COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

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

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

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

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

JOHN BLAZEY, DIXON BUTLER, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

DIANA SIMPSON, DAREK NEWBY, and BRAD DANIELS, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 6 

Page 

Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview ................................................................................ 1 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Overview .................................................................. 185 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview .................................. 273 

Bureau of Prisons Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview .. 361 

American Federation of Government Employees— 

Council of Prison Locals .................................................... 529 

Office of Justice Programs Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview ................................................................................ 567 

Legal Services Corporation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview ................................................................................ 653 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

PART 6—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

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

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

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

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

JOHN BLAZEY, DIXON BUTLER, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

DIANA SIMPSON, DAREK NEWBY, and BRAD DANIELS, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 6 

Page 

Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview ................................................................................ 1 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Overview .................................................................. 185 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview .................................. 273 

Bureau of Prisons Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview .. 361 

American Federation of Government Employees— 

Council of Prison Locals .................................................... 529 

Office of Justice Programs Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview ................................................................................ 567 

Legal Services Corporation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview ................................................................................ 653 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

56–795 WASHINGTON : 2010 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

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

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2011 

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FY2011 BUDGET OVERVIEW 

WITNESS 

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

STATES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General, welcome to the hearing 

this afternoon, and welcome to everyone to this afternoon’s hearing 

on the Department of Justice and its fiscal year 2011 budget request. Our witness this afternoon is the Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General. Thank you for appearing today, Mr. Attorney General. We appreciate it. 

I would like to start off by recognizing just a few of the numerous 

positive developments we have seen at the Department of Justice 

over the last year. Under your leadership, the Department has 

shown a renewed commitment to its criminal enforcement missions, including international organized crime, drug trafficking, 

and civil rights. 

You have placed a new emphasis on funding effective state and 

local grant programs, including the COPS hiring program, which 

saved or created nearly 5,000 jobs through the stimulus provided 

by this Committee last year. 

We have also seen a new and fairly comprehensive commitment 

by the Department of Justice to begin addressing the truly deplorable law enforcement situation in Indian Country. This commitment is reflected in your budget request, which has Indian Country 

increases almost across the board, and we certainly welcome that, 

as we initiated such investments in this very Committee last year. 

Finally, I have been pleased to see that violent crime rates have 

continued to decrease over the past two years despite significant 

economic distress that seemed likely to produce the opposite result. 

To the extent that the Department of Justice is a national law enforcement leader, you share in that success along with your state 

and local partners. 

While we enjoy and appreciate the successes, Mr. Attorney General, the Department also has its share of challenges. One of the 

most visible of these challenges is the enormous and growing workload of white-collar crime cases. Your current load of mortgage, seVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

curities, and government fraud cases covers billions and billions of 

dollars of realized losses, and you have only just started to scratch 

the surface. 

Another looming issue is the burgeoning federal inmate population, which is increasingly outstripping the capacity of our prison 

system. 

Perhaps you have had no greater challenge since arriving at the 

Department of Justice than working to fulfill the President’s commitment to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The 

process of closing Guantanamo actually began under President 

Bush. He worked to reduce the detainee population by more than 

500 detainees, all without involvement by the Congress, and without any publicly discernible process for choosing whom to release 

and under what terms. 

This Administration replaced that ad hoc system with a formalized, consistent process for reviewing each detainee and determining the safest, most appropriate disposition for him. 

Your system ensures that the Government’s military, intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, and diplomatic communities have reviewed each case and come to agreement on each 

outcome. 

I think having such a system that we can sit here and discuss 

today, in a way that we never could have under an ad hoc process, 

is an achievement in its own right. While reasonable people might 

disagree about some of the specific outcomes your system produced, 

I don’t think anyone should dispute that the system itself was well 

reasoned and had integrity. 

Your process ultimately produced recommendations to bring a 

small number of Guantanamo detainees here to the U.S. for prosecution. Those recommendations have generated an enormous 

amount of debate and engendered an entrenched opposition that 

would like to limit detainee prosecutions exclusively to the military 

commission system. 

I support the reformed military commission process and believe 

that there are times when a commission may be the only appropriate forum based on considerations like admissibility of evidence 

or the need to protect intelligence sources and methods. But there 

are equally valid reasons why an Article III or civilian court may 

be just as necessary and just as appropriate. Article III trials can 

be significantly shorter, given their broader authority to accept 

guilty pleas. Some of our allies will not cooperate with our prosecution efforts outside of the civilian system. Some cases present legal 

or operational issues that require the accumulated legal precedents 

and rules of courtroom procedure that have developed over hundreds of years in the Article III courts. 

These are things that the relatively new military commission 

system, no matter how valuable, simply cannot provide right now. 

For these reasons, I think it would be a mistake to categorically 

deny you access to the civilian system, especially in light of its established track record of success in terrorism prosecutions. 

Let us not forget that the Article III system has safely and effectively tried and convicted hundreds of terrorists. Today there are 

more than 300 international or domestic terrorists incarcerated in 

civilian prison facilities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 

The military commission system, by way of comparison, has produced three prosecutions, two of which came from guilty pleas. 

I think the results speak for themselves. Officials from the 

former administration also support the civilian trial option and believe that precluding civilian trials out of hand is a dangerous proposal. The decision about whether to try a case in a civilian court 

is best left to the Department of Justice to determine, void of politics, just as was done in the previous administration. 

I am sure that we will be discussing these issues in detail 

throughout the afternoon. There is also a lot of interest on all sides 

about the final venue determination for the 9/11 trials, which I understand is still under consideration. We really can’t discuss the 

merits of the venue until it has been determined, but I would like 

to give you an opportunity to explain to us the underlying criteria 

that are being used to make forum and venue determinations for 

the Article III and military courts so that we can understand the 

considerations and constraints that are involved in that process. 

In a moment we will have you provide an oral summary of your 

testimony, Mr. Attorney General. Your written statement, of 

course, will be made a part of the record. 

But before we do that, however, I would like to turn to the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Mr. Wolf, for any opening remarks 

that he would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, we 

welcome you to Committee, we look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General. 

TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER

Mr. HOLDER. Good afternoon, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking 

Member Wolf, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

Today it is my privilege to discuss the President’s Department of 

Justice budget for fiscal year 2011, and to provide an update on the 

Justice Department’s progress, top priorities, and future plans. 

But first let me thank you for your ongoing support of the Department’s work and your recognition of its essential role in protecting our Nation’s people, as well as our highest principles. 

When I met with this Subcommittee last April, I pledged that 

under my leadership the Justice Department would vigorously pursue a specific and critical set of objectives—combating terrorism, 

fighting crime, and enforcing our laws in a neutral and in a nonpartisan way—and reinvigorate the Department’s commitment to 

integrity, transparency, and results. 

I believe we are on the right path to achieving these goals. Although unprecedented challenges and new demands have emerged, 

our key priorities remain clear, and ensuring the safety of the 

American people continues to be our paramount responsibility. 

Over the last year, we have enhanced our national security programs and capabilities. We have also strengthened efforts to protect our environment, as well as our most vulnerable communities. 

We have reinvigorated our mission to safeguard civil rights in our 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
4 

workplaces, our housing markets, our voting booths, as well as our 

border areas. And as part of our focus on securing our economy and 

combating mortgage and financial fraud, the Department is now 

spearheading the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force that 

President Obama launched last year. 

The President’s budget request of $29 billion demonstrates a 

strong commitment to the Justice Department’s key priorities. Now 

let me assure you that in distributing and using these funds we 

will think carefully and we will think strategically and we will act 

to ensure accountability as well as transparency. 

As you have seen, the President’s budget requests $300 million 

in program increases to help strengthen national security and to 

counter the threat of terrorism. These resources will enable us to 

expand on the progress that we have made in the last year. Due 

to the vigilance of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, 

we have succeeded in identifying and averting plots against the 

Nation, some known to the public, many not, including one of the 

most serious threats since September the 11th of 2001. A few 

weeks ago Najibullah Zazi, the mastermind behind a plot to bomb 

New York City’s subway system, pleaded guilty to three criminal 

charges. Four others have also been charged as a result of our investigation. This attempted attack on our homeland, on our most 

populated city, was real, it was in motion, and it would have been 

deadly. But because of careful analysis by our intelligence agents 

and prompt actions by law enforcement, we were able to thwart a 

potential disaster as we have repeatedly done over the last year. 

Just last month, again in New York City, Aafia Siddiqui, a 

United States trained Pakistani physicist, was convicted of attempted murder and armed assault. She had shown a clear intent 

to kill Americans, and at the time of her arrest possessed documents that referred to a ‘‘mass casualty attack’’ and listed specific 

locations, including the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, and the Brooklyn Bridge. 

And last week in Philadelphia, an American citizen was charged 

with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and to 

commit murder overseas. 

Now these recent cases remind us that terrorists’ methods are 

evolving, as are the types of individuals involved in terrorist activities. We face a serious, capable, and determined enemy in the war 

that we are fighting. This underscores why the Justice Department 

must have the capacity to respond effectively and to respond quickly, and our actions over the past year, I believe, provide evidence 

that we are making significant advancements in combating these 

threats. 

Now despite this recent progress, however, we cannot become 

complacent, and we must not, and we will not, lose focus in our efforts to bring terrorists to justice. 

Now, I realize that there are different views on how best to approach this work. This is a very legitimate and robust conversation 

that we should have about it, but we cannot allow the politics of 

fear to drive us apart. Facts, facts, not fear, must be the basis of 

all our discussions. Now, more than ever, the American people deserve this. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
5 

Again, we are at war and we must use every instrument in our 

power, including the full scope of our military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic capabilities to win this war, but in the 

pursuit of victory we must not turn our backs on what has made 

our Nation an example to all the world. 

Today our challenge is not only to remain safe, but also to be 

true to our heritage, true to our principles, and true to our best 

selves. This is the Justice Department’s most urgent and most essential work. 

Once again, I thank you again for supporting us. I look forward 

to continue to work with this Subcommittee and also with Congress, and I would be glad to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
6 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 56795A.001
7 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 56795A.002
8 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 56795A.003
9 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 56795A.004
10 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 56795A.005
11 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 56795A.006
12 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 56795A.007
13 

DISPOSITION OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

I would like to inform the Subcommittee that Mr. Wolf and I will 

take 20 minutes at the beginning of our questioning, and the rest 

of the Subcommittee on first round will have 10 minutes. That 

should get us into a second round, and we will see what kind of 

time we have after that. I think that gives each myself and Mr. 

Wolf an opportunity to explore questions, and then for the Subcommittee likewise to have plenty of time to explore follow-up 

questions. 

So Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your statement. 

The President’s executive order on the closure of the detention 

facilities at Guantanamo Bay required a review of the status of 

each detainee in order to determine whether that detainee should 

be transferred, prosecuted, or placed in continuing detention. DOJ 

was tasked with coordinating that review. Mr. Attorney General, 

which other agencies were involved in making the recommendations and decisions about which suspects to transfer, which to prosecute, and which to detain? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, in addition to the Department of Justice, the 

Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department 

of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff were involved. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When those agencies actually sat down to make 

decisions, after the process that they went through to arrive at 

those decisions, were those votes unanimous? 

Mr. HOLDER. When the principals of those agencies met to make 

final determinations with regard to the disposition of the 240 detainees, all of the decisions were unanimous. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What were the criteria the task force members 

used to inform their recommendations? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, first and foremost, we focused on national security in deciding if a person could be released and where that person might be transferred. National security was always our primary concern. We looked at a person’s history, the person’s possibility for future violence, and also had to take into consideration 

trying to repatriate certain people, whether or not they could be 

transferred to their home countries out of concern that if they went 

there they might be abused. So it was a mix of those factors that 

led to the decisions that we made. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General, do the detainees have access to habeas corpus? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, they do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All of them? 

Mr. HOLDER. I don’t think all have filed habeas petitions at this 

point, but they certainly have that right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Have some detainees actually filed habeas corpus petitions? 

Mr. HOLDER. Some have, and some, as a result of their habeas 

petitions, have been released. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In the last administration, this administration, 

or both? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
14 

Mr. HOLDER. I believe that is true with regard to the last administration as well. I don’t have specific figures, but the habeas process has been going on for some time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How are you handling those cases? 

Mr. HOLDER. We have a dedicated crew of lawyers headed by the 

head of our civil division, Tony West. They have tried about 50 habeas cases. We have people coming from around the country, in addition to Washington, D.C.—Justice Department lawyers and lawyers from other organizations—to help put these cases together and 

then to try them before judges here in the District of Columbia. 

DECIDING ON A FORUM FOR PROSECUTIONS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General, deciding between the 

military and civilian forums for trial has caused a lot of consternation in the political community. I know that we have a history with 

regard to that through several administrations. Once the task force 

that you have just described decided which individuals would be referred for prosecution, there was a subsequent process set up to 

make the charging decisions for each detainee. This process has 

been the source of some of the most vigorous Guantanamo-related 

debate. There are a significant number of individuals who are opposed to even the consideration of holding detainee trials in Article 

III courts. These individuals advocate for holding any of these 

trials in a military commission. 

We have held a number of terrorist trials in Article III courts, 

have we not? Through various administrations, Democratic and Republican? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, that is true. I mean, your opening remarks 

were accurate. There are approximately 300 people or so who are 

in our Federal prison system now as a result of their movement 

through the Article III system. I believe in the last administration 

there were about 150–160 trials or so in the Article III courts. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It appears that the Administration may be openly considering the possibility of moving the 9/11 trials into a military setting. Is that an indication of a change in the Administration’s overall policy? 

Mr. HOLDER. No, I wouldn’t say so. We remain committed to 

using all of the tools that we have in trying to win this war, and 

that means trying people in Article III courts, and trying people in 

military commissions. When I announced my decision to try Khalid 

Sheikh Mohammed in an Article III court, on the same day, and 

actually during the same announcement, I indicated that five or six 

detainees were going to be tried in military commissions. And so 

certain cases are more appropriate in Article III courts, and certain 

ones in military commissions, and one of the things that this Administration wants to retain is the ability to use our discretion to 

try these detainees in the appropriate forums. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well why should we keep open the option of civilian Article III prosecution for these terrorist suspects? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I think one can look at the history of what 

we have had in Article III courts. They are tested. We have tried 

a number of these cases in Article III courts; they are secure. We 

have tried these cases in a safe manner. We have the ability to get 

our secret information through the Classified Information ProtecVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
15 

tion Act (CIPA). Our allies around the world support us in bringing 

these cases in Article III courts. We have the ability to disrupt and 

to detain people through the long sentences that we get out of Article III courts. 

We also have, and I think very significantly, have the opportunity through the Article III court system to get cooperation from 

people who are charged there and who do not want to face either 

long sentences or the prospect of serving significant amounts of 

time in our super max facilities. We saw from Zazi, from Headley, 

from Abdulmutallab, people who cut deals so that they would have 

an ability to share information, intelligence that we wanted so that 

they could receive some favorable treatment. 

And then I think lastly one of the things that you can clearly do 

in an Article III court that you cannot so clearly do in a military 

commission is accept a guilty plea in a capital case. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It seems to me, looking at it as a lawyer, that 

there are a lot of tools in a civilian court that the court has to manage not only the process of the trial, but also the decorum of the 

defendant. That seems to be a real concern, that defendants in 

these courts will take the opportunity to propagandize. 

Mr. HOLDER. That is actually a very good point, Mr. Chairman, 

and one I think there is a misperception that somehow or another 

if we have a trial in an Article III court this will become a forum 

for these defendants to spout their hateful language, their propaganda. And if one compares the way in which these defendants are 

treated in military commissions as opposed to Article III courts, 

that is anything but the truth. 

