the county facility, which you term 

as the jail, really serves two purposes, one for people that have 

county sentences, people who have less than a state sentence. 

Often in Pennsylvania or in Philadelphia, the judges give people 

a county sentence when really the sentencing guidelines require a 

state sentence, but they think they are helping the defendant or 

something. It just adds more cost to the municipal government. But 

also we have people that are there that are awaiting trial, as you 

said. 

So part of what we are trying to do to reduce our costs locally 

is just changing our philosophy on who needs to be incarcerated 

pretrial. The goal should be to ensure that they appear. And so we 

can use more day treatment centers. You heard about $3.00 a day 

for probation. Well, the day treatment centers are almost the same. 

But they go. They might report. They can get treatment while they 

are there, but you do not have the expense of the housing and all 

the overtime for those employees. So that is a major goal. 

But really there has to be more of a focus on addressing the 

criminogenic needs of those that are incarcerated, as Congressman 

Fattah said, so that when they come out, because 90 percent of 

them or more are going to be coming home, to ensure that they can 

be better citizens. They are not going to be altar boys or anything, 

I am sure, for the most part, but they can be better citizens that 

get employed and try not to re-victimize. And that is really the 

challenge. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am glad, Congressman, that you mentioned the 

issue of the jails. You know, we talk so often about approximately 

700,000 people being released from state prison each year. Eleven 

million releases are conducted by U.S. jails. I mean, the volume of 

people churning through the jail system is just extraordinary as 

are the challenges. The dislocation that somebody can have even in 

a short stay can be just as life altering as a lengthy prison sentence 

in some cases. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You know, and I would just add to that, those that 

are serving the jail sentences not awaiting trial but, as you point 

out, that have a sentence of a year or less, they will often become 

part of the prison population when they recidivate. So to whatever 

degree we can improve the jail rehabilitation efforts, it could pay 

big dividends. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
678 

MENTAL HEALTH AND THE INCARCERATED

Mr. THOMPSON. And the population that I know this committee 

is focused on that has been particularly difficult, we talked about 

the Los Angeles County jails and the Nation’s largest mental 

health hospital, and we talk about jobs now where about one in 

every five people in the prisons and jails have a serious mental 

health issue. With women, it is close to one in three having a serious mental illness. 

And the lengths of stay, for example, are sort of stunning because I know I was just meeting with New York City officials, the 

average length of stay pretrial is about 30 days. If it is someone 

with mental illness, it is about 100 days, because once they get 

there, they act out, they have issues, and then, of course, if they 

are lucky we give them a supply of medications for ten days and 

hope that things will work out. So that absolutely needs to be a priority. 

And we talk about the justice reinvestment approach, and I am 

thrilled that the legislation includes a focus on counties, and, in 

fact, a number of counties have applied because the big challenge 

there is they do not have the kind of data that the states have. You 

ask them who is coming into your facilities, how long are they staying, who is recidivating, not only can they not tell you, they do not 

have the information systems oftentimes to help generate that. So 

it is critically important. 

DRUG TREATMENT

And to your point of drug treatment: obviously we have a huge 

demand for drug treatment for people who are coming in contact 

with the criminal justice system. We are not coming anywhere 

close to meeting that demand. 

And I think what we are most concerned about is with the very 

few treatment slots that are available behind the walls, are they 

being prioritized as they most effectively can. And sometimes they 

are and that is through the great work of the kinds of Second 

Chance Act and the Justice Reinvestment Project, but what we 

need to do is make sure that we are putting those medium to highrisk people in those drug treatment programs and that we make 

sure that it is immediately before their release and then there is 

immediate continuity of care. 

If we do not do those things, then we do not have the kind of 

return on the investment. And so our big focus right now is just 

with the limited treatment slots available, getting the absolute 

most out of them and that is something that this committee is 

helping us do. 

OVERCROWDING

Mr. EARLEY. I think, Congressman, on the jail and prison connection I cannot really add anything. It has been covered pretty completely. Only to say that there is also a third category and that is 

people that are sentenced to the state system but end up spending 

maybe one or two years in the local jail basically awaiting transfer 

because of prison overcrowding situations. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
679 

So there does obviously need to be more connectivity because for 

many of them, it is all incarceration. And the earlier you start, the 

better chance you have got of getting a good result. 

DRUG TREATMENT

On the drugs, two things. I think a couple of states are really 

good about requiring drug treatment for prisoners. They do good 

assessment up front about who should have it and they require 

them to get it before they can be released. So if you have not had 

your drug counseling, you are not going to get released. So I think 

that is important. 