In the case that I mentioned before involving Siddiqui, she was 

in an Article III court in New York City and she was in her trial 

for one day. The judge determined that she was a disruptive influence, that she was trying to disrupt the proceedings, and she was 

removed from that courtroom and watched her own trial from outside the courtroom. 

I think what we have seen, in military commissions certainly 

with regard to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, long speeches about a 

whole variety of nonsensical things, but the judges there I think 

don’t feel as comfortable in removing or clamping down on a defendant who is trying to do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is involved, Mr. Attorney General, in the 

process of deciding which detainees will be tried in a civilian court 

and which might be tried in a military commission? 

Mr. HOLDER. It is ultimately my decision in consultation with the 

Secretary of Defense. We have a protocol that we have put together 

and that we use because these are national security determinations. The President is consulted as well. But there is, as I said, 

a protocol that has been worked on and that the Secretary of Defense and I apply in making determinations. The decision is ultimately mine, but as I said, it also involves consultation with the 

President. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You may have already touched on this, but I 

would like for you to elaborate because I think it is important for 

the Committee and it is important for the overall debate. There 

must be circumstances where the criteria you use suggests a military commission would be the best forum. Could you elaborate on 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
16 

that a little bit? What is going through your mind? What are the 

criteria being used as these decisions are being made, ultimately 

by you? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well on the same day that I announced the decision 

to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in an Article III court in New 

York, I made the determination that a man named Nashiri would 

be tried in a military commission. He is one of the people responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole. A military target was involved, the casualties were brave sailors, military men, and that is 

one of the distinctions that we made. 

There are rules of evidence that exist in the military commissions that are more favorable towards the acceptance of hearsay 

evidence. You have to look at these cases individually, and on a 

case-by-case determination, make the decision as to where the case 

can be best tried. And it doesn’t mean that you are being unfair, 

I think, to the defendant, you are simply looking at the forum that 

really best suits the particular facts of each case. And military commissions certainly play a role with the modifications, the amendments, that were done to the military commissions a couple of 

years ago. I think those are fine places in which these cases can 

actually be tried. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about the question of national security 

concerns? Does that enter into these decisions? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes although I think not to the degree that some 

of the critics of my earlier decision have indicated. Concerns about 

the leaking of information, the protection of national security secret 

sources and methods can be equally accomplished in Article III 

courts as they can in military commissions. In fact, the system that 

is in place in the military commissions to protect secrets is actually 

based on CIPA, the Act Classified Information Protection, which 

has been in effect for an extended period of time in the Article III 

system. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do you respond to the argument that holding trials in a civilian court will give detainees that public forum? 

You really have already spoken to that, but do you have anything 

else to add on that? That has been a really major criticism. Not 

only protecting against an outburst, but also the security aspects 

of trying in an Article III court. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well I mean, as I said, there are Article III judges 

who are familiar with disruptive defendants, not only in a terrorism context, but in other cases as well. Article III judges are 

used to dealing with people like this and know how to deal with 

them. And as I said, I look back to that very recent case that concluded two or three weeks ago in New York. The defendant there 

was appropriately treated given the way in which she conducted 

herself during her trial. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about the concerns of Members of Congress about disruption to their communities, and even the safety of 

the courts holding such trials in local communities? Can you speak 

to that? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I can understand how people would ask those 

questions, and I think my answer to that would be to look at history and look at the way in which these cases have been conducted 

safely, without incident to neighborhoods and communities that 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
17 

surround the courthouses where these cases have been held. We 

tried Mr. Moussaoui in the eastern district of Virginia just across 

the river—I think in Mr. Moran’s district or close to Mr. Wolf’s district. We have tried cases of this nature in all parts of our country, 

always without incident because of the experience that we have, 

the training that our Marshals Service goes through—the work 

that they do with their state and local partners to prepare for these 

trials. It sometimes involves the closing of streets and sometimes 

causes disruptions, but at the end of the day, these cases have always been held in a safe manner. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Finally, Attorney General Holder, there is the 

concern or the argument made that holding trials in civilian courts 

somehow affords detainees too many rights. As a lawyer, I have always wondered about those arguments, but I would like very much 

to hear you speak to that concern. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I am really glad you asked me that question, 

because that is one that tends to get my blood boiling. The notion 

that a defendant in an Article III court is somehow being treated 

in an inappropriate, special way, that he is being coddled is anything but the truth. A person charged with murder, many of these 

defendants are, these defendants charged with murder are treated 

just like any other murder defendant would be. The comparison 

that they are getting more rights than the average American citizen is not an apt one. The question is, are they being treated as 

murderers would be treated? And the answer to that question is 

yes. They have the same rights that a Charles Manson would have, 

or any other kind of mass murderer. Those are the comparisons 

that people should be making when trying to make the determination about how terrorists are being treated and not compare them 

to average citizens who create no harm, and who have committed 

no crimes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is it true, and I have heard this argument in 

counter to that concern, that defendants in military tribunals, 

many of whom are our service personnel, that the rights are 

skewed in favor of the defendants in a military commission environment? Is that correct or incorrect? 

Mr. HOLDER. I am not sure I would say that they are skewed toward the defendant. I think that one of the things you do find, 

though, is that because of the lack of familiarity with these kinds 

of cases, there is a greater comfort in the Article III setting to be 

more, I don’t know if aggressive is the right word, but to be more 

strict in interacting with defendants than you perhaps see in the 

military commission setting. Which, again, is not to say that you 

cannot try successfully and appropriately these matters in military 

commissions. 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR HOLDING CIVILIAN TERRORIST TRIALS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General, with regard to choosing 

a specific venue for a civilian trial, your budget request includes 

$73 million for the first year costs of holding the 9/11 perpetrators 

trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York. Since 

the time the budget was finalized you have announced that the 

final choice of forum is still under consideration and could theoretically change. If we accept recent news reports at face value, and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
18 

you have spoken to this, in fact, it appears possible that the 9/11 

trials will ultimately be held in a military setting. 

When a final determination has been made on a forum for these 

trials, will you submit a budget amendment to reflect any new cost 

estimates? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, we would. The money that we have sought for 

the potential trials I think would probably be appropriate almost 

regardless of where the trial would be held. If, however, we end up 

in a venue where the costs are substantially less than what is included in our budget, we would come back to this Committee and 

seek to amend. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Another budget we are concerned about is with 

regard to prison requirements. Would any such budget amendment 

affect your request, which I believe is for $107 million, to acquire 

and renovate the prison at Thomson, Illinois? Is your budget request for the Thomson acquisition and renovation at all contingent 

or dependent upon the ultimate disposition of these terrorist trials 

and the location of the suspects? 

Mr. HOLDER. No, not at all. Our budget requests money to acquire two facilities, one in Berlin, New Hampshire, and one in 

Thomson, Illinois. The Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department have a great interest in acquiring these new facilities at a 

cost substantially smaller than we would incur if we built these 

new facilities, and our interest in Thomson exists irrespective of 

whether or not any detainees from Guantanamo ever set foot there. 

That is a place that can be used as a, I believe, maximum security 

facility, and one that the Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department would like to acquire regardless of what happens with regard 

to the detainees at Guantanamo. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Finally, Mr. Attorney General, is the Administration committed to paying for costs that might be imposed on 

local communities in any given venue? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. I think what I said on the day of the announcement is that the trials of these matters are not local trials. 

On September 11th, though the buildings fell in New York, although the Pentagon was hit, and although there was a crash in 

Pennsylvania, all of this country was impacted, all of this country 

was affected, and these are truly national trials. As a result, it 

seems to me that there should be a national responsibility in paying the bills that these trials would generate. It is unfair that the 

local communities wherever these cases might be tried should bear 

a disproportionate share for what in essence, as I said, are national 

crimes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wolf. 

TRIALS OF THE 9/11 PERPETRATORS

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Simon and Garfunkel had 

this song, the Boxer, and it says man hears what he wants to hear 

and disregards the rest, and to a large degree I think there is a 

little bit of that taking place here. Without debating all of these 

issues I would like to put in the record a number of articles and 

position papers by Andy McCarthy and a group of other lawyers 

that really go to the heart of a lot of the answers that you have 

actually provided. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
19 

The difference of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, beheaded Daniel Pearl, mastermind for the 9/11 3,000 people, Moussaoni was in 

Alexandria for four years and there was not the patent and Trademark office, there was not the hotel, and so the circumstances are 

different. 

Secondly, the cost for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, 

if he were there for three years, the figures that we have gotten 

from New York City and also the briefing, reimbursement of $206 

million a year for the City of New York Police Department. We 

have also gotten the briefing in the Marshals Service for the airplane they were going to buy and the cars rounding out to about 

a billion dollars to try him there. So a little bit of a different kind 

of thoughts. 

The second thing is there are major differences, and the Administration and my good friend the Chairman talk about the process. 

To release six people back to Yemen when you are mortaring 

Yemen at that very moment, to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula 

was really a bad idea. We are getting reports that one of them may 

have gone back. 

Also the Administration released two Somaliland, and I have 

been to Somalia, there is no government there, and so to put two 

people back into Somalia and back into Al-Qaeda in the Arabian 

Peninsula, the government of Yemen controls basically the capital 

of Yemen and not much outside. 

So we spoke to the White House, without mentioning names, one 

day they say we are pushing ahead, and days later when this thing 

blew up they said we are going to stop it. 

But there were some problems, and I had a problem, and I don’t 

want to take too much time of it, but you were going to release several Guantanamo Bay people, the Uighurs into our congressional 

area, whether it be in my district or adjoining, and your people 

came up to my office at this time last year, asked me at a hearing, 

please don’t ask the Attorney General Holder that question, and 

out of respect, because I thought there could be some consultation 

that you were going to—I didn’t ask the question, because I don’t 

it is appropriate for members to do a ‘‘got you’’ type thing. We 

never asked that and then we got calls from several people in the 

Administration at the low level saying they are coming to northern 

Virginia here and who is coming. 

So there has been a pretty strong difference on a lot of these 

issues, and so I will just put a number of things in the record without us debating it. 

But I do want the record to show in 1942 in the midst of World 

War II German saboteurs arrested in New York and Florida were 

arrested by the FBI, but transferred to the military custody for 

trial. Franklin Roosevelt rightly treated these agents as war criminals and not common civilian criminals. 

And we are at war, you said that earlier. And I think if you talk 

to most of the family members, not every family member, but if you 

talk to most of them and you look to a lot of people they believe 

that this trial ought to be in a military court. 

Now when will you be making a decision on the Khalid Sheikh 

Mohammed issue wherever you are going to make the decision, 

when do you expect that to come out? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
20 

Mr. HOLDER. I think that we are weeks away from making that 

determination. I don’t think we are talking about months. I think 

we are probably weeks away. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. On the difference between civilian and military, 

the Pentagon as you know very well is a military—it is the center, 

the heart beat of the military system in the United States, and 

there were military people killed, so you could have used the same 

argument with regard to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried in 

a military court as you did in the other one because there were 

people wearing the American uniform and it was the Pentagon 

where most of our military generals are. 

The other thing is, I sent a letter, and we just have a hard time 

getting answers from the Administration. There are going to be difference of opinions, and I think respectful if you ask me—if you call 

me I will try to get you anything I can. You ask me a question and 

if I don’t have it I am going to get you the answer, and if I can’t 

tell you I am going to give you a date when I tell you. And I say 

publicly, call me and I will try to cooperate in every way possible. 

But we can never get any kind of cooperation. From the Uighur 

issue we were not able to get any cooperation. 

We got a letter from your department at 11 o’clock last night. 

There was nobody in my office at 11 o’clock last night. That is sort 

of a got you way to sort of clean the decks before you come up here, 

and it is not a very good way. 

REINSTITUTING THE 9/11 COMMISSION

I sent a letter back in January asking the Administration to 

bring back the 9/11 Commission. Lee Hamilton had expressed support, I was the author of the Iraq study group, we asked Secretary 

Baker and Congressmen Hamilton, they did a great job. I can’t get 

an answer. Will the Administration bring back the 9/11 Commission to take a look at where we are today, what recommendations 

were adopted, what ones were not adopted, and what ones were not 

adopted by the Congress that should have been adopted and then 

go away after six months? But I have had the request in since January 12th and I just can’t get any response. Do you have any 

thought? Will the Administration bring back the 9/11 Commission 

per my request? And I think Lee Hamilton wants that to happen 

too. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I am not familiar with what the decision 

might be by the President, but I think one of the things that 

strikes me is that the 9/11 Commission did a great job. It exhausted hearings with a specific set of recommendations. I think 

that almost any objective observer can look at that report, compare 

those recommendations to where the past Administration was, 

where this Administration is, and make a determination. 

Mr. WOLF. Correctly though, but they have the expertise, and I 

called Congressman Hamilton and he thought it would be a good 

idea to come back to six months. Not the whole 9/11 Commission, 

but he and the governor of New Jersey to come back and look and 

see—because they have the history of what they said and what was 

adopted and had whatnot. I think that would make the country 

safer. I think it would be a good thing. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
21 

So I guess the answer is you are not sure if they are going to 

bring it back. 

Mr. HOLDER. Yeah, again, I am not sure from my own perspective. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I was just trying to get an answer. If I can’t 

get an answer. 

Secondly we asked that they put together a ‘‘Team B’’ made up 

of Bruce Hoffman and a group of outstanding people, bipartisan, 

outside of government to sort of look at the same circumstances to 

sort of see where we are, that what we are doing today to fight terrorism is everything that we should be doing. The request was 

bring in Bruce Hoffman to head up team B. I can’t get an answer. 

Do you know what? Is there anything interest in the Administration in responding to bringing back a team B approach? 

Mr. HOLDER. I have to tell you that again, we have good people, 

experienced people who have dedicated their lives to doing the very 

things that they are doing in very high-responsibility positions in 

the National Security Council in our Armed Forces, and I have 

great faith in the decisions that they make. And I am not sure that 

outsiders are necessarily needed. 

Mr. WOLF. Well a lot of people think it would be a pretty good 

idea. 

Thirdly, I asked that the Administration have the TSA administrator be a set term similar to the director of the FBI, between five 

administrators in six years. Any thought about them doing anything with regard to that? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well one thing I would certainly call on is for the 

Senate to confirm a TSA administrator before we start talking 

about limiting the terms. 

Mr. WOLF. Well you can certainly confirm this gentleman for the 

set term. But we have had five in the last six years, and to bring 

a continuity I think director Mueller has done a pretty good job, 

and that it is been a pretty good system. And so any thought of 

doing that? 

Mr. HOLDER. Again, that is not something about which I have 

had any conversations with people in the Administration. 

THE HIGH VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Lastly, I have asked that the HIG, the high 

value interrogation team, be located not where they have gone 

which put them away from the National Counter Terrorism Center, 

but they be located at the National Counter Terrorism Center. And 

I know that comes under you to a certain degree. What is the 

thought of the recommendation of made for that? The letter has 

been two and a half months there asking that HIG be co-located 

at the Counter Terrorism Center so you have the breaking down 

of the stove pipes there, they are all together. What about that? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I mean, the HIG is to be housed at the FBI, 

and—— 

Mr. WOLF. No, the HIG is not at the FBI. The HIG is out in Virginia. They have signed the lease at a building not near the FBI. 

I know where the building is. I have asked that the co-location of 

the HIG be with the Counter Terrorism Center directly there with 

the Counter Terrorism Center so that there is the exchange of inVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
22 

formation. That is the whole purpose of the center, to break down 

the barriers so FBI and CIA are talking to one another. 

Since this is your responsibility, what about the recommendation 

has been made as you co-locate the HIG at the Counter Terrorism 

Center? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I think the question is not necessarily physical proximity as much as it is having communication between the 

HIG and the variety of governmental entities that it needs to be 

in touch with. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. But it is physical proximity, that is the whole 

purpose of the Counter Terrorism Center. That is why the walls 

were broken down and they put everybody together. That was the 

whole purpose of it. 

Mr. HOLDER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. Any way. Okay. 

Mr. HOLDER. But the HIG, by its nature, draws together people 

from other agencies, co-locates them, gets them ready to go out 

there. 

Mr. WOLF. And that is what the Counter Terrorism Center does, 

and that is why they are there. Any way the answer to that is 

probably not? 

Mr. HOLDER. I think we have co-location. That is what I am trying to say. 

Mr. WOLF. No, they are not. They signed a lease in a building, 

which I can tell you about, not near there. And I am asking that 

they be located there. You have the DNI there, you have Leiter 

there, you have the whole team there, that is where it makes 

sense. And everyone that I have talked to off the record thinks it 

should be there, and I have made the request that it be there, and 

I am just try to go get an answer. Since it comes under you will 

you co-locate it and put it there? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I will certainly take that recommendation 

into consideration. But as I said, the fact is that the HIG is a 

multi-agency entity, and the fact of its existence means that there 

is co-location, wherever the larger entity is actually placed. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. That is probably a maybe, I don’t know. 

JOHN ADAMS PROJECT

John Adams project. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Department of Justice officials refuse to share CIA concerns in a briefing for the President with regard to the consequences of the ACLU’s John Adams Project which hired photographers to track down CIA officers, and many who probably live in 

my district, and share their photos and personal information with 

alleged terrorists at Guantanamo. Is this report accurate? Were the 

CIA concerns included in their briefing to the president? And if not, 

why? 

Mr. HOLDER. If you are talking about the Washington Times report—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I am talking about the John Adams Project. 

Yes, I am talking about that, but the information whereby that was 

not put in there as they requested the CIA. 

Mr. HOLDER. Right. Well the Times article is riddled with inaccuracies. There is only so much I can say about that because there 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
23 

is an ongoing investigation into the core of what was at that Times 

article. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I haven’t found much of what you have said 

today really in response to the legitimate questions that we are trying to answer. You know in 1998 I came back from Algeria where 

175,000 people were killed, and the bombing took place in Nairobi 

and Tanzania, and people from my district died. 

I put in the bill to set up the National Commission on Terrorism, 

the Bremmer Commission, and the Bush Administration ignored it 

and so did the Clinton Administration. We are just trying to legitimately ask come questions. With everyone I have asked, there is 

not a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no’’ or ‘‘I will do this or we will report to you.’’ 

We just can’t seem—from the Uighurs straight onto the Yemen 

straight onto the Somaliland, we just can’t seem to find out any answers. 

And with all due respect, Mr. Attorney General, I don’t think you 

are served that well when whether it be Republican or Democrat 

asking an honest, legitimate, honest, ethical, moral question not 

trying to—and I respect you. I am not trying to create a problem, 

I am just trying to get to the answer. 

You know, 30 people from my district died in the attack on the 

Pentagon. Michael Spawn, a CIA employee who was killed, the first 

person killed, I went to his funeral out at Arlington Cemetery. He 

was from my district. I am just trying to find out. The pilot of the 

airplane that went into the Pentagon was from my district. We are 

trying to get to work in a bipartisan way to really do what is best 

for the country and not in a ‘‘got you’’ way, but to make a difference 

to make the country safe. But I haven’t had any answers, and I 

can’t get an answer out of your department. 

The letter you sent up the other day you said references this letter, this letter, this letter, this letter, this is the answer and there 

is no answer. Let me move on. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well with all due respect, with regard to the responses that we have sent up there, there are more letters that you 

have sent to us, there are fewer responses that we have sent back, 

but I think the responses that we have sent back do, in fact, answer all of the things that are contained in the letters that you 

have sent to me. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, with respect, I don’t think that is accurate. 

What I will do is I will put my letters in the record at this point 

and your two letters in the record and the history can make a 

judge as to whether that is accurate. 

[Clerks note.—Letters can be found following QFR responses.] 

DELAYS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION

ACT

Congress unanimously passed, it was my bill, with former Senator Kennedy, the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 in recognition of the urgent need to address the crisis of sexual abuse in U.S. 

correction facilities. 

The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission spent more 

than five years holding public hearings and drafting recommended 

national standards. The law requires that you issue a final rule 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
24 

making binding standards by June 23rd of 2010, one year after the 

Commission issued its recommendations. 

You are not going to make that, and prison rape is a serious 

problem, particularly with regard to young people, but anyone, and 

I can’t understand why you would have not followed through. We 

had the commission, we had the recommendation, we had everything set up. And now what is the status? Will there be a final ruling or what is the status of that? 

And lastly the question that troubles me, the budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes a $10 million reduction in prison rape 

elimination related funding leaving just 5 million for efforts to address sexual violence in detention. And I think to have a rape of 

a person who goes to prison is unacceptable, and Senator Kennedy 

had that in, and Bobby Scott and I did, and we expect this to be 

implemented now to protect people that are in prison. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I mean, I share your concerns about the sexual mistreatment of people who go to prison. I was a judge, I sent 

people to prison, and I would never want to think that anybody I 

sent to prison to serve time would have to deal with the things that 

that Commission uncovered. 

One of the things that I would note is that the Commission was 

given two years in order to make its findings; we were given one 

year in which to then implement them. We are doing the best that 

we can. I have met with the Commission on, I think, three occasions at this point, I have met with the chairman of that Commission, Judge Walton. We want to make sure that we get this right 

and also follow the dictates of the statute, which says change this 

situation, make sure that you eliminate, to the extent that you can, 

sexual predator activity in prisons, but not increase the amount of 

money that any local jurisdiction has to spend in order do that. 

It is not an easy task, and we will not make that one year deadline, but we will do this as quickly as we can. And the fact that 

we will not make that deadline is not in any way an indication this 

is not a problem that we take seriously. 

I have experience with this in a way that, you know, others do 

not. I have, as I said, sent people to jail, and I know what happens 

in our prisons. I know the people who I sent to Lorton before that 

facility was closed and what they had to deal with there, and it 

weighed on my conscience as a judge, it weighs on my conscience 

as Attorney General, and I am determined to try to do this, but to 

do it in the right way. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I helped close down Lorton because of that very, 

very reason. But you are reducing your budget for fiscal year 2011 

includes a 10 million reduction in the funding for the program, 

leaving just 5 million. 

So you can say you were a judge and you are interested, but the 

reduction sends the wrong message. I mean, you are known by 

your budget in essence, and that is sort of the landmark. 

Any way, move. Every time, every delay—and if you have been 

reading the series of articles that have gone on, prison rape is a 

serious problem, and another long delay will mean more people will 

face this in prison. And I am disappointed in the fact that you have 

reduced the funding for something that you say you are interested 

in. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
25 

Well the last question. 

Mr. HOLDER. But we have to deal with a deadline that with all 

due respect, that I think was artificially short given the fact that 

you gave two years to the Commission to do its work and only one 

year to the Department to effectuate the findings of that Commission. 

Mr. WOLF. Because the Department drug its heels on this issue 

and didn’t want to deal with this issue, so we brought some of the 

best minds in to look at this to give them adequate time. 

Right now the Department should have enough information to 

move ahead. People are being raped in prison every day, every day. 

Today by the end of the day someone will be—that will happen to 

them, and so to push this off for another year is unacceptable, and 

to reduce your funding at the same time. 

The last question. 

Mr. HOLDER. I will do what the statute says that we have to do, 

we will do it right, but let me just say one thing. The degree to 

which we measure seriousness, if you want to say it is about 

money, I have to wonder, what was it that drove this body to say 

you have the responsibility to make these changes, to make sure 

these changes occur, and yet it cannot have a cost impact. 

When I speak to wardens, when I speak to people who run local 

jails, when I speak to people who run state facilities, they look at 

me and they say, ‘‘Eric, how are we supposed to do this if we are 

going to segregate people, build new facilities, and do training, how 

are we supposed to do this?’’ And that is what we are trying to 

work out—ways in which we can follow the dictates of the statute 

and do something that is going to be meaningful, not something 

that is going to simply be, you know, a show thing, something that 

is going to have a measurable impact. 

Mr. WOLF. I know, you know, but we put the legislation in because we talked to people that it happened to, and it is not a show 

thing, it is a real thing, it is a reality thing. And Senator Kennedy 

felt strongly about it, Bobby Scott felt strongly about it, and I feel 

strongly about it. 

Mr. HOLDER. As do I. 

Mr. WOLF. You came up to me last year, you came up and you 

said we are working on this and we are going to deal with this. Another whole year has gone by. 

Any way, I have no more question with regard to that issue. I 

yield back. 

Mr. HOLDER. Let me just on the record say that I feel as serious 

about it as you do, and my comment was only directed at the fact 

that you are taking note of a fact that we have reduced our funding 

here for that, and I was saying, you know, Congress in saying that 

this is something they were serious about, also said you can’t spend 

money in order to deal with the problem. That is what the law 

says. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 

here, Mr. Attorney General. 

At the outset I want to tell you how much I appreciate the job 

you are doing. I can’t imagine a more difficult time to be Attorney 

General. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
26 

Mr. HOLDER. Good timing on my part. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. Well having spent six years in the Department, 

with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in L.A., I have always had a great 

appreciation for the hard work being done in the Department, and 

I know it has been a rough decade for the Department, and I think 

in addition to all the challenges as a policy matter that you face, 

you also have the challenge of turning around morale in a department that had, I think, suffered during the last administration, 

and been overly politicized during the last administration. 

I think your immediate predecessor did a good job in trying to 

turn that around, and you are doing a great job in continuing the 

rebuilding of the Department, and I appreciate that. 

CIVILIAN TERRORISM TRIALS

The issue of how to deal with the detainees, I know, is one of the 

most difficult and vexing, and I appreciate the seriousness and 

thoughtfulness you have brought to this task. I think in reviewing 

case by case, every detainee that is exactly what we should want 

to view, and that is exactly what you have been doing. If there 

were easy answers to these questions they would have been decided a long time ago, but these are issues of first impression legally and things that we haven’t been challenged with really or 

faced in this context ever. 

You can say there have been prior cases like the prosecution of 

Nazi saboteurs during World War II, but comparing World War II 

to the kind of amorphous, countryless, stateless terrorism that we 

face now is I think really such a different environment. We are 

really comparing apples to oranges. And I appreciate your effort to 

tone down the volume, to take the politics out of it. 

I despair frankly when I see the Justice Department attacked for 

the same thing the last administration did in terms of repatriating 

detainees when there were no attacks on the last administration 

for doing that or attacks on your department for arresting a suspect or Mirandizing a suspect like the Christmas day bomber when 

the shoe bomber was given exactly the same treatment. 

That smacks to me of not a policy-driven search for what is the 

best approach, but rather a political process, but you have, I think, 

done a great job in staying focused on your mission. 

I don’t really understand, I think, some of the hyperbole that has 

surrounded the detainee issue in the sense that people are arguing 

that we should never try another terrorism case in the federal 

courts. The Oklahoma City bombers who blew up a federal building 

were tried in a civilian court. The people in the Justice Department 

then, as the people in the Justice Department now, work night and 

day and weekend and all of the above trying to bring these people 

to justice and put them away or seek the death penalty. That is 

what they should be doing, that is what they are doing. They are 

not out there to coddle criminals. And I don’t think we can adopt 

a blanket policy of never trying a terrorist in a civilian court. That 

would say that all terrorism cases are the same, and of course they 

are not. 

So I think what we need to do is really what the Department is 

doing, and that is looking at each case and asking what is the nature of this case, who is the defendant, where do they come from, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
27 

what was the goal of the attack, where did the evidence derive 

from, what is the public purpose to be served by trying it in a public civilian forum, a criminal court’s forum, or a military forum? 

And those are tough decisions to make, but they can’t be made in 

a vacuum, they can’t be made, frankly, by the Congress trying to 

decide without the benefit of knowing where the evidence was deprived or many other factors about the case. 

I mean, I think you have two paradigms. You have the troop who 

is arrested in the field, on the field of battle, and the paradigm 

there is they get tried in a military forum, if they get tried at all. 

They may just get detained as an unlawful belligerent for the duration of this conflict. 

The other paradigm is when you arrest an American citizen on 

American soil, and I think that those are sort of the polar opposites, and even those cases these may not be uniform treatment. 

You may decide to try someone arrested on the battlefield in a 

courtroom, and you may decide to try an American in a military 

setting, but I don’t think one size fits all now, I don’t think it ever 

will. And so I appreciate the thoughtfulness you are bringing to 

that challenge. 

One thing I think we have to recognize is that there is no free 

lunch in leaving GITMO the way it is or trying people in military 

commissions. As our military leaders have pointed out, GITMO has 

been a terrific recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda, and so balanced against 

the criticisms that have been raised about incarcerating some of 

the GITMO detainees in the United States we have to ask what is 

the cost of recruiting another 100 or a another 1000 people to AlQaeda because we still have a GITMO that is the subject of recruiting on Al-Qaeda web sites? 

So there is no free lunch. These are all going to be hard decisions, and I appreciate what you are doing. 

I am going to raise with you for the moment an important, but 

more mundane by comparison, topic and that is DNA. 

DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG

When we last had a chance to talk during your testimony your 

goal was to eliminate the backlog by this summer, and I would be 

interested to know how that is coming, whether we are still on 

track. You were bringing on new technologies to try to collect and 

upload into CODIS these samples and do it much quicker. So I 

want to ask you where we were on that? I think last year 38 of 

the 39 positions were filled, and I would be interested to know if 

those are filled and whether further staff increases are necessary 

to get to that goal of a zero backlog. 

The other related question I wanted to ask is about the technical 

review of DNA evidence. There are hundreds of jurisdictions obviously around the country dealing with backlogs of DNA profiles. In 

Los Angeles, LAPD and the sheriff’s department have backlogs of 

over 7,000 sexual assault kits. Both county and city have 

outsourced those kits to private labs that have the staff and equipment to handle that huge number in that amount of time. This has 

been partly successful in reducing or eliminating some of these 

backlogs, but there is a substantial question about whether there 

is a lot of waste in the effort. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
28 

And by that I mean last year I got half a million in funding with 

the help of the Chairman so that we could work on the LAPD backlog. They used it to hire people to do overtime, lab technicians to 

do technical review. Now these forensic scientists weren’t testing 

the evidence themselves, what they were doing was simply checking the work of other highly-trained scientists at the private labs, 

a step that FBI requires before these samples can be uploaded into 

CODIS. So you have the samples that may be cleaned up in the 

backlog, but before they can be uploaded into CODIS, if the sample 

is tested by a private lab, it has to be retested in a government lab. 

According to the director there though, there wasn’t a single error 

found in a technical review that would have resulted in any correct 

data going into CODIS. 

So the question that we have been looking into is, is this requirement of 100 percent review really desirable? Because it is responsible for a big chunk of delay and a big expense, and if it is not 

going to improve the quality, of what goes into CODIS, then you 

have got to ask why are we doing it? And even if there was a problem and a sample got incorrectly loaded into CODIS, you can have 

a requirement that before, let us say, there is a match made, before 

that is used in any way, if the sample is done by a private lab then 

there has to be the technical review. 

So if you could address those two subjects, where we are in the 

backlog and whether you are amenable to removing that requirement, of technical review, that would be great. 

Mr. HOLDER. Yeah, I think first with regard to the second thing 

that you raised, that we do need to find ways in which we can 

make this process as efficient as we can without giving up what the 

real value of the tool is, and that is the near scientific certainty of 

it. I think your suggestion is actually an interesting one about the 

possibility of dealing with those samples that come from private 

labs on which we get a hit and then retesting perhaps only those. 

That I think is an interesting idea that ought to be considered. 