Second, what we found in our work over the last ten years or so 

is that even if people get it, which they should, that is not the end 

of the story because people who have a substance abuse problem, 

even who have been through the treatment in prison, are still very 

high-risk recidivators when they come out simply because it is easier to deal with drugs in prison when it is a very structured, secure 

environment and they are not as available. When you get out, within the first 30 to 60 days, it is tough. 

So it is one of the reasons why we found the mentoring is so important. A guy on the street 30 to 90 days after he is released who 

is getting ready to go off the edge with drugs is not going to call 

his probation officer. He may call a friend, someone he trusts. And 

so we think it is really important for those coming out of prison— 

particularly drug offenders—to have mentors. 

And, again, this is something the community can provide. They 

can be volunteers who are well trained. It is not something that 

has to be paid for by the state, but the state has to allow an interaction between these mentors and these inmates before they come 

out so the mentor can be there to meet them at the gate and know 

who they are and begin walking with them. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

PRISON INDUSTRIES

I just have two other questions and then I will go back to Mr. 

Fattah or the other Members. 

The Congress pretty much abolished the Prison Industries and 

we are going to try to do something here. I do not know what we 

are going to be able to do, but. I have a bill that would allow the 

BoP to work on products that are no longer made in the United 

States. 

Oversimplification, but to give you an example, we no longer 

make televisions in the United States and, yet, I would venture to 

guess everyone here has a television set and some of you may have 

two or three or four or five. And a while back, in Lorton Reformatory, which I was involved in a program years ago at Lorton, we 

had had a company we thought, Emerson, that was willing to coming in. They were the last television manufacturer in the country 

and I think they were willing to come in. For different reasons, everyone opposed it, bad idea, competing with, the unions will not 

like it, et cetera, and so it never took place. In Lorton, there was 

basically no work. 

Have any of you ever been at Lorton? It was amazing. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
680 

And the men would tell you they, I mean, they had a little license plate operation, but they just had no work. And so what we 

wanted to do was to bring in Emerson or a company that would 

make television sets that would be for sale in the United States 

and around the world, but they would not be competing with any 

American manufacturer. 

And so what we are trying to do is get some language in this bill 

that would allow them to work on products that are no longer 

made in the United States—which unfortunately, if you go to 

Walmart, it is almost everything it seems lately. Unfortunately, 

our manufacturing base is eroding. 

And so if you could just give us some comments about what you 

think about the importance of giving men and women in prison dignity with regard to work. 

The second question, and maybe as you answer, you can answer 

the other one, too, are all of these ideas applicable to the Bureau 

of Prisons? 

And, Mark, you were saying you were a little concerned that 

there was not quite the openness there. This Congress is sort of the 

board of directors for the Bureau of Prisons. 

Mr. EARLEY. I mentioned it. 

Mr. WOLF. And so what do you think or what are your recommendations with regard to the Bureau of Prisons who will be up 

here in a week or two or three with regard to some of the recommendations that you have? So, one, the importance of work in 

prisons and, two, how this would relate what you have done here 

with regard to the Bureau of Prisons. 

Mr. EARLEY. I think with the Bureau of Prisons, I would think 

about it as the 51st state or the 51st system in the country and 

make it the model. It is a small enough population that all of the 

things, take the best of what is maybe out there at the state level, 

the best of some of the ideas that have not yet been implemented, 

and gradually phase them into the Bureau of Prisons so it becomes 

what everybody else looks to in the states as the model. 

In the long run, it will save money. It is much cheaper for you 

to do something in one place and the states will copy it on their 

own as in many cases, it is not necessarily a question of more 

money, but doing things differently. So a lot of the stuff we have 

just talked about here today could just start picking and say is this 

true at our home place, the Bureau of Prisons. And if it is not 

prioritize and start phasing it in. 

On work, I think, you know, the suggestion about having products made in prison that are not made in the U.S. is obviously a 

good suggestion insofar as it settles the objections that come from 

private industry. And it does give the inmates the dignity of work 

which everyone needs, I believe, and the values that come along 

with it. 

The only drawback is if they are making something that is not 

made here in the United States. We know that one of the biggest 

needs of inmates when they get out is a job. It has not necessarily 

made them more job ready in a particular vocation. It has clearly 

made them more job ready in terms of the value of work and going 

to work. So I think it is good. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
681 

Mr. WOLF. We do deal with that. The exact product may not be 

made in the United States, but the technology and skill could be 

transfered to the manufacturing of another product. 