Just kind of looking at the statistical information here, between 

2004 and 2009 the Department has provided to the states and 

units of local government about $300 million to perform DNA analysis requested for about 135,000 backlog forensic cases and to build 

DNA laboratory capacity, $53.8 million to eliminate existing backlog of DNA database samples, although 1.6 million DNA database 

samples have been analyzed, resulting in more than 15,000 CODIS 

hits. We have for fiscal year 2011 a $150 million DNA initiative to 

try to deal with the backlog and also deal with ways in which we 

can wring out from these very, very promising technology efficiencies. 

I think people often times think of DNA as only the thing that 

springs people who were unjustly accused of a crime, and it certainly has had that impact, but it is also a very, very important 

law enforcement tool that convicts people who have committed 

very, very serious crimes, and so it is something that I think has 

to be at the center of what I have come to call an evidence-based 

approach to criminal justice, and we have to do it in the right way, 

in an efficient way, but this is a good place for us to spend our 

money. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do you know, Mr. Attorney General, if you don’t I 

would love it if you could follow up though, are you on track to 

eliminate the backlog by the summer of this year? That was the 

goal last year. How is that coming, and if we are not on track what 

do we need to do to get on track? 

Mr. HOLDER. Okay. I do not know if we will have the backlog 

eliminated by this summer, but what I will do is get back to you 

at the conclusion of the hearing and give you a sense of where we 

stand if not by the end of this summer, a sense of when it is we 

think we will have that backlog eliminated. 

[The information follows:] 

STATUS OF ELIMINATING THE BACKLOG OF DNA DATABASE

The FBI is on track to eliminate the DNA backlog associated with Federal Convicted Offender Program by September 2010. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. And I also want to express our gratitude 

in California and the other border states for the SCAAP funding 

in the budget. It has been zeroed out by the last administration, 

you put in in excess of 300 million into the program, we of course 

would like and will push for more, but we are glad to see that program reappear in the Administration’s budget. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson. 

RIGHTS AFFORDED TO DEFENDANTS IN CIVILIAN TRIALS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Attorney General, for appearing before us. 

In response a moment ago to a question from the Chairman you 

said that terrorists have the same rights as Charles Manson, correct? 

Mr. HOLDER. I said that murderers have the same rights as 

Charles Manson, and if these people are charged with murder, in 

essence, those are the kinds of rights that they would get. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And terrorists who have murdered U.S. citizens 

and the approach of your Department of Justice is they have the 

same rights as Charles Manson. 

Mr. HOLDER. In a sense that a murderer has the right to go before a jury, get the acts that he is charged with proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt, yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So therefore Osama Bin Laden in your opinion 

has the same rights as Charles Manson? 

Mr. HOLDER. In some ways, I think they are comparable people. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is incredible. This is where the disconnect 

between this Administration and your mind set is so completely opposite that of where the vast majority of the American people are, 

where my constituents and I just have deep seeded a profound philosophical difference with the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, the leadership of this Congress. 

This is war. In a time of war we as a Nation have never given 

constitutional rights to foreign national, enemy soldiers certainly 

captures overseas. 

And Senator Lindsey Graham asked you this question, and I 

know you have had time to think about it, at the time he asked 

the question you couldn’t provide him with an example. Could you 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
30 

provide us with an example of when in time of war the United 

States has ever granted a foreign national captured on a foreign 

battlefield U.S. constitutional rights? Has that ever happened? 

Mr. HOLDER. You are dealing with a situation that is different 

from anything that we have ever before. Different from anything 

that we have ever before. We try to analogize this to wars where 

there were people in uniform, where you had signing ceremonies 

that ended declarations on battleships in Tokyo Harbor. This is not 

the kind of war that we are facing. And though we tried to analogize the tools and analogize the rules, they don’t necessarily apply 

the same way. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HOLDER. What Osama Bin Laden is responsible for are both, 

as I said, and I have consistently said, both acts of war and also 

criminal acts. And when I was referring to the Charles Manson 

analogy, that was just to talk about the rights that he had within 

a courtroom. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HOLDER. I understand that we are at war with Al-Qaeda, 

and that is why we have 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. HOLDER. And why we have taken all kinds of other measures, some of which I can’t talk about, in Pakistan. We are not 

fighting this from a law enforcement preventative mode, we are 

using law enforcement as one of the tools, but we are also using 

military means to defeat this enemy. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Which is why you support the Second Circuit 

Court’s decision in Padilla that the President lacks the authority 

to detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil. 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not clear at this point that the United 

States has the ability to, as the President tried to do in that case, 

hold incommunicado and without a lawyer an American citizen on 

American soil. What that brief said was that there are other tools 

that the Executive Branch has, and that it should make use of, in 

order to effectuate the neutralization and the incapacitation of that 

person as opposed to simply locking them away and not giving 

them a lawyer. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. HOLDER. Again, we are talking about American citizens on 

American soil. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. But the key is you said the President has 

other tools. The President is the Commander in Chief, and this is 

where the profound disconnect comes between where America is 

and where you are in this Administration and where this leadership of the Congress is. 

Mr. HOLDER. I would disagree with the characterization that 

there is a split between America and the leadership of this Administration. 

Mr. CULBERSON. There really is, because you saw it I think in 

the Massachusetts election, this was one of the key issues in the 

election of Scott Brown, is even the voters of Massachusetts, as liberal and different in their philosophical views as they are from my 

constituents in Texas, even the voters in Massachusetts underVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
31 

stand that Osama Bin Laden does not have the same rights as 

Charles Manson as you have just stated. 

Mr. HOLDER. I said that they only have the same rights within 

a courtroom. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. Well granting Osama Bin Laden the 

right to appear in a U.S. courtroom you are clothing Osama bin 

Laden with the protections of the U.S. Constitution. That is unavoidable, and something that you have skipped right past. 

Mr. HOLDER. Let us deal with reality here. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And it is giving constitutional rights to enemy 

soldiers that is the profound problem, sir. 

Mr. HOLDER. We are talking about a hypothetical that will never 

occur. The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the 

corpse of Osama Bin Laden. He will never appear in an American 

courtroom. That is a reality. That is a reality. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But it is clearly your position and the position 

of this Administration that you believe on a case by case basis, and 

your tendency would be to grant constitutional rights to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields. Has that ever been done before in U.S. history at a time of war? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I assume that you are a supporter of military 

commissions, is that correct? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Absolutely. In a time of war, yes, sir, I support 

what the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed when those German terrorists were captured, as Mr. Wolf said, on U.S. soil, they were lead 

off on the beaches of Florida and Long Island—— 

Mr. HOLDER. And yet even in those military commissions those 

people are given constitutional rights, are they not? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well they are in a military commission not 

clothed with all of the protections of the U.S. Constitution, they are 

treated by the military as enemy combatants captured at time of 

war. And the question is—— 

Mr. HOLDER. But they are not put up against a wall and shot. 

They have the ability to confront those who accuse them. They 

have the right to lawyers. They have many of the same constitutional rights. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Severely restricted rights, and the military tribunal is the problem. We are at war, and you don’t seem to recognize that we are at war just as though we were at war with the 

Germans in World War II, but the people who we’re fighting are 

such cowards they clothed themselves as women and hide behind 

children and hide in mosques as they did in the Gaza Strip, as they 

do in attacking us, and it is the President’s responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country, and the President has 

granted great discretion by the U.S. Supreme Court and as Commander-in-Chief deciding when and where to try these people. 

It was President Roosevelt’s decision that the German terrorists 

be tried in a military tribunal and not given the full protection of 

the Constitution. It was President Bush’s decision that foreign nationals captured in foreign battlefields not be tired in civilian court 

and given the full protection of the Constitution, because we are at 

war. And time lost in interrogating these people means lives lost. 

And it is one of the principal reasons actually when you looked at 

why Scott Brown won his race it is not only because the people of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
32 

Massachusetts opposed the President’s healthcare plan, but because this Administration consistently, and here once again today 

we now learn that you think Osama Bin Laden should be given the 

same rights as Charles Manson in a court of law, and that is just 

not acceptable to the people that I represent, to the people of America, and it represents a just profoundly different approach that has 

never been done before in the history of the country. 

Mr. HOLDER. What we have said and what I have said is that 

on a case by case basis you make the determination of where you 

can bring the strongest case. Where will I have the greatest chance 

of success? There are things that you can do in Article III courts 

that you cannot do in military commissions. You cannot have, for 

instance, cooperation agreements. That does not exist in a military 

commission. We have the ability to incarcerate people for extended 

periods of time. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. HOLDER. And one only has to look at what has happened 

through the use of the Article III courts over the course of the past 

year to see the plots that we have broken up and the intelligence 

that we have gathered, which has allowed our military to be more 

effective in the field. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOLDER. And that cannot be denied. That cannot be denied. 

It is where facts run into everything that you are saying. Facts. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well forgive me, my time is limited and your 

perspective—I respect your opinion, but it is one that I profoundly 

disagree with, and my constituents and the Nation I think overwhelming would disagree with you that enemy soldiers captured in 

time of war, particularly on foreign battlefields are not going to 

be—should not be given the protection of the U.S. Constitution, 

that they should be tried as enemy soldiers in military tribunals. 

That has been the history in this country, and the goal is to protect 

the people of the United States. And you know, your focus has been 

on when and where and what rights they should be given. 

If I could, I know my time is—— 

Mr. HOLDER. No, my focus is on how they are incapacitated, how 

they are disrupted, how they are punished, how they are held accountable. That is my focus. How do we bring these people to justice. Do I use Article III courts or do I use a military commission? 

I have used both in determinations that I have made. We are not 

afraid to use military commissions. 

PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION IN CIVILIAN

TRIALS

Mr. CULBERSON. If I could, because my time is limited, forgive 

me for interrupting, but a specific example, the Ahmed Ghailani 

case, he is being tried in New York. The Obama administration 

made the decision to try him as a foreign national in Pakistan, for 

the 1998 east Africa bombings. You made the decision to try him 

in civilian court. The first thing he did was file a motion to dismiss 

on the grounds that he was denied a speedy trial. And on February 

24th the District Court ordered the Department to turn over all 

documents relating to his detention at Guantanamo that would 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
33 

allow the defense to determine whether his detention or his delay 

in going to trial was actually based on national security grounds. 

And Mr. Chairman, the worry is that of course this information 

the Department turns over to him, any of that information they 

give to this guy’s lawyer is going to be scanned and broadcast on 

the Internet in a nanosecond. Of course it is. It is going to be 

broadcast in a nanosecond to our enemies overseas. So you have 

handed our enemies at time of war a powerful tool, very powerful 

information to use against our men and women in uniform, and 

that is one of the main concerns. 

Mr. HOLDER. All right. Now let us have a couple of facts here. 

There is a statute, the CIPA statute, that would prevent the dissemination of the information that you are talking about. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You can withhold things on national security 

grounds. 

Mr. HOLDER. Lawyers have to be cleared, they have to have security clearances. There are all kinds of measures that are put in 

place. 

With regard to Mr. Ghailani, he is the last of the people charged 

in that. The other people who were charged with that crime were 

charged by the Bush Administration, where? In civilian court. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But in this case you made the decision to try 

them in civilian court, he is captured overseas, he is a foreign national, and the District Court has ordered you to turn over any documents that would allow the defense to determine whether he was 

denied a speedy trial based on national security grounds, and it is 

a fact those things can and will be scanned, and can and will be 

provided to our enemies overseas. 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not a fact. That is speculation on your part 

that runs head-on into another bothersome thing called a statute, 

the CIPA statute, another fact. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But it is the concern that we have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson, you are going to have to—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I appreciate it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t want to cut you off because I don’t want 

to sound like—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. I have gone long. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Excuse me. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sorry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. It is one thing to interrupt the witness, and another thing to interrupt me. You will have another 

round. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you have gone over your time. I don’t want 

to appear like we are cutting this off. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you will have another round. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

USE OF THE CIVILIAN TRIAL SYSTEM TO REINFORCE THE RULE OF LAW

Mr. Attorney General, let me welcome you to the Committee, and 

rather than kind of go back over some of the territory that has alVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
34 

ready been over, let me just try to see if we can resurrect some of 

the context of all this. 

Now President Reagan and President Bush, the first Bush, they 

criticized on behalf of our country China for instance for locking 

people up, not having trial, secret charges, secret evidence, they 

said that this was not appropriate in a civilized world. And Newt 

Gingrich was before the Congress and I asked him post 9/11, you 

know, what is the rule of law? You know, because you hear my colleagues, they are basically saying look, if you grab somebody, you 

kind of think they are a problem, put them in a place over in 

Guantanamo and that is it, let us throw the key away. And the 

question really becomes is how does our Nation, how should we behave in the context of trying to promote to the rest of the world 

the rule of law? Would it be impossible for a president of the 

United States, a Ronald Reagan, a George Bush, to criticize China 

in the same context today given the activities over the last eight 

years? 

Mr. HOLDER. I wouldn’t equate what the prior administration 

has done with—certainly what we know about what the Chinese 

have done, and yet I think back to my confirmation hearing and 

what Senator Graham said, and I think it is profound. He said that 

what we decide to do in dealing with these terrorists says more 

about us than it does about them. And we have a great tradition, 

and we have great systems that have been shown to work. People 

look at the United States and our legal system, and it is held out 

as the gold standard. I have great faith in the abilities of our 

judges, the people who serve as jurors, the people who are responsible for the protection of people who are involved in trials, to handle these matters in a way that we always have. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I do too, and I have said this before, you 

know, in terms of this manner of whether someone should have a 

trial in New York City who killed 3,000 people almost on 9/11. You 

know, if someone had killed so many Philadelphians we would 

want—we would expect that there would be an opportunity for justice to be done, and for the community there to be able to participate in a trial and for the families to be, you know, now so—— 

Mr. HOLDER. If I could just interrupt. There actually is a federal 

statute that says that the trial has to be held in the place where 

the murders occurred in a capital case. 

Mr. FATTAH. If he could live long enough to get to trial in Philadelphia we would expect for him to come to trial in Philadelphia. 

So the idea that we can take 18, 19 year old kids, drop them on 

some mountain in Afghanistan in the middle of the dark, is that 

we are too cowardly to have a trial with all the protections that are 

afforded. You know, we have the military, we got the police. We 

can’t put somebody on trial. I mean unless they are Superman or 

something. 

I think it doesn’t befit a great Nation to hesitate or equivocate 

on the question of, you know, following our own laws and the impulse to justice. 

So in this selective amnesia of my colleagues, you know, we saw 

the past Attorney General of the Justice Department prosecute a 

CIA employee for harming a prisoner who was suspected of terrorism. There was no complaints, there was no suggestions that 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
35 

this was hurting the morale of the CIA. You come along you say 

you want to review these cases. You haven’t put anyone on trial, 

you haven’t charged anyone at the CIA, except you have been attacked. 

This Administration, as you point out, following the same—in the 

same case, trying the last perpetrator in a civilian court, they 

didn’t criticize the others who have been tried in civilian court by 

the Bush Administration, so it is all politics, and it is such unfortunate that we have American citizens who have lost their lives, we 

have young men and women who are risking their lives, and that 

here in the Congress we can’t rise above our own politics. It is unfortunate, and it is an unfortunate day, but we still have to persist. 

And I think that I would just want to say to you as you go forward that this Committee, and I know that the Chairman, we want 

to be as helpful as we can in terms of making sure you have the 

resources. We had a young presidency, and in that young presidency of George Bush the second go around we had an attack. 

Thousands of Americans died. What the minority party did was we 

united with the majority and we worked together to protect the 

country. 

Now we got a young presidency. We have a failed attack on 

Christmas day, and what does the minority party do? They attack 

the President and they attack this Administration. It is a reversal 

of responsibility, and I would just hope that my colleagues at some 

point would be able to put their petty politics aside and be able to 

work in the best interest of our country. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. 

Before I start I just want to thank you for your service to this 

country, and certainly as a third generation Japanese American 

who went through internment, and this country set aside our Constitution. I place my confidence in your ability to fulfill the laws of 

this country, and so for I am very appreciative for your service. 

2010 CENSUS

You know, the census is one of our most important civic responsibilities, it is under way now, and historically some population 

groups are more reluctant to respond because they are fearful that 

government agencies other than the U.S. Census Bureau will have 

access to their personal responses, and might use that information 

to take legal action against them. 

Now the 2010 census is the first post September 11th enumeration. I, and several of my colleagues recently asked the Justice Department to analyze the strict census confidentiality provisions in 

light of the newer Patriot Act provisions, which allow the Federal 

Government to seek information and gather data about individuals 

suspected of terrorist activity, and we appreciate your recent response to our letter. Would you confirm my understanding of your 

analysis? 

This is what I understand. It says no data sharing or data seeking provisions of the Patriot Act supercede provisions of the Census 

Act that prohibit the Census Bureau from sharing any personally 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
36 

indentifiable information with any other government agency or 

court of law. Is that a correct analysis and determination? 

Mr. HOLDER. I was going to say yes, but I wanted to make sure, 

so I checked with all of my colleagues back here, and that in fact 

is correct, yes. 

Mr. HONDA. I do that with my staff too, thank you. 

Because I think that when we tell our communities, especially 

the recent arrivals and those who are citizens awaiting, those who 

are new citizens, we want them to feel confident that when the 

knock on the door is there and we do the outreach and spend all 

this money and effort to fulfill the constitutional mandate of counting everybody who is here, we want them to feel confident as I do 

that their information will be used only in the way to provide information so that we can come up with all kinds of programs that will 

benefit the people of this country, so I appreciate that input. 

RESOURCES FOR INDIAN COUNTRY

The increased resources the Administration continued to request 

for Indian country law enforcement programs and initiatives 

through the Department of Justice in this 2011 budget request. 

The Administration has proposed a new bill language for 7 percent 

tribal set aside funding within state and local law enforcement assistance and other DOJ accounts. This 7 percent tribal set aside 

language would replace traditional language that has been carried 

out in recent years that specified particular funding amounts for 

the various Indian country law enforcement programs such as tribal courts, detention facilities, and Indian youth. 

What assurances does the Subcommittee have that these key 

core component programs serving Indian country will continue to 

receive an adequate base level of funding in 2011? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I think that one of the things we want to do 

is to work with the people in the tribal lands to make sure that 

the money is spent in appropriate ways. We will use our Inspector 

General, and the other mechanisms that we have, to ensure that 

money is being spent programmatically in the way intended by 

Congress and consistent with what the Administration’s goals are. 

I attended a listening conference in Minnesota, I guess late last 

year, to try to, as we were developing the budget, listen to the people who live on those lands. What are their needs? And I think we 

have tried to identify those needs in the budget, come up with a 

certain amount of flexibility, but also a certain amount of rigidity 

at the same time so that the needs that they identified, and we see, 

are met. And so I think that we have struck a right balance here. 

Mr. HONDA. Has there been any discussion during that time or 

the perception that Indian country laws based upon culture and 

history traditions may be different if it were administered—well, 

are there any Indian country courts that are able to have the same 

kind of support from us and be able to administer the laws that 

they have traditionally on their own lands, and is there a difference in friction in that area, and is there any work being done 

to sort of address those differences? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I think we are trying to be sensitive to the 

cultural differences that exist, while at the same time trying to, in 

terms of all the law enforcement instruments that we see there, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
37 

support them in such a way that they are effective by 21st Century 

standards. Again, being sensitive to those cultural differences, but 

ultimately just making them effective. 

If one looks at the crime rates in Indian Country, if you see what 

a young girl born in Indian Country, who lives her life there, can 

expect in terms of sexual abuse and sexual violence, it is really 

breathtaking. What we have tried to do is come up with ways in 

which we are supportive of enforcement efforts, supportive of prevention efforts, while at the same time being sensitive to the cultural differences that I think you are right to point out. 

Mr. HONDA. Given that distinction and that kind of case, in 

terms of the civil rights that we have and the kinds of access to 

health and things like that or education, would the reverse be applicable to Indian country? If there is a lack of that, and there is 

an expectation that somehow we are partners through this treaty 

that we have, and the context of their sovereignty? Do civil rights 

laws apply in that case in Indian country from the perspective of 

our own laws? I am not sure if that makes sense, but you know. 

Mr. HOLDER. No, I think I understand what you are saying, and 

I would have to check on that and see exactly what the applicability is of our laws. I think they only reach so far. I think that 

the monies—but I would want to make sure that this is accurate— 

the monies that we give are to support the laws that they have and 

that they have to enforce. Not all of our laws, as I understand it, 

are necessarily applicable on tribal lands, but that is something I 

should check into and get back to you with a more definitive answer. 

[The information follows:] 

ARE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS APPLICABLE ON TRIBAL LANDS

As the Supreme Court observed in Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 383 (2001), ‘‘it 

has been understood for more than a century that the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment do not of their own force apply to Indian tribes.’’ However, because of the unique status of tribes under federal laws, the actions of Indian tribal 

governments are limited by most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights through the 

Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. 1301–03. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay, I appreciate that. 

IMMIGRATION CASE REVIEWS

In the area of the Executive Office for Immigration Review in citing the complexities of immigration cases such as unmanageable 

dockets, unrealistic case completion deadlines. On average, immigration judges have probably less time than before to dispose of a 

case despite their merging in case laws. What steps have your office taken to ensure that judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals members can manage their case loads, and then reduce the 

heavy load on the circuit courts and ensure that immigration cases 

receive adequate attention in administrative courts? What concrete 

actions have been taken to ensure that immigration judges have 

the tools and resources to uniquely adjudicate these cases? 

Mr. HOLDER. One of the things that we are doing is hiring more 

judges to have more people to hear these cases. We are looking at 

adding, using $11 million that would include 125 positions and 31 

attorneys, 21 immigration judge teams and 10 Board of Immigration Appeals attorneys. We want to have more people doing this 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
38 

work, and at the same time, we want to increase the training that 

we give to these people. 

I think we have made some substantial progress when it comes 

to what our immigration judges are doing. I had a meeting just 

yesterday, maybe the day before yesterday, with a group of Article 

III judges who review these cases. They said they thought over the 

last couple of years that they had seen a noticeable, positive change 

in the work product that is coming out of immigration judges, the 

trial judges. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. How much time do I have? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well you should ask. Go ahead and ask one 

more question. 

Mr. HONDA. Let me pursue this. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. One more question, please. 

FIREARMS TRAFFICKING AND RELATED VIOLENCE

Mr. HONDA. yeah, okay, thank you. Just recently, I read that 

there has been some pretty horrific and gruesome stories of assassinations or murders in, I believe it is in Juarez, committed by gunmen associated with drug cartels, and the murders were of our 

staffs from the American Consulate Office. I know that in past 

meetings, the ATF has reported that the U.S. is overwhelming is 

the source of guns used by these gun traffickers and their acts. In the 2009 ARRA we allotted $10 million in funding for the ATF 

Project Gun Runner. The initiative was designed to disrupt illegal 

gun trafficking operations through Mexico, especially along the 

southwest boarder. 

Do you believe that this act, the Recovery Act funding, along 

with any other additional funds that the ATF is spending to confront this trafficking to Mexico, is sufficient to take on the problem 

of illegal gun trafficking? 

And I guess just let me piggyback another question on top of 

that. The issue of gun shows, does that still continue to be the 

main source of arms that show up on the other side of the border? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I think we have to use all the tools that we 

can to stop the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico. 

Gun Runner, I think, has been a successful program. We have tracing programs that we use with our Mexican counterparts in a very 

valiant effort to fight these cartels. 

ATF has appropriately used projects to go to gun shows where 

guns are being sold improperly, and it has been effective in that 

regard as well. 

The concern, though, is that we really have to understand that 

there is indeed a problem. If I speak to my Mexican counterparts, 

and if I look at the weapons that are seized down there, way too 

many of them come from the United States. If Mexico is ultimately 

to be successful in this war that they are fighting, that will benefit 

this Nation as well, I think that we have to do all that we can to 

increase our efforts to stop the flow of guns from the United States 

to Mexico. 

There are things that we need to do in Mexico. I think we need 

to have more of our people there working with their Mexican counterparts, from ATF, DEA, and the DHS agencies as well. I think 

we also have to be honest with ourselves that we are allowing, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
39 

through straw purchases and other illegal things, the acquisition of 

guns that then ultimately go to Mexico. 

Mr. HONDA. Should there have been intelligence regarding these 

want to be drug cartels who want to attain the leadership on the 

other side? Should there have been intelligence that should have 

been shared with our folks that their lives are in danger, or were 

in danger? And if the intelligence should have been there that 

wasn’t passed on was it passed on, and is this the other area that 

we need to strengthen as to create a better intelligence process so 

that we can defend, or at least protect, our members of our organizations and our government on the other side? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well we certainly have to make sure that we have 

a good information flow between the United States and Mexico, a 

good intelligence flow. One of the things that we have to assure 

ourselves though is that the people with whom we are sharing this 

information are appropriate to receive it, and that is why we have 

pushed Mexico to come up with what we call vetted units, people 

who we can trust and who we can share information with. 

I will say this, you know, there is an investigation that is ongoing now by the FBI and by the DEA into the very tragic shootings 

that occurred over the last few days, and as a result of a variety 

of means that we have, we are developing a better understanding 

of exactly what happened there. And I would not place, at least at 

this point, I would not have any concern that information was not 

shared with us by our Mexican counterparts as being a cause of 

what happened there. As I said, the DEA and the FBI I think are 

doing a good job in the relatively short period of time they have 

had to investigate it. We are starting to get a picture of what happened. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BALANCING SECURITY AND JUSTICE IN TERRORISM TRIALS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All right, Mr. Attorney General, there has been 

a discussion in some parts of the hearing which has raised questions about the balance between security and the guaranteeing of 

rights as meted out under the Constitution in various situations, 

including military courts and Article III courts. 

I would simply note that if this is about rights it is also about 

responsibilities and both are constitutionally based. And to the extent that the authority that is vested with the power to implement 

policy in the country pursuant to constitutional principals is true 

to constitutional principals, then we are a better Nation. To the extent that we don’t do or try to do that as well as we could or as 

we should, then we need to step back and regroup and address the 

shortcomings and then move forward. 

I really commend the Administration for doing that, and doing 

it in a way that is very sensitive to the national security concerns 

that were obviously paramount in the last administration. I think 

that is to your credit. 

I also think it is to your credit that in stepping back you have 

embraced process in order to assure our faithful fulfillment of our 

responsibilities and adherence to constitutional principals. I think 

you certainly have done that in the review of the detainees at 

Guantanamo. I think that is commendable. The defining distinction 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
40 

between the way these detainees were initially handled and the 

way that this Administration has handled them has to do with 

process and bringing criteria to the table and really being sensitive 

to that. Frankly, that is a statement not to be insensitive to the 

national security concerns that the last administration was faced 

and preoccupied with. But it is to your credit that in pursuing 

those same national security goals, you backed up and did it with 

a greater sensitivity to those rights that are constitutionally based 

and which really define us as a Nation. Recognizing that you also 

have responsibilities and you are the power, you are exercising 

those responsibilities to achieve national security purposes and, at 

the same time, being sensitive to the principals that define us as 

a Nation. 

There are a of issues that were raised, but I would like to quickly 

address two points that were principally raised by Mr. Culberson. 

With respect to the Ghailani case, can you elaborate on the statutory and other protections that will guide you with regard to what 

information and how much information is shared, and how that information will be safeguarded in the course of that proceeding? 

Mr. HOLDER. If the prosecutors in that case make the determination, in consultation with the Intelligence Community, that information should not be shared, should not get out of the confines of 

the courtroom, there are mechanisms in place, principally the CIPA 

statute, that allow for that to occur. That is something that is fairly routine in terrorism cases where a motion is made. A judge looks 

at the motion, there are lawyers from the other side who have gone 

through the security clearance process, and the information is contained within the courtroom. We have judges, particularly in New 

York and other places where these cases have been tried, who are 

familiar with the very legitimate concerns that Mr. Culberson 

raised, but who handle those concerns, I think, in an appropriate 

way, using the tools that Congress has given them, chiefly the 

CIPA statute. 

RIGHTS OF DETAINEES IN CIVILIAN TRIALS, CONTINUED

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There were some fairly complicated constitutional issues alluded to and questions asked that I think were inviting serious answers. The one issue that I would like to hear you 

speak to, with time to do it, is this comparison with Manson, who 

obviously was a murderer. I think it is important for you to characterize your point, rather than your point to be characterized, so I 

would like to give you an opportunity to characterize your opinion 

and to elaborate on the points you were making. 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, the point I was making was that I frequently 

hear the notion that these terrorists are getting rights that the average American would not get, and I think that runs head-on into 

the fact that, to the extent that we decide to bring terrorists 

charged with criminal acts into the criminal justice system, they 

are not treated as average Americans, they are treated as murderers. They are treated in the way that their crimes would have 

them be treated. 

I used the Charles Manson example only because I was thinking 

of a mass murderer and thinking that, with regard to some of the 

people who might be brought into the Article III courts, they also 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
41 

would be mass murderers, and so they would get, he used the word 

protections. I don’t think that necessarily conveys what I am trying 

to say. They would be treated in the same way, which doesn’t mean 

that they are going to be coddled and doesn’t mean that they are 

going to get treated with kid gloves. They would be imprisoned before trial. They would be in holding cells that are, if you look at 

the detention facility in New York, extremely small. They are 

drafty. They are not pleasant. It is not, for these people who are 

brought into the Article III system and who are charged with these 

serious offenses, it is not at all a pleasant experience, and that is 

what I was trying to convey. 

The comparison is not between the average American and these 

terrorists. The comparison is between those people who have committed the most heinous acts and who are charged in our Article 

III courts, that is the comparison that I think is more apt. 

Again, what I have consistently said is that not everybody who 

we determine should be tried will be brought into Article III courts. 

Some will be tried in military commissions. I have already made 

that determination. The comparison I am making is only those of 

Article III courts, as opposed to other criminals brought in Article 

III courts. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And I know that was extrapolated, if you will, 

to the mastermind of one of the most heinous crimes committed on 

the domestic shores of the country. I just felt it would be useful for 

you to note that that was not your comparison or your analogy and 

that the facts that would evolve there would be totally dependent 

on the circumstances. I know the law is very good about looking 

at the case, deciding things on a case by case basis, and understanding how constitutional principles are applied. Again, one 

measure of the country is the extent to which it honors those principles to which we affirm. 

Mr. Wolf. 

GUANTANAMO AS A RECRUITING TOOL

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to just deal with a couple issues that came up from my 

colleagues on the other side. One to say that Guantanamo is a recruitment tool. It may be in the eyes of some people, and I think 

there are good people on both sides of the issue, but before that 

time there was the USS Cole before Guantanamo Bay, because of 

Guantanamo there is Khobar Towers, before that there was the 

embassy bombing in Tanzania, before there was the embassy 

bombing in Kenya where somebody from my congressional district 

died. There was the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and 

there was 9/11. And I think to say that it is a tremendous recruitment tool is almost like saying well if we just shut it down or 

Osama Bin Laden will say, you know, I really appreciate what they 

have done so we are going to kind of move off and get into another 

occupation. There are people who want to kill us and do things, so 

I think it may or may not be, and there are good people on both 

sides, but I don’t think it is accurate to say that—I think it is overstated to say that it is the recruitment tool and we just shut it 

down. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
42 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I wouldn’t say it is the only recruitment tool, 

but I would certainly say that when you can have John McCain, 

President Bush—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure, I don’t differ. I am just saying, but there has 

been such a emphasis that it is a major, and I don’t think it is. 