Mr. EARLEY. Well, then I think it is a home run if you get that. 

FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM

Mr. WOLF. Anybody else? How do you think the Bureau of Prisons are doing? I mean, you may not want to be critical of your prisons and I understand that. 

Mr. EARLEY. I am the one that brought it up. I do not think they 

are doing bad. I just think—— 

Mr. EARLEY [continuing]. That could be the model. 

Mr. WOLF. I think we should write Mr. Fattah and I should write 

the Bureau of Prisons to say that what was in this report that you 

are not doing, you ought to be doing. That way, I do not want to 

get you two involved in the Bureau of Prisons. And, you know, I 

think they work hard. But maybe we should ask them to replicate 

or take whatever you have. And I think Mr. Lappin would be open 

to do that. 

Mr. GELB. I guess I would just say quickly that I think you are 

absolutely right in terms of the role and the leadership position 

that the BoP has and the level of respect that it has in the field 

and that if it does something, others will definitely take note. 

But in this case, it really has been the states that have been the 

innovators here in terms of what is happening behind the walls 

and in terms of the whole justice reinvestment approach and that 

there are a number of things from the states that could be learned 

at the federal level with the population of, 209,000. 

And one of them that we have not really talked about today, but 

I would want to just throw out quickly, is the use of incentives. 

And there is a lot of talk about running government more like a 

business not only from the limited government perspective but the 

efficiencies and this is about results and what comes out, not just 

what goes in. 

And I am sorry that Congressman Yoder left, but Kansas really 

helped pioneer this approach in saying that there is going to be a 

return to the parole and probation agencies if they increase their 

success rate and stop sending so many failures back to the system. 

And that model was sort of refined in Arizona the next year. 

And believe it or not, California which is, I guess I have to say, 

a basket case in this arena and is facing federal court intervention, 

despite all the paralysis in California on this, they were able to 

pass legislation, Senate Bill 678, a couple of years ago which says 

exactly this, from the state to the counties, we are going to count 

the number of violators and revocations you had from last year and 

each year going forward, if you send fewer, we will tally up the 

savings that the state accrues by not having to lock up those failed 

cases and we will give you half of it back. 

The Department of Finance, a totally independent agency in 

California, has calculated what happened just in the first year of 

that program, reduced prison admissions by 4,000, 4,000 fewer people coming into California Department of Corrections at an actual 

savings of $118 million and recommending that half of that go back 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
682 

to the counties to put into substance abuse treatment and other recidivism reduction programs. 

And there has been some discussion at the federal level of this 

type of model and similar—— 

Mr. WOLF. How would you apply that? What would you say to 

the bureau? What would the committee say to the Bureau of Prisons? How would you structure that? 

Mr. GELB. So a lot of thinking would have to go into this. But 

one of the reasons why it may be applicable at the federal level is 

that you have a disconnect between the fiscal responsibility and authority here, which is that the executive branch runs the BoP and 

the judicial branch runs probation. And so the same dynamic exists 

at the counties between the states and local government, right? 

If you are local government, you are paying for probation and 

you are having problems with somebody, why not just violate them 

and dump them into the state system? And they are off your caseload, they are out of your hair, and they are on somebody else’s 

dime. 

And so you have a little bit of that same dynamic here where it 

is one branch of government and one budget that is totally separated from the other. There is no incentive necessarily to work with 

those people and not send them back to prison because if they do, 

they are off your caseload and on to somebody else’s budget. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if you have an idea, let us know, a way that 

would be directly incentivized. 

Years ago, I once offered an amendment in the Appropriations 

Committee and it was overwhelmingly opposed that an agency 

could save money and most of the money would come back to the 

Federal Government, but a small percentage would stay with the 

agency for them to do with what they wanted to and another portion of it would be used for bonuses. And it just did not go. The 

appropriators said that it would be taking away the authority of 

the committee, et cetera. 

So if you have a way of doing that in the Federal Government, 

we would like to hear it. 

Mr. EARLEY. I think in addition to the financial incentives, just 

to talk about that one particular idea, a part of it has to do, too, 

with how people are evaluated who do certain jobs. In other words, 

is probation and parole evaluated based on how quickly they revoke someone or are they evaluated on, you know, declined recidivism. Same thing with those who run the institutions. Are they 

evaluated not just on how secure their institutions are, but on what 

the recidivism rate looks like of those coming out. 