There is differences of a—— 

Mr. HOLDER. It is certainly a recruiting tool. I wouldn’t say it is 

the major recruiting tool, but it is a tool that we can take out the 

hands of those who are trying to recruit people to fight us. 

And as I said, you look at those people and you say, ‘‘let us close 

Guantanamo’’, Senator McCain, President Bush, Colin Powell all 

said Guantanamo should be closed. 

Mr. WOLF. All good people too. 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. 

INTERROGATION OF ABDULMUTALLAB

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. Secondly, to go to the other point. On the 

Christmas day bomber there were differences there though. I mean 

the gentleman was interviewed for 50 minutes. The DNI said at 

the hearing, and I watched the hearing, that he was never consulted. I assume it was your decision, I think was on the record 

that you make the decision. The DNI said he was not—— 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I made the decision to do what? 

Mr. WOLF. Excuse me. Then Leiter said he was not informed. 

Secretary Napolitano said she was not informed. So it isn’t just— 

there were some interesting things here that people were concerned 

about, and I don’t think you had the HIG team on board in Detroit 

at that time with regard to the interview, so that is the second 

thing I just wanted to clear. 

Thirdly—— 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, with regard to that, the determination as to 

whether or not to Mirandize Abdulmutallab on the 25th, that was 

made by the people who were on the scene. I don’t think it is fair 

to say this was not the first team. I mean the FBI agents who were 

there, one was an Iran Iraq expert, one was an explosives expert. 

Good people, trained. And I think that as we look at this whole 

question of how we codify this, how we arrange this, the one thing 

I think we should all try to agree on is that we don’t handcuff the 

people who are trained at these kinds of things, these FBI agents, 

these DHS agents, and DEA agents, so that when they are there 

and trying to make these on the scene determinations, they don’t 

have to worry about what is Washington going to think about 

my—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure, no, I understand that, but that gets back to my 

original. The HIG team was not really involved. And secondly, by 

having the HIG team out there—— 

Mr. HOLDER. Oh, I am sorry, you are saying HIG team. I thought 

you said A team. I am sorry. 

Mr. WOLF. No, the HIG team. Thirdly, it was Christmas day, and 

it is nothing wrong with people wanting to be off on Christmas day. 

If you looked at the interview on 60 Minutes the FBI agent Piro, 

his identification and understanding of the head of Saddam, he met 

with him, he understood, he understood culture. It probably would 

have been better to bring in your top person who understands NiVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
43 

gerian culture, the top person who understands, and maybe they 

were out on vacation or with their family. That is not bad, I am 

not criticizing that, but that was my point is, it was Christmas day, 

a spur of the moment, and you do have some very good people in 

the Justice Department and very good people in the FBI who had 

been there and perhaps somebody from the FBI it could have been 

a little different, and that was the point I wanted to make. 

Mr. HOLDER. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think the 

operation on the 25th was done well. I think it was done even better post December 25th in the interaction that we had with 

Abdulmutllab, but I think there are things that we can learn from 

December the 25th, and we need to make sure that we do it better 

every time. 

POTENTIAL TRIAL OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Thirdly, because I get to two last questions. On 

the Bin Laden question that my colleague asked, Mr. Culberson, 

you sort of dismissed it, you sort of brushed it aside, kind of a 

bump and run and move off. The reality is you may very well catch 

him and he very well may be alive and—— 

Mr. HOLDER. I don’t expect that. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, you know, we don’t know. We don’t know a lot 

of things. Sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. But if you 

do catch him, and I think the concern is that you may very well 

be setting a precedent with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed case, beheading Daniel Pearl, killing 3,000 people, the precedent that you 

are setting there that if you should capture Osama Bin Laden 

alive, you may very well be setting a precedent. 

So my question to you is, if you catch Osama Bin Laden will it 

go to an Article III court or will it go to a miliary court? 

Mr. HOLDER. I am not trying to dodge this, but I just don’t think 

that the possibility of catching him alive—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well but we can’t—— 

Mr. HOLDER. It is infinitesimal. Either he will be killed by us or 

he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by 

us. We know that. 

Mr. WOLF. But Attorney General, that was not a trick question. 

Sincerely, what if we do though catch him alive? That is the question. 

Mr. HOLDER. And what I am saying is that—and maybe I was 

being a little flip with Mr. Culberson—you know, reading Miranda 

rights to his corpse, because I think that is what we are going to 

be dealing with. He is not going to be alive. 

Mr. WOLF. Well but the question was what if he is alive? And 

I think the gentlemen raised a legitimate case. You know, from my 

perspective our government is setting a precedent with Khalid 

Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City and I 

think that is the real danger. 

PROSECUTIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS

Two other questions I wanted to ask you. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorist and Prevention Act of 2004 expanded to OSI jurisdictions beyond Nazi era cases. We had hearings when I was the 

chairman of this Committee. Since that change, how many human 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
44 

rights violators have you successfully prosecuted or removed from 

the country? 

I am continually seeing, I saw the fellow interviewed the other 

day from Somalia. We are finding all these bad people are showing 

up in the country, people who have been involved in a genocide in 

Rwanda where 600, 700,000 people who had been killed. We are 

finding, you know, Charles Taylor’s son came in, Chuckie Taylor, 

fortunately the Administration did get him. 

But can you tell us, and maybe this is not the place, can you 

commit that you are aggressively looking and how many have you 

prosecuted? But could you have somebody come by and give me the 

real information and an inventory of all these people who have 

been involved in genocide and crimes against humanity that are 

now living in the United States, you know where they are, that you 

are aggressively going after them to at least deport them? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, I can arrange a briefing so that I can share 

with you what the exact numbers are, because I don’t know them. 

But one of the things that we need is Congressional support for 

this, I believe. 

Mr. WOLF. What support do you need? 

Mr. HOLDER. To merge the Office of Special Investigations with 

its counterpart that is responsible for the prosecutions of people 

like Chuckie Taylor. Because we think that if we put those two 

groups together in our Criminal Division that we can be more effective at getting at the very people that you are—— 

Mr. WOLF. I will offer that as a motion at the mark up and just 

tell the gentleman from West Virginia, I will offer that as a motion, 

if your people can come up and give me the language, then I will 

see if I can get that passed, and I will also introduce a bill that 

in case the Judiciary Committee doesn’t, I can look for another vehicle too, because I think we have an obligation to those people 

who have been persecuted, who have gone through this, to have 

these people that they then see living in the United States to be 

prosecuted and deported. 

Mr. HOLDER. And I agree with you, Mr. Wolf. And to the extent 

that we can work together on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. WOLF. That would be good. A good thing to work together 

on that would be good. 

DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT, 

CONTINUED

The last thing is I want to go back to the prison rape. This is 

an issue I care deeply about. My office talked to somebody who was 

involved in a prison rape and connected to the Justice Department. 

When Senator Kennedy and Bobby Scott and I put this in we wanted this thing passed. I can send you and I will send you, and I 

would ask you on the record if you will promise you are going to 

read them. 

Mr. HOLDER. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. Some of the cases of some of these people that have 

been raped. Some are very young too. And we sent a letter back 

in July of this year. Senator Kennedy, Congressman Scott, and myself. What you are doing is duplicating everything the Commission 

has done. You are going out on the contract now to look at everyVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
45 

thing. And just because some prison wardens don’t like this, or the 

Bureau of Prisons may not like it, the longer you delay the more 

people are going to be raped, period. And now what you are telling 

us is that this will not be in place until 2011 and maybe 2012. That 

is unacceptable. And I don’t know why you did it. I don’t know the 

operation of the Department. This was looked at carefully, and I 

think to reduce the funding for it too sends me a message that the 

Justice Department, whoever is putting your budget together really 

doesn’t care. 

I want a commitment you are going to expedite this, move this 

thing through knowing that each and every day that you don’t do 

it someone in some prison, maybe a state prison, maybe a jail, 

maybe a federal prison is going to be raped. And so what I want 

to do is we want to pass this thing, we want to move this thing, 

we want to get it out and get it up and running, and 2011, it will 

be year and a half to two years late. 

So what can you tell me that you are going to kind of do away 

with this contracting thing out and do what the Commission says 

or do something to make this thing happen fast? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, in terms of just funding, and that is what I was looking at here, we have total funding of over $16 million 

available to us in 2010, $5 million in 2011, plus our current funds 

are really sufficient to finish the survey process and to provide implementation and help to our state and local partners. So we think 

that with the money that we have, we are capable of doing the job 

that you want done and a job that I want to have done. We don’t 

want to do this in a slipshod way, we want to effect substantive 

real change so that the horrors that are too often visited upon people in our prisons are eliminated. 

I look forward to working with you on that. I mean, we are on 

exactly the same page on that one. This is something that I think 

needs to be done not tomorrow, but yesterday. And to the extent 

that we are not being as efficient, not being as aggressive as we 

need to be, it is good for you to bring that to my attention. 

But I can tell you, I am sincere in my desire to make sure that 

we get this done as quickly as we can. I think we have sufficient 

funds to do it. I think the process that we have laid out will make 

sure that the changes that we implement will be ones that will 

have a substantive impact. It will not simply be things that you see 

on paper but don’t affect the lives of people in prisons. That is my 

goal. 

Mr. WOLF. I think it is fair to say most members of the Commission don’t agree with you, and I think you knew the chairman of 

the Commission, Reggie Walton. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

GUANTANAMO AS A RECRUITMENT TOOL, CONTINUED

I just want to quickly address a couple of the comments that 

were made about Guantanamo. In addition to Colin Powell and 

President Bush advocating for the closure of Guantanamo, the assessment of military commanders within DoD is that closing Guantanamo is a national security imperative in the war against AlVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
46 

Qaeda. That is according to John Brennan, the Assistant to the 

President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Secretary 

Gates, Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus have all stated that 

closing Guantanamo will help our troops by eliminating a potent 

recruiting tool. 

My colleague, I think, sets up a straw man argument that because many of us, including the Defense Secretary, believe that 

GITMO is a recruiting tool, that we are somehow arguing if you 

close Guantanamo it will end the war on terrorism. Of course no 

one has ever made that claim. But I have yet to hear the advocates 

of keeping Guantanamo open, acknowledge any merit to the propaganda tool it has served for Al-Qaeda and the downside of keeping 

that open. 

PAST PROVISION OF MIRANDA WARNINGS TO TERRORIST SUSPECTS

I also, again in terms of the criticism regarding the arrest and 

Miranda advisement of Abdulmutallab, I think that argument 

would have a lot more policy weight and a lot less political overtone 

if these same folks who are attacking this Administration now, had 

leveled any criticism of Attorney General Ashcroft when the shoe 

bomber was arrested, which coincidentally was also a December almost Christmas day, I think December 21st, effort to blow up an 

aircraft, and he was advised of his Miranda rights within the first 

five minutes, and was advised a total of four times within 48 hours. 

And I don’t remember hearing a peep of criticism of the Bush Justice Department at that time. 

So again, you know, I think we ought to try to keep the politics 

out of this and not be selective in our criticism. 

MEXICAN FIREARMS TRAFFICKING

Let me turn to another subject though, and that was one raised 

by my colleague, Mr. Honda, and that is the spiraling of violence 

in Mexico. I had a chance to sit down with your counterpart, the 

Mexican attorney general two months ago who talked about the 

mutually destructive trade between our countries with narcotics 

flowing north and weapons flowing south, and in particular just the 

prevalence of American weapons being imported into Mexico, sold 

through straw purchases or acquired at gun shows or through 

whatever mechanism. 

And I wanted to ask you how we can do more to stem that flow 

of weapons into Mexico. You know, we were devastated to see the 

loss of our consulate official and his wife, in some horrific violence, 

and of course thousands of Mexican citizens are dying every year 

in what looks increasingly like Columbia used to look. 

So I would be interested to know whether you think there are 

any legal changes that are necessary to crack down on this high 

volume of trafficking of weapons into Mexico. You know, one disparity, for example, is you are required to disclose I guess if someone buys five or more handguns a month, but if they come and they 

buy five or more assault weapons you are not required to disclose 

it, and so you don’t have those law enforcement kind of leads. As 

we recall in the Excalibur case some of the efforts to crack down 

on even high volume sales to straw purchasers are problematic. 

And you know, one of the issues too may be do we have the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
47 

sources and the priority among the U.S. Attorney offices to go after 

even the straw purchasers in a way that will let us climb the chain 

much as sometimes you have to go after the drug runners to go 

after the cartel leaders. 

So if you could share your thoughts on how we can contribute to 

the effort in Mexico by stopping the flow of weapons into Mexico. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I think one of the things that we need to do 

is to make sure that we have an ability from our Mexican counterparts to look at really basic things, such as the serial numbers on 

guns that are found in Mexico, so that we can trace them and find 

where they are being sold. What our history tells us is that a relatively small number of gun stores supply a disproportionate number of guns that are used in violent crimes, both in the United 

States and certainly in Mexico. We focus our attention, using our 

ATF and state and local counterparts, on those places where there 

is evidence and a predicate to believe that they are engaged in the 

sale of weapons that end up in Mexico through straw purchases or 

illegal sales to people with felony records. We follow the evidence 

back to those places that are the sources of these guns. I think one 

of the ways in which we can do that is by having a good interaction 

with our Mexican counterparts and by looking at the weapons that 

are seized. We have warehouses of these things, and they need to 

be preserved at least long enough for American law enforcement to 

get there and to obtain serial numbers and then try to trace those 

serial numbers. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do we need to look at some of the sentencing provisions as well? I was informed at a meeting with some of your colleagues and ATF and was informed about a recent case where 

someone was convicted of gun running into Mexico, I think 1,000 

weapons were involved, and the sentence was 30 some odd months. 

That seems like an awfully light sentence for someone that is illegally exporting into Mexico 1,000 weapons, you know, and we may 

see several killings as a result of those guns being illegally trafficked in the countries. Do we need to look at whether we have sufficient sentencing deterrents in place? 

Mr. HOLDER. I am not familiar with that case, but I think that 

is a very legitimate question that we should ask and look not only 

at that case, but at a larger number of cases to see who is it that 

is getting convicted of gun running to Mexico and what kinds of 

sentences they are getting. If they seem to be low, is it because the 

penalties that we have in the statutes are too low or is there something else that is going on? I think that is a very legitimate inquiry 

that we should engage in. We have to have a deterrent effect. We 

can’t make this something that people do with the thought that, if 

caught, they are not going to face a very substantial penalty given 

the impact that it has in Mexico. But not only in Mexico, the impact that it has in the United States. It makes the cartels stronger 

in Mexico and gives them a greater capacity to ship drugs to our 

country. As you know, the violence we see along our border is only 

fueled by these same weapons. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
48 

PROVISION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS TO TERROR SUSPECTS CONTINUED

Mr. Attorney General, the Miranda case of course is designed to 

preserve the admissibility of evidence in a court proceeding. Do you 

believe Miranda is essential in order to preserve the admissibility 

of evidence in criminal court proceedings against the—for example, 

these enemy combatants brought to trial in Article III courts? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, it depends on the situation. For instance, that 

initial interaction with Abdulmutallab, there was no need for Miranda warnings under the public safety exception to Miranda. 

There are a number of exceptions to the Miranda rule that I think 

are appropriate and that law enforcement can use in questioning, 

gaining intelligence—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Excited utterance? 

Mr. HOLDER. Excited utterance. There are a whole variety of 

things. The Supreme Court said, not too many years ago, that the 

Miranda warning regime was a constitutional dimension. It was a 

seven to two opinion, I think. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You mentioned a moment ago, sir, that the people on the scene made the decision to provide Miranda warnings 

to the Christmas bomber. I just wanted to confirm that if I understood you correctly. Who did authorize the Miranda warnings to be 

given to the Christmas bomber? 