So once people realize that they are responsible for delivering 

something other than just what they are focused on today, they 

begin to change and exciting things begin to happen at the grass 

roots level which sometimes is even better than what we can think 

of here. 

Mr. WOLF. That is a good point. 

Mr. Fattah, do you have any questions? 

PRE-ENTRY

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me just conclude with the point I was trying to make earlier, and I will try to make it even more so now, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
683 

which is I think that the work that is being done is very good, but 

it is overwhelmed by the problem. That is to say that there is a 

lot more that needs to be done. And it is at pre-entry, it is at education. 

This vast increase in young women going to prison is in large 

measure because of some of the mandatory sentencing requirements. And a lot of times, the real culprit, takes a plea, negotiates 

a deal, and, the young lady who was an innocent, essentially almost an innocent player in some of these drug transactions, ends 

up doing the mandatory sentence. 

We have lots of problems here and a lot of our young people have 

no idea about the difference between joy riding and grand theft 

auto, and nobody spends the time trying to explain it to them either. 

And we have a case in Pennsylvania right now with a number 

of judges who are on trial today for essentially taking kickbacks, 

$2 million in kickbacks for sending young people away to a prison 

that was a for-profit operation. 

But the point here is the chairman is right that it is not just 

what we do on reentry. It is what we do while they are incarcerated. I mean, there is no reason why we should be spending $79.00 

a day and have someone come in who cannot read and for them to 

leave not being able to read. I mean, It makes no sense and there 

are ways for us to figure out how to do this. 

So I think that the federal system is a place where we can have 

an impact. Obviously we can have an impact at the states. I do 

think we need to get the judges in the deal because judges need 

to know a little bit more about the reality. 

And Seth was, I think, being kind when he says that in some 

cases, they sentence people to the city prison versus the state prison. They are trying to help the inmate. And it is true because they 

know that if they send them away to state prison, you know—I 

mean, part of the reason why we have a million people and members of gangs in this country is a lot of recruitment takes place in 

prison. We are creating a set of dynamics here that just spirals out 

of control. 

And, the idea that we should be taking someone who is shoplifting and put them in a prison with someone who is a violent repeat offender and think something good is going to come of this, 

it just does not make a lot of sense. 

So there is a lot of work to be done, and I thank the chairman 

for having the hearing. I thank you for your testimony. 

GANGS

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Well, I have one last question. Mr. Fattah is 

right. You send somebody to some of these prisons, they are going 

to join one of four or five gangs. They just literally join. 

Mr. FATTAH. They do it for self-protection. 

Mr. WOLF. They do it for self-protection. 

ACCESS TO FEDERAL RECIDIVISM DATA

The last question we had had in this was, does BoP generally 

provide outside groups like Pew, Council of State Governments, the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
684 

Prison Fellowship with the same access to its recidivism data as 

state corrections systems do? Do they supply you with that? 

Mr. GELB. Sir, we have not asked for it. We are a state project 

and we work with states, so we have not. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. GELB. It goes with BoP on that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And, again, I was with Director Lappin just a 

week ago and he actually, he right after the meeting put me in 

touch with this research team instead. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But they seem incredibly cooperative. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Good. 

Mr. EARLEY. Yeah. I think on that kind of stuff, they are very 

transparent. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Good. 

Well, I want to thank the four of you. We appreciate it very, very 

much. 

And with that, the hearing will adjourn. Thanks. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(685) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1381 67259C.145
686 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1382 67259C.146
687 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1383 67259C.147
688 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1384 67259C.148
689 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1385 67259C.149
690 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1386 67259C.150
691 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1387 67259C.151
692 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1388 67259C.152
693 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1389 67259C.153
694 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1390 67259C.154
695 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1391 67259C.155
696 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1392 67259C.156
697 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1393 67259C.157
698 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1394 67259C.158
699 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1395 67259C.159
700 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1396 67259C.160
701 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1397 67259C.161
702 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1398 67259C.162
703 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1399 67259C.163
704 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1400 67259C.164
705 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1401 67259C.165
706 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1402 67259C.166
707 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1403 67259C.167
708 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1404 67259C.168
709 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1405 67259C.169
710 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1406 67259C.170
711 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1407 67259C.171
712 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1408 67259C.172
713 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1409 67259C.173
714 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1410 67259C.174
715 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1411 67259C.175
716 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1412 67259C.176
717 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1413 67259C.177
718 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1414 67259C.178
719 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1415 67259C.179
720 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1416 67259C.180
721 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1417 67259C.181
722 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1418 67259C.182
723 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1419 67259C.183
724 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1420 67259C.184
725 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1421 67259C.185
726 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1422 67259C.186
727 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1423 67259C.187
728 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1424 67259C.188
729 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1425 67259C.189
730 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1426 67259C.190
731 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1427 67259C.191
732 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1428 67259C.192
733 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1429 67259C.193
734 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1430 67259C.194
735 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1431 67259C.195
736 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1432 67259C.196
737 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1433 67259C.197
738 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1434 67259C.198
739 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1435 67259C.199
740 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1436 67259C.200
741 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1437 67259C.201
742 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1438 67259C.202
743 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1439 67259C.203
744 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1440 67259C.204
745 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1441 67259C.205
746 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1442 67259C.206
747 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1443 67259C.207
748 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1444 67259C.208
749 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1445 67259C.209
750 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1446 67259C.210
751 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1447 67259C.211
752 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1448 67259C.212
753 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1449 67259C.213
754 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1450 67259C.214
755 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1451 67259C.215
756 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1452 67259C.216
757 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1453 67259C.217
758 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1454 67259C.218
759 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1455 67259C.219
760 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1456 67259C.220
761 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1457 67259C.221
762 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1458 67259C.222
763 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1459 67259C.223
764 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1460 67259C.224
765 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1461 67259C.225
766 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1462 67259C.226
767 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1463 67259C.227
768 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1464 67259C.228
769 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1465 67259C.229
770 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1466 67259C.230
771 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1467 67259C.231
772 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1468 67259C.232
773 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1469 67259C.233
774 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1470 67259C.234
775 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1471 67259C.235
776 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1472 67259C.236
777 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1473 67259C.237
778 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1474 67259C.238
779 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1475 67259C.239
780 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1476 67259C.240
781 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1477 67259C.241
782 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1478 67259C.242
783 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1479 67259C.243
784 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1480 67259C.244
785 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1481 67259C.245
786 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1482 67259C.246
787 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1483 67259C.247
788 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1484 67259C.248
789 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1485 67259C.249
790 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1486 67259C.250
791 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1487 67259C.251
792 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1488 67259C.252
793 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1489 67259C.253
794 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1490 67259C.254
795 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1491 67259C.255
796 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1492 67259C.256
797 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1493 67259C.257
798 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1494 67259C.258
799 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1495 67259C.259
800 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1496 67259C.260
801 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1497 67259C.261
802 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1498 67259C.262
803 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1499 67259C.263
804 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1500 67259C.264
805 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1501 67259C.265
806 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1502 67259C.266
807 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1503 67259C.267
808 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1504 67259C.268
809 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1505 67259C.269
810 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1506 67259C.270
811 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1507 67259C.271
812 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1508 67259C.272
813 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1509 67259C.273
814 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1510 67259C.274
815 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1511 67259C.275
816 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1512 67259C.276
817 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1513 67259C.277
818 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1514 67259C.278
819 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1515 67259C.279
820 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1516 67259C.280
821 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1517 67259C.281
822 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1518 67259C.282
823 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1519 67259C.283
824 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1520 67259C.284
825 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1521 67259C.285
826 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1522 67259C.286
827 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1523 67259C.287
828 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1524 67259C.288
829 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1525 67259C.289
830 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1526 67259C.290
831 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1527 67259C.291
832 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1528 67259C.292
833 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1529 67259C.293
834 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1530 67259C.294
835 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1531 67259C.295
836 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1532 67259C.296
837 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1533 67259C.297
838 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1534 67259C.298
839 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1535 67259C.299
840 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1536 67259C.300
841 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1537 67259C.301
842 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1538 67259C.302
843 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1539 67259C.303
844 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1540 67259C.304
845 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1541 67259C.305
846 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1542 67259C.306
847 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1543 67259C.307
848 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1544 67259C.308
849 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1545 67259C.309
850 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1546 67259C.310
851 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1547 67259C.311
852 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1548 67259C.312
853 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1549 67259C.313
854 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1550 67259C.314
855 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1551 67259C.315
856 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1552 67259C.316
857 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1553 67259C.317
858 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1554 67259C.318
859 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1555 67259C.319
860 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1556 67259C.320
861 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1557 67259C.321
862 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1558 67259C.322
863 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1559 67259C.323
864 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1560 67259C.324
865 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1561 67259C.325
866 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1562 67259C.326
867 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1563 67259C.327
868 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1564 67259C.328
869 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1565 67259C.329
870 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1566 67259C.330
871 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1567 67259C.331
872 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1568 67259C.332
873 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1569 67259C.333
874 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1570 67259C.334
875 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1571 67259C.335
876 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1572 67259C.336
877 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1573 67259C.337
878 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1574 67259C.338
879 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1575 67259C.339
880 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1576 67259C.340
881 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1577 67259C.341
882 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1578 67259C.342
883 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1579 67259C.343
884 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1580 67259C.344
885 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1581 67259C.345
886 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1582 67259C.346
887 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1583 67259C.347
888 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1584 67259C.348
889 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1585 67259C.349
890 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1586 67259C.350
891 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1587 67259C.351
892 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1588 67259C.352
893 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1589 67259C.353
894 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1590 67259C.354
895 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1591 67259C.355
896 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1592 67259C.356
897 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1593 67259C.357
898 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1594 67259C.358
899 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1595 67259C.359
900 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1596 67259C.360
901 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1597 67259C.361
902 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1598 67259C.362
903 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 1599/1800 67259C.363
(i) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 01 here 67259P3.001