Mr. HOLDER. That was done by people on the scene, but although 

I was not involved in that, I think that the decision was correct. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And the purpose of the questioning. If the purpose of the questioning of an individual is to gather intelligence, 

are they entitled to Miranda warnings? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, again, it depends. A byproduct of the questioning that was done of Abdulmutallab, justifiably done under the 

public safety exception, was the acquisition of intelligence information. We were also trying to determine whether there were other 

people in other planes, other people in the same plane, that he was 

on. 

I have heard a lot said about the fact that he was only questioned for 50 minutes. That is a fairly long period of time. It certainly is not as long as what has happened subsequent to that. If 

you look at the report of the interview that was gotten from him 

in that 50 minutes, or hour, there was a pretty substantial amount 

of information that was received from him that proved to be actionable, that proved to be timely, and that continues to be, at least 

in some ways, the basis for a lot of the cooperation that he has 

shared with us. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Since you have made the decision to try KSM 

in a U.S. court, wouldn’t all of incriminating statements be inadmissible because he was not advised of his—not given his Miranda 

warnings? 

Mr. HOLDER. This is something I really can’t get into too much. 

There are a variety of statements that are available for our use in 

that trial, some of which have no Miranda issues at all. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So when he raises the objection in—as he will 

when he is brought before a federal judge—when his lawyers raise 

the objection that he was not given a Miranda warning, what will 

be the position of the Department of Justice? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
49 

Mr. HOLDER. In the Article III trial that we would present there 

would not be a basis for a Miranda challenge. 

USE OF CIVILIAN TRIALS AS A TOOL IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Attorney General, this 

is why this is such a—I mean this is just one piece of why it really 

is a sincere concern to the people of Texas that I represent, to me, 

my colleagues, that the approach of the Department of Justice and 

the Obama Administration is that this is a law enforcement action 

that in this war on terror is in fundamentally a law enforcement 

action like the war on crime, and it is not. We are at war. And Texans understand when you are at war the goal is to hunt down your 

enemy and kill them or capture them. 

And in particular in this case, this war requires that the President of the United States as Commander in Chief be given full discretion authority to use whatever tools are at his disposal as the 

Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, and specifically referring to 

the Hamdi versus Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court said that in 

reversing the Second Circuit Court’s decision in Padilla that a citizen of the United States, according to the Supreme Court, no less 

than an alien can be quote ‘‘part of or supporting forces hostile to 

the United States or coalition partners and engaged in an armed 

conflict against the United States.’’ And if U.S. citizen if released 

would pose a threat of returning to the battlefield as part of the 

ongoing conflict, then that U.S. citizen can be held in detention 

through the military tribunal system because we are at war. And 

that is my concern, and it is a very deep seeded and earnest profound disagreement with the approach of the Administration that 

this is not law enforcement, we are at war. 

And as Mr. Wolf quite correctly said through the KSM case, set 

the precedent that when Osama Bin Laden is captured, and you 

didn’t answer the question directly, but it is a very legitimate one, 

if Osama Bin Laden is alive, because his role is equivalent to that 

of KSM, would you try him in a civilian court? 

Mr. HOLDER. As I said, I don’t expect that Osama Bin Laden will 

face justice in a military commission or in an Article III court. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right, odds are. But if he is captured alive 

where will he be tried? 

Mr. HOLDER. Again, I—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. If he is captured alive? 

Mr. HOLDER. I think that is speculation. You are asking me 

about something that, on the basis of all the intelligence that I 

have had a chance to review, the possibility just simply does not 

exist. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is profoundly concerning to me, to the people 

of Texas, I know I saw it in the polls in the Massachusetts, that 

because of the precedent you are setting in the KSM trial, because 

of the precedent that you are setting in the Ghailani trial, because 

of the precedent you are setting in granting constitutional rights to 

enemy soldiers in time of war that your approach to the war on terror is as though it is a war on crime in fighting gangs or murderers 

and the cities of the United States, and it is not, we are at war, 

and it is completely different. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
50 

Mr. HOLDER. As I have said, I don’t know how many times, is 

that I know we are at war. And let me make this clear, let me 

make this very, very, clear. If you were to take away from the Justice Department, from this Government, from this Administration 

and subsequent administrations, the ability to use Article III courts 

you would weaken our ability to successfully fight these wars. It is 

as simple as that. 

This tool that we are talking about is only one tool that we have 

in our arsenal, and to take that tool away and to say these are people who can’t be tried would weaken our ability to ultimately be 

successful. 

Before you asked the question about examples of people caught 

on the battlefield and prosecuted in court. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Foreign nationals. 

Mr. HOLDER. Foreign nationals. This woman Siddiqui was caught 

in Afghanistan, shot at military soldiers there, indicted in New 

York by the Bush Administration. Wesam al-Delaema is an Iraqi 

born Dutch citizen who was tried in D.C. for planting roadside 

bombs targeting U.S. soldiers in Iraq. 

Again, minor examples, perhaps you would say, but nevertheless 

examples of people who committed acts overseas and were tried 

here in American courts. But the thing that I want you to focus on 

in the Ghailani case is that it is consistent with what happened in 

the Bush Administration with the other people who were responsible for the embassy bombings. If you take away this Article III 

tool, and it is not the only thing that we use, if you take it away 

you are unnecessarily taking away an effective tool, and one only 

has to look at what has happened this year in terms of who we 

have incapacitated, who we have gotten viable intelligence from, 

who we will be sentencing for extended periods of time in the coming months. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I am not suggesting take it away, it is just 

that you turn to it too readily, and the approach of the Administration and the Department is that this is a war on crime, and it is 

really not, we are at war. 

And the two cases you mention, I want to make sure, because 

this is the first time in public testimony you have ever identified. 

Tell me again the name of those cases, because I am unaware of 

any example in American history. 

Mr. HOLDER. Just don’t ask me to spell them. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. HOLDER. Aafia Siddiqui, that is the woman who was just 

convicted in New York. She was caught in Afghanistan, shot at 

military soldiers, and tried in New York by the Bush Administration. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And she is a foreign national? 

Mr. HOLDER. A foreign national. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. HOLDER. And Wesam al-Delaema. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. HOLDER. Iraqi born Dutch citizen tried in D.C. for planting 

roadside bombs targeting U.S. soldiers in Iraq. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay, and both of those were sent to civilian 

court by the Bush Administration? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
51 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay, I will run those down. Those are ones 

that none of us have ever been aware of before because in granting 

constitutional rights to these folks and giving them the opportunity 

to as in the Ghailani case, file a motion to be released or charges 

dismissed because the failure to provide a speedy trial, it gives an 

opportunity to our enemies not only to have these people releases 

and freed, chain of evidence wasn’t preserved, can’t prove beyond 

a reasonable doubt, speedy trial, et cetera, that they would not 

have in military tribunal. That is a huge concern. 

Mr. HOLDER. You raise good points there. Looking at an individual case that had those kinds of problems, if I were convinced 

that those problems existed and they could not be cured in an Article III court, I would have the option of trying that matter in the 

military commissions. There are a variety of factors that go into 

this, and that is why I say it is done on a case by case basis. What 

will be best for this case. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. I am sure I am just about out of time. 

The Chairman is very gracious. May I ask one very short follow 

up? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We will be back to you in another round. 

Mr. CULBERSON. All right, sir, thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We will be back to you. Mr. Serrano has waited 

a long time. Mr. Serrano, we have had a number of rounds, so 

please feel free to ask your questions. We will give you plenty of 

time. 

HOLDING 9/11 TRIALS IN NEW YORK CITY

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 

being late. I was interestingly enough at a hearing where we were 

discussing compensation for the victims of 9/11. 

Mr. Attorney General, I am in a very, very unique or small minority. I am the only elected official in New York who still thinks 

it is fine to have those trials in New York. And I think it is important to know why I feel that way, but it is also important to know 

how it came to be what it is now. 

When it was first floated or introduced as a thought that we 

could do this in New York, everyone I remember was in favor of 

it, and everyone said it was the right thing to do. And then something happened. And what had happened is not what people 

throughout the country think happened. It wasn’t a community 

that spoke up, it wasn’t elected officials, it was the business community that said they were concerned about traffic jams in lower 

Manhattan. Traffic jams in New York City—that is redundant. 

This should not be a shock to anybody. Ironically the people who 

lost so much business during the attacks and the aftermath of the 

attacks were now complaining about this congestion in downtown 

Manhattan. And little by little you began to see this turning 

around of elected officials, colleagues of mine, friends of mine, people I have served with for many years who were rah, rah, rah for 

having the trials in New York and then all of a sudden they are 

all against it. 

Next thing you knew something which I still don’t understand, 

but I respect, the families of victims turned against having the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
52 

trials in New York. Somehow this was an insult to their memory 

to do it in New York. I see the world differently. The best respect 

you can pay victims is to say that as a country they may have 

killed some of us, they have maimed many of us, but they have not 

defeated us as a country, and that we are not afraid to try people 

at the scene of the crime, and that we are not afraid to try them 

within our court system. That is the way I feel. 

I was one of the few elected officials who was not in Washington 

that day. I was in New York City. My son, who is now a state senator, was running for the city council. Very few people wrote about 

the fact that elections were interrupted that day. Amongst all the 

things the terrorists accomplished, one was to disrupt an election, 

which stands at the center of our democracy. And I remember the 

pain that day and the aftermath of that pain and everything that 

we are still discussing today, and yet there is this feeling that 

somehow if we hold trials in a civilian court and if we do it in New 

York we are dishonoring these folks and we are opening ourselves 

to more terrorist attack. 

Well if there are people who are upset at the fact that we are 

going to put people on trial, does it matter whether we put them 

on trial in New York, in Duluth, Minnesota, or Waukegan, Illinois? 

With all respect to Duluth and Waukegan. They are going to be 

angry regardless of what we do. And if we do it in a military court 

they will be angry, if we do it in a civilian court they will be angry. 

If they are going to be angry they are going to be angry. And if 

New York City is going to be under the possibility of an attack because of that I would submit to all of us that New York City lives 

with the understanding that it is still the main target for any terrorist group. It is the main target. It is the Big Apple that people 

love to hate, but it is a symbol of who we are as a country. Of the 

strength and the financial community. 

And so I know when an issue has left me, and it is not one I 

want to devote a lot of time to in the next few months. That train 

may have left the station already. In fact I think it has, because 

every elected official now thinks this is the worst thing you could 

do. But at least know that there is one elected official in New York 

City who feels that there was nothing wrong with trying them 

there. On the contrary, I thought it was very dramatic to say we 

are not afraid of you, we will try you at the scene of the crime, we 

will try you in our courts, and we will show you that you can’t defeat our judicial system, and you can’t defeat us as a people. And 

I just wanted to make that statement to you, sir. 

Mr. HOLDER. Thank you, sir. For those who don’t know, I was 

born and raised in New York City. I was born in the Bronx, spent 

my first years in Manhattan, was raised largely in Queens, went 

to high school, college, and law school in Manhattan. I am a New 

Yorker. My brother lost many people. He is a retired Port Authority lieutenant, he lost colleagues, people who went to training 

school with him, that day. 

The decision that I made, I thought, was the right one for that 

case. But there was, very frankly, an emotional component to that 

as well; what was I doing to my city? I think the decision that I 

made was good for the case and, ultimately, that is what I had to 

focus on. But I appreciate the observations that you have made. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
53 

I think that we should have great faith in the resilience of our 

systems, resilience of our people, and the toughness that has always separated Americans from other peoples in this world and 

what has made this country. 

You might be right that the train has left the station, it is certainly a factor that we are working with as we try to determine 

where this should occur. But on a very personal level that was at 

least a part of my thinking. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, do I have time to ask 

a question? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have all the time you want. 

HATE CRIMES AGAINST IMMIGRANTS

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. We discussed this in the past, it keeps 

growing as an issue, and that is hate crimes against immigrants. 

As we get closer to perhaps discussing immigration, as the economy 

continues to hurt, as we continue deportations and raids, I think 

it could only get worse before it gets better. 

I know you have been strong on trying to do something about 

this whole issue, but I think we need to continue to call the attention of this Congress and the American people to the fact that 

there is another category of hate crimes, and that is people who are 

attacked because they are immigrants, because they look like immigrants, because somehow before they are attacked no one asks 

whether they are here illegally or not, whether that—doesn’t make 

a difference, but it encompasses a lot of people. 

And again, I want to be clear, what I was saying was not that 

because you are illegal you should be attacked, but it doesn’t matter to people if you are an immigrant or you look like an immigrant 

they are going to attack, and it is something that we have to deal 

with. And I am wondering just what programs you are putting in 

place and new actions that the Justice Department will be looking 

at as we deal with this very serious issue. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, we certainly have a new tool, a very substantial new tool, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Act, that was 

finally passed. I testified on behalf of that statute when I was Deputy Attorney General about 10 or 11 years ago, it was finally 

passed in October of last year. That gives us tools that we didn’t 

have before, and that is a tool that we will use to get at the kinds 

of victims that you have described. 

We have in our budget for next year a $1.4 million increase so 

that we can hire 14 attorneys in our Civil Rights Division. This is 

a priority for this division. Tom Perez is the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Civil Rights Division, he has energized that place. 

He has the division focusing on the things that it has traditionally 

been focused on. Hate crime prevention and hate crime prosecutions are one of the key things that I have asked Tom to focus on 

in the Civil Rights Division, and I am confident that, with these 

additional lawyers and with this additional statute, that we will be 

successful. That is a priority for us. 

Mr. SERRANO. I thank you for that, and I just again reiterate the 

obvious, that the President has said publicly, and he certainly told 

Members of Congress that went to see him last Friday, that he 

wants to work on an immigration reform bill, and that is great 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
54 

news, continues to be great news, but as you know, that will only 

inspire a few people in this country to commit even more hate 

crimes because somehow those people are going to be legalized and 

they have to be dealt with and be taught a lesson. 

So I would hope that we stay very vigilant as this period takes 

place. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. 

INTERROGATION OF ABDULMUTALLAB, CONTINUED

Mr. Attorney General, for those terrorist suspects that we are 

talking about trying in Article III courts, the premise or the concern around the Miranda rights are that we won’t get good information from them. So just a little bit of questioning with regard 

to that. 

First of all, with regard to Abdulmutallab, the Christmas bomber, a timeline. Correct me to the extent that I am in error here, 

but I would like to lead you through this just a little bit. He was 

taken into custody by security officials at the airport first, I believe, 

and then taken to the hospital. He was then interviewed by the 

FBI team, which as you described was a pretty sophisticated group 

of people. 

Mr. HOLDER. Right. I am not sure, but I believe that is the correct timeline and the correct people who interacted with him along 

the way. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So up to that point, Miranda rights are all preserved because that is obviously, I think, a public safety exemption 

to the necessity for issuing Miranda rights. When questioning 

somebody in the heat of an arrest, or in the aftermath of an event, 

because you do have public safety concerns you are more interested 

in that than you are in—— 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. And I also think you can argue that it was not 

at least in those initial times, you could argue he was not in a custodial situation. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So he was questioned for some period of 

time without Miranda rights, correct? 

Mr. HOLDER. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then he was treated in the hospital, and, after 

he was released, he was Mirandized; is that correct? 

Mr. HOLDER. He was. He was Mirandized by a different team, a 

clean team as we call it. I think it was interesting that their view 

was that he came out of that procedure a different person. That he 

was more, for lack of a better term, warrior like, and I am not sure, 

that is, I am not convinced, this is Eric Holder’s personal opinion, 

I don’t think it was the Miranda warnings that made him decide 

not to talk. I think it was something within him that took him back 

to where he was immediately before he ignited the bomb, he became that person again. That is why I think he answered a few 

questions in that second interaction, but not many, and then ultimately decided he did not want to continue the conversation. 