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Department of Justice 

Attorney General Eric Holder 

Page 

10th Amendment issues....................................................................................... 116–117 

9/11 health bill.......................................................................................................... 81–82

Bureau of Prisons..................................................................................................... 82–83 

independent auditing of ....................................................................................... 61–63 

Computer Intrusion Initiative................................................................................. 73–74 

Counter-radicalization ............................................................................................. 86–87 

DEA—Colombia best practices................................................................................ 88–89 

Defense of Marriage Act............................................................ 11–13, 18–23, 24, 51–52 

DNA backlog ............................................................................................................. 46–48 

Equipping federal agents with firearms in Mexico ............................................... 88 

Federal inmate good conduct time credit .............................................................. 84 

Firearms seized in Mexico ....................................................................................... 30–31 

FISA court requirements ........................................................................................ 32 

Freedom of Information Act requests ..................................................................... 10–11 

Funding impacts of the continuing resolution ....................................................... 18 

Guantanamo: 

detainees ............................................................................................................ 14–15 

rule of law.......................................................................................................... 17–18 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility ...................................................................................... 25–28 

Gun control: 

long guns............................................................................................................ 29–30 

reporting of long gun sales .............................................................................. 48 

straw purchasers .............................................................................................. 49 

High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group............................................................. 66–67 

Human trafficking ................................................................................. 23, 65–66, 72–73 

U.S. Attorneys’ task forces ............................................................................... 63–64 

Hypothetical capture of Osama bin Laden............................................................. 24–25 

Impact of DOJ budget cuts...................................................................................... 59–60 

Indian Country justice programs ........................................................................... 29 

Intellectual property ............................................................................................ 114–116 

Internet radicalization ............................................................................................. 87–88 

Khalid Sheik Mohammed ........................................................................................ 117 

Medicare fraud.......................................................................................................... 23–24 

Miranda decision .................................................................................................. 113–114 

National security funding........................................................................................ 13–14 

Office of Justice Programs ...................................................................................... 50 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990.......................................................................................... 26–27 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Fattah ............................................................................................................. 1–2 

Mr. Holder ............................................................................................................. 2–9 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

iv 

Opening statement—Continued 

Mr. Wolf ............................................................................................................ 1 

PATRIOT Act............................................................................................................ 31–32 

Prescription drug abuse........................................................................................... 33–46 

Prison rape................................................................................................................ 60–61 

Prison reform............................................................................................................ 84–86 

Project HOPE ........................................................................................................... 116 

Questions for the Record: 

Mr. Aderholt .................................................................................................. 155–160 

Mr. Bonner..................................................................................................... 161–164 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 143–154 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 118–142 

Redistricting ............................................................................................................. 82 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ............................................................. 28–29 

Terrorism recidivism................................................................................................ 15–17 

Thomson facility ....................................................................................................... 50–51 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ............................................. 64 

Voting rights enforcement................................................. 52–59, 67–72, 74–81, 89–113 

Wilberforce Act ......................................................................................................... 64–65 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Director Robert S. Mueller 

Assessment of the FBI over director’s tenure .................................................... 190–192 

Benefits of investment in the FBI....................................................................... 187–188 

Border security 228 terrorist threats, and ......................................................... 211–213 

Central records complex ...................................................................................... 225–226 

Counterintelligence vs. criminal career tracks .................................................. 182–184 

DNA backlog ......................................................................................................... 209–210 

Domestic radicalization ....................................................................... 184–187, 198–205 

Electronic surveillance......................................................................................... 216–217 

Familial DNA........................................................................................................ 195–196 

FBI Academy ........................................................................................................ 223–224 

FBI/ATF explosives investigations jurisdiction ................................................. 217–219 

FBI’s transformation: 

assessment of................................................................................................. 179–182 

since 9/11 ........................................................................................................... 215 

Foreign espionage/cyber threats.......................................................................... 207–208 

Foreign language training/material review........................................................ 224–225 

FY2012 budget request ........................................................................................ 189–190 

FY2011 continuing resolution ............................................................................. 215–216 

Health care fraud ..................................................................................................... 210 

High-value Detainee Interrogation Group ......................................................... 205–207 

Human trafficking/violent crime/gangs .............................................................. 229–233 

Indian country ...................................................................................................... 208–209 

Interagency coordination on the southwest border ........................................... 197–198 

Killings on the southwest border ........................................................................... 179 

Legat offices ............................................................................................................. 226 

Miranda warning issues ...................................................................................... 193–195 

Murder of Jaime Zapata ...................................................................................... 213–215 

North African/Middle Eastern protests .............................................................. 226–228 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Fattah ......................................................................................................... 166 

Mr. Mueller.................................................................................................... 166–178 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 165–166 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

v 

Questions for the Record: 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 244–253 

Mr. Graves..................................................................................................... 254–256 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 234–243 

Relationship with international law enforcement community ......................... 228–229 

Sentinel ......................................................................................................... 197, 219–223 

Top threats to U.S................................................................................................ 196–197 

Violent crime......................................................................................................... 210–211 

Violent gangs ............................................................................................................ 217 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Administrator Michele Leonhart 

Afghanistan........................................................................................................... 281–285 

Agents killed in the line of duty ......................................................................... 267–272 

Arming agents in Mexico..................................................................................... 287–288 

Bolivia ................................................................................................................... 332–337 

Caribbean drug trafficking ...................................................................................... 285 

Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................... 340 

Drone usage .............................................................................................................. 288 

Drug trafficking submarines ................................................................................... 321 

El Paso Intelligence Center ................................................................................. 279–280 

FY2012 budget ..................................................................................... 289–293, 321–325 

Internet pharmacies............................................................................................. 286–287 

Juveniles and drug trafficking ............................................................................ 320–321 

Meth labs .............................................................................................................. 325–330 

Mexican cartels..................................................................................................... 276–281 

Mexican drug trafficking ..................................................................................... 285–286 

Mobile enforcement teams................................................................................... 330–332 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 257–258 

Ms. Leonhart ................................................................................................. 258–266 

Mr. Wolf ............................................................................................................ 257 

Prescription drug: 

diversion......................................................................................................... 293–320 

trafficking ...................................................................................................... 288–289 

Questions for the Record: 

Mr. Aderholt .................................................................................................. 355–357 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 349–355 

Mr. Wolf ................................................................................................................ 340–349

Viktor Bout ........................................................................................... 273–276, 337–339 

Bureau of Prisons 

Director Harley G. Lappin 

BOP furlough program......................................................................................... 411–412 

Clarification of opening statement ......................................................................... 374 

Closing remarks.................................................................................................... 426–427 

Continuing resolution problems .......................................................................... 405–406 

Correctional staff killed in the line of duty........................................................ 425–426 

Elderly offender pilot program............................................................................ 410–411 

Federal Prison Industries.................................................................... 395–397, 400–404 

Good conduct time legislative proposal ...................................................... 376–394, 410 

Growing prison populations and recidivism .......................................................... 402 

Inmate ......................................................................................................................

programs and recidivism .............................................................................. 397–400 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

vi 

Inmate—Continued 

work opportunities ................................................................................................ 395 

Justice reinvestment and public safety .............................................................. 374–376 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Fattah ......................................................................................................... 360 

Mr. Lappin..................................................................................................... 360–373 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 359–360 

Preventing communications with terrorists....................................................... 414–415 

Prison: 

drugs in.......................................................................................................... 420–421 

farms .................................................................................................................. 426 

gangs in ................................................................................. 403, 412–413, 416–417 

privately operated ............................................................................................. 405 

radicalization ................................................................................................. 413–414 

Prison Rape Elimination Act............................................................................... 421–425 

Proposed CHEF Act ............................................................................................. 415–416 

Questions for the Record: 

Mr. Aderholt .................................................................................................. 428–430 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 431–434 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 435–438 

Solitary confinement ................................................................................................ 418 

Supervised release program ................................................................................ 417–418 

The increasing inmate population .......................................................................... 404 

The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment................................................ 380–381 

Thomson, Il facility ...................................................................... 406–410, 413, 419–420 

USP Marion, Illinois ............................................................................................ 418–419 

Office of Justice Programs 

Assistant Attorney General Laurie O. Robinson 

Adam Walsh Act................................................................................................... 487–488 

Automated victim identification and notification ................................................. 490 

Byrne Criminal Justice Assistance program...................................................... 486–487 

Deficit reduction ................................................................................................... 478–479 

DNA and forensics................................................................................................ 481–483 

Domestic radicalization........................................................................................ 488–490 

Evidence-based approaches ..................................................................................... 475 

Grant program flexibility..................................................................................... 483–484 

Hawaii HOPE .......................................................................................................... 474 

Justice reinvestment ............................................................................................ 458–460 

Juvenile justice..................................................................................................... 456–477 

Missing and exploited children ........................................................................... 471–472 

NICS and NCHIP................................................................................................. 479–480 

Opening statement: 

Ms. Robinson ................................................................................................. 440–457 

Mr. Wolf ............................................................................................................ 439 

Prescription drug abuse....................................................................... 460–471, 477–478 

Prison rape............................................................................................................ 480–481 

Prisoner reentry ................................................................................................... 472–473 

Public safety officer benefits................................................................................ 473–474 

Questions for the Record: 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 498–507 

Mr. Graves..................................................................................................... 508–510 

Mr. Honda...................................................................................................... 415–517 

Mr. Schiff ....................................................................................................... 411–514 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 493–497 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

vii 

RISS....................................................................................................................... 490–491 

Study of hate crimes ............................................................................................ 475–476 

Tom Perrelli.......................................................................................................... 491–492 

Tribal criminal justice needs .................................................................................. 485 

Legal Services Corporation 

President James J. Sandman 

Member of the Board Robert J. Grey Jr. 

Fiscal oversight..................................................................................................... 582–583 

Impact of budget cuts........................................................................................... 575–576 

IOLTA funding ......................................................................................................... 569 

Justice gap ................................................................................................................ 576

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed .................................................................................. 577–578 

Legal aid clinics ....................................................................................................... 575 

Legal services for veterans .................................................................................. 574–575 

Legal Services Corporation: 

context of the overall federal budget, in the ............................................... 569–573 

spending......................................................................................................... 578–580 

structure ........................................................................................................ 573–574 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 520–521 

Mr. Grey......................................................................................................... 533–555 

Mr. Sandman................................................................................................. 521–532 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 519–520 

Performance standards ........................................................................................ 583–584 

Political activism .................................................................................. 556–557, 576–577 

Pro bono: 

increasing .......................................................................................................... 578 

legal services.................................................................................................. 557–568 

requirements in law schools......................................................................... 584–589 

Public libraries ......................................................................................................... 583 

Questions for the Record: 

Mr. Fattah ..................................................................................................... 594–597 

Mr. Graves..................................................................................................... 601–604 

Mr. Honda...................................................................................................... 598–600 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 590–593 

Restriction on collection of attorneys’ fees ............................................................. 580 

Technology initiative grants................................................................................ 580–582 

Prisoner Reentry and Recidivism 

Adam Gelb, Director, Public Safety Performance Project, Pew Center on 

the States 

Honorable Mark L. Earley, Member of The Board, Prison Fellowship 

International 

Michael Thompson, Director, Justice Center, Council of State 

Governments 

R. Seth Williams, District Attorney, City of Philadelphia 

Access to federal recidivism data ........................................................................ 683–684 

Drug treatment..................................................................................................... 677–679 

Effectuating reform at the state level................................................................. 664–669 

Federal prison system.......................................................................................... 681–682 

Gangs ........................................................................................................................ 683 

Incarceration and its effect on families .............................................................. 670–671 

Justice reinvestment ............................................................................................ 671–677 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

viii 

Mental health and the incarcerated ....................................................................... 678 

Opening statement: 

Mr. Earley...................................................................................................... 616–628 

Mr. Fattah ......................................................................................................... 607 

Mr. Gelb ......................................................................................................... 608–615 

Mr. Thompson ............................................................................................... 629–650 

Mr. Williams.................................................................................................. 651–663 

Mr. Wolf ......................................................................................................... 605–607 

Overcrowding........................................................................................................ 678–679 

Pre-entry ............................................................................................................... 682–683 

Prison industries .................................................................................................. 679–681 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1