I think we should never forget that in the days that followed 

that, actually in the weeks that followed, that he has been talking. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are getting my point, but you are getting 

ahead of my point. My first point is that he was interviewed by a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
55 

qualified team, and I don’t know what justification there would be 

for undermining the qualifications of the team. These are professional people out in the field who are trained in this area. 

Mr. HOLDER. The people did that first one hour, 50 minute, interview were good, trained FBI agents. One thing I should clear for 

the record, to the extent that I said that the determination was 

made only by them, with regard to the whole Miranda warnings 

question, that was not done only by them. It was also done in conjunction with people at FBI and Justice Department headquarters. 

I was not involved, but other people at higher levels within the Department made those decisions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So the suspect was interviewed prior to 

being Mirandized, was Mirandized, and was subsequently questioned after being Mirandized. He was difficult right after getting 

out of treatment, but subsequently I think your testimony has been 

a number of times that a lot of good information, or perfectly good 

information, was gotten after being Mirandized. 

Mr. HOLDER. Right. What people should understand is that there 

are studies in those briefs that we have heard about, I don’t have 

it in front of me, that substantial numbers of people will, even after 

they are Mirandized, continue to talk. Two, once they are provided 

with lawyers, the lawyers can make a more objective determination 

of the fix that their clients are in. The defense lawyers frequently 

become, not advocates for the Government, but advocates for their 

client, in the sense that they tell an Abdulmutallab, ‘‘Unless you 

want to spend the rest of your life in a super max facility, you better start sharing information with the Government.’’ 

I don’t want to get into a specific case, but it frequently happens 

that the defense lawyer helping his client also helps the Government. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think that is the point I really wanted to get 

to. If the premise of those who argue that a person should be questioned without Miranda rights is that better information is received 

prior to, or by techniques which are employed without, Miranda 

rights, that is a premise they would have to prove. It is certainly 

contested in the public debate. That is a premise that has not been 

established or laid before. 

So my point is that we should us not presume that preMirandized information, or never Mirandized information, is better 

information. It is simply, as I understand it, not an accepted 

premise among the profession. Your comment? 

Mr. HOLDER. I think you raise a very good point. It is one that 

I would throw back at those who have criticized us for using the 

criminal justice system and the Miranda requirement. ‘‘Well, what 

is your proof that if he were whisked off to a military facility and 

questioned by military people, even without the presence of a lawyer, that information you would receive would have been more voluminous, would have been better?’’ 

There are psychologists we have consulted who say that the presence of military people in uniform makes them perhaps maybe warrior like. 

Again, I would try to look at the facts and the experiences that 

we have had, and the use of the criminal justice system to get information from Abdulmutallab, from Zazi, from Headley, and from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
56 

a whole variety of cases that we have had this year. I think it 

shows the efficacy of that system and the efficacy of that approach. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well my point is that the premise that I 

think is assumed in this line of questioning is that the information 

is better when the person is not Mirandized as opposed to when 

they are Mirandized. That is not proven and is contradicted in a 

whole lot of testimony, including yours here today. 

We just had three bells. That means we have 15 minutes to vote, 

but it will probably last longer than that. We are going to divide 

up the remaining time between myself and the other members who 

were here roughly equally, so it will be kind of a rapid fire here, 

Mr. Attorney General. Then after that, we are going to adjourn the 

hearing. 

PREVIOUS TERRORIST TRIALS IN CIVILIAN COURT

I want to get on the record clearly that there have been a significant number of terrorist cases tried in Article III courts during different administrations, both Republican and Democrat administrations. Is that correct, sir, and can you give us a little detail on 

that? 

Mr. HOLDER. That is absolutely correct. There were terrorism 

cases that were tried in Article III courts in the Bush Administration. I don’t have the exact number here, but I am pretty sure it 

is close to about 150 or so. Ramzi Yousef, the original World Trade 

Center bomber, was tried in Article III court. The blind sheik. 

There are a number of high profile terrorism cases that were tried 

successfully in Article III courts. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They were tried in Article III courts during the 

Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and now in 

President Obama’s Administration. 

Mr. HOLDER. Right, that is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Terrorist suspects tried in Article III courts. 

Convicted? 

Mr. HOLDER. Convicted, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And serving time in? 

Mr. HOLDER. Federal prisons. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Federal prisons in the United States. Thank you. 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME

There is a lot of interest in the extent to which criminal fraudulent conduct may or may not have been involved in the financial 

crisis that the country has just experienced and is trying to fashion 

regulations to prevent. Can you speak to your department’s efforts 

to address that question and the status of your investigations? 

Mr. HOLDER. We have put together a financial fraud enforcement 

task force that marries a group of federal executive branch agencies with our state and local counterparts, chiefly attorneys general. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force? 

Mr. HOLDER. Exactly. With state attorneys general to look at a 

whole variety of financial fraud. Everything from mortgage fraud 

to securities fraud. A case brought just yesterday in the Southern 

District of New York involving a bank and one of the first TARP 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
57 

criminal cases was brought by the financial fraud enforcement task 

force. 

That is something that is very broad in scope to look at, the entirety of financial fraud activity that may have contributed to the 

economic downfall that we saw, but to the extent that these crimes 

exist, we are determined to find the people responsible and to hold 

them accountable. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The task force includes the Treasury Department, HUD, SEC, and various inspector generals. It looks like a 

broad base. Does your budget request anticipate greater activity 

with regard to that task force going into 2011? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. We have increases with regard to corporate 

fraud; DOJ opened an 11-percent increase and with regard to corporate, mortgage, and other financial fraud DOJ wanted an increase request of 23 percent. 

ADAM WALSH ACT

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General, the Adam Walsh Act was 

passed in 2006, as you know, but we are still struggling to fully implement it due to a lack of funding. Has the Department quantified 

what it would cost you to fully fund and implement the Adam 

Walsh Act? If you have not, could you submit that for the record? 

Mr. HOLDER. Sure. Let me submit something for the record, just 

so that I can be more precise in my answer. 

[The information follows:] 

FULL COST AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ADAM WALSH ACT

The Department of Justice (DOJ) does not have an estimate for the full implementation cost of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). However, the Department is working 

with DOJ components to quantify the resource requirements associated with the full 

implementation of the Act. Once completed, the Department will share the cost projection with the Appropriations’ Committees. The Department has already identified 

current resources appropriated for AWA enforcement. In FY 2008, the Department’s 

resources for AWA enforcement, excluding grants, was $116 million. The FY 2011 

President’s Budget requests more than $165 million, excluding grants, for the Department to enforce the Act. The overall growth of the Department’s resources for 

AWA enforcement, excluding grants, from FY 2008 enacted to the FY 2011 request 

is 42 percent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just to get a little support on the record from 

the executive for Adam Walsh, I was heartened to hear that President Obama recently committed to John Walsh that he would get 

the Act fully funded. Although clearly the 2011 request doesn’t do 

that. Do you have a strategic plan, or is one being developed, to 

ramp up the program over time? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. We are determined to make real the Adam 

Walsh Act. As the President indicated, we are looking at about a 

20 percent increase in funding for next year, and I think that over 

a year we will be looking at those kinds of increases even in spite 

of the economic downturn that we have to deal with and a deficit 

reduction that we have to engage in. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you are going to submit for the record—— 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, I will. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. What it would cost to fully implement that Act, and, if you would, your plan for ramping it up to 

full funding and how many years that would take. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
58 

Let me note quickly, certainly with approval, that I applaud your 

request with regard to the Indian nation’s leadership council. I feel 

confident it will help the Department coordinate tribal leaders and 

be more responsive in their campaign. 

I think we all understand the ambiguities and jurisdictional difficulties of law enforcement in Indian territory, and the terrible 

consequences that result. This Committee certainly is sensitive to 

that. Our bill last year reflected our interest in increasing resources for law enforcement in Indian territory, even given these 

jurisdictional challenges. I want to compliment you on your budget, 

because you have significantly increased funding for maybe one of 

the most unnoticed issues in the country with regard to law enforcement. 

Mr. Wolf. 

INTERROGATION OF ABDULMUTULLAB, CONTINUED

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to submit a lot 

of questions for the record, but on the issue of timeliness and Miranda, the press announcement materials provided to the Congress 

last fall stated that the principal function of interrogations of high 

value detainees is quote ‘‘intelligence gathering rather than law enforcement.’’ One. 

Secondly, I have talked to a lot of people, some in your department who are experts, they said you missed it on the timeliness. 

Timeliness is very important. 

To have shown him pictures of Guantanamo people that have 

been sent back, to show pictures to the Christmas day bomber 

could have said did you see this man, did you see this man, did 

you see this person? You didn’t have enough time to do that. 

Also what location were you in? Were you in this location, what 

building were you in, what address, who did you see, who were you 

with, who else was in the class? 

I mean there were so many things that could have been missed. 

So I mean, there was an opportunity that was missed and we will 

never get it back again. 

Mr. HOLDER. That is simply not true. 

Mr. WOLF. It is true. It is true. 

Mr. HOLDER. It is not true. 

Mr. WOLF. We missed opportunities. Because once we missed 

them—— 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not true. 

Mr. WOLF. Well it is true. 

Mr. HOLDER. I know. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I say it is true, and you say it isn’t true, but 

people that I have talked to said you missed an opportunity—— 

Mr. HOLDER. I have had access to the documents. 

Mr. WOLF. You never had the pictures with you to show him in 

Detroit at that time. 

Mr. HOLDER. It is not true. 

Mr. WOLF. You never had the pictures to show. 

Lastly on the prison rape thing. 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not true. For the record, that is not true. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I believe it is based on the information that I 

have. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
59 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORT ON PRISON RAPE

On the prison rape thing I am going to end by reading this. This 

is from Human Rights Watch. No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. ‘‘Preface.’’ ‘‘I have been sentenced for a DUI offense, my third 

one. When I first came to prison I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I am a tall male who unfortunately has a small 

amount of feminine characteristics and very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feeling physically. I have been raped by up to seven men at one time. I have 

had knives at my head and throat. I fought and I have been beat 

so hard that I didn’t even think I would see straight again. One 

time when I refused to enter a cell I was brutally attacked by staff 

and taken to segregation. Though I had only wanted to prevent the 

same or worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no 

supervision at the lock down. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issues were. He told me 

that off the record he suggested I find a man that I can willingly 

have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I requested 

protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He 

also said there was no where to run and it was best for me to accept things. I probably have AIDS now. I have had difficulty raising food to my mouth and from shaking after nightmares of thinking how this all is. I have laid down without physical fight to prevent so much damage and struggles that when fighting it has 

caused my heart and my spirit to be raped as well, something I 

don’t know if I will ever forgive myself for. This has gone on and 

the longer you delay it the more this will happen.’’ 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOLDER. Again for the record, I share, as I indicated before, 

the concern that you have expressed. That story is a horrible one, 

and we are committed to doing all that we can as quickly as we 

can to deal with those kinds of situation. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson. 

LEGAL TECHNICALITIES IN TERRORISM TRIALS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Chairman it is my concern and I know the concern 

of my constituents and all my colleagues, it is not just the quality 

of the information that we would obtain with or without Miranda, 

it is our worry is that these people will be released on technicalities, that they will go free because they were given constitutional 

protections by this Administration that foreign nationals in time of 

war have not been given previously. I am still trying to run the two 

individuals you gave me. Mr. Chairman, I do know for a fact that 

Richard Reid was arrested at a time when there was no military 

commission, that is why he was sent to civilian court. 

Your testimony, Mr. Attorney General, that Siddiqui and alDelaema individuals were sent to civilian court at a time there 

were military commissions in existence? 

Mr. HOLDER. I have to look at the dates. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. We are very, very short on time. Mr. 

Chairman, I wanted to also ask if I could the Attorney General if 

the charges against KSM are dismissed because of some legal arguVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
60 

ment that he raises under the Constitution or Supreme Court case 

law, his charges are dismissed by the federal court and he is ordered released, I think I heard you say that you are going to—the 

Administration will order that he continue to be held; is that correct? 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes. First off, in terms of the premise, I don’t think 

there is an instance of a terrorism case where somebody, a terrorist 

charged in an Article III court, got off on a so-called technicality. 

I don’t know of one case. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Excuse me, I am talking about KSM. You have 

ordered that he be sent to be tried in a civilian court. 

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, that is fine. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Regardless of where that takes place. 

Mr. HOLDER. I can certainly deal with that question, but I am 

just dealing with what you said at first, and I don’t want to let that 

go unrebutted. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, I am sorry if you misunderstood me. 

Mr. HOLDER. Again, what I would said is let us look at the facts 

and let us look at history. There has never been, as far as I know, 

a terrorism trial that ended in a pretrial release of somebody on 

the basis of some technicality. 

Mr. CULBERSON. In a military tribunal. 

Mr. HOLDER. In an Article III court. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay, but that is the danger we expose ourselves to and that is our concern, is that this hasn’t been done before, other than those two cases you mentioned, which we are going 

to run down. 

Mr. HOLDER. We have tried hundreds of cases in Article III 

courts where I am sure pretrial motions have been raised, none 

have resulted in the release of somebody on a technicality. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well in time of war is the concern. 

But if I could very quickly, because we are running out of time. 

If the charges against KSM are ordered dismissed by the District 

Court I have heard you say publicly that the Administration would 

order that he continue to be held; is that correct? 

Mr. HOLDER. I will answer that question, but first, on the basis 

of the way in which this case would be structured in an Article III 

court, the chances of his being released on a technicality are slim 

to non-existant. Having said that, you are correct. I have said that 

if Haley’s Comet were to come flying through this hearing room 

today, and if something like that happened, it would not be the intention of this Administration to release him into the United 

States. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well so if you get a court order ordering that 

KSM be released and the charges dismissed you will release him 

overseas? 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not what I have said, no. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well you said you wouldn’t release him in the 

United States. Where would you release him? 

Mr. HOLDER. Well there are a variety of things that can be done. 

Again, I think we are talking hypotheticals that we will never have 

to face. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
61 

Mr. CULBERSON. But we have to think about it. And if he is ordered released by the court where would you release him if not in 

the United States? 

Mr. HOLDER. Under the system that we have in place there have 

been cases where we have made the determination, with regard to 

detainees, that certain of them can be transferred, certain of them 

can be tried and certain of them can be held on a long-term basis. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. HOLDER. We have I think the facility under the AUMF, the 

Authorization of Use and Military Force, to detain somebody on a 

long-term basis. So if, and it is not going to happen. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is an if. You got a court order, charges are 

dismissed, he shall be released. Where would you release him? 

Mr. HOLDER. It is an if, it is not going to happen. But if that 

were to be the case, he would not be released. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You said he would not be released in the United 

States and he will not released period. 

Mr. HOLDER. I am not qualifying it. He would not be released. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well then if the nobility of American justice, the 

example we would set to the world so the terrorists would like us 

you just threw all that out the window. 

Mr. HOLDER. No, I am not. I am dealing with a hypothetical. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, am I missing something here? 

Mr. Wolf, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. What am I missing, please. I will yield. I mean, 

I don’t get it. Texans don’t understand this. I mean if you are at 

war you hunt them down, you kill them. I don’t know why are we 

giving this guy constitutional rights to make the terrorists like us 

or think that we are noble and you are going to hold him in jail 

anyway if he is ordered released. 

Mr. HOLDER. But you are dealing—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I will yield. What am I missing? 

Mr. HOLDER. What you are missing is that what I said is you are 

dealing with a hypothetical that is not going to happen. It is not 

going to happen. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is a distinct possibility it could happen, and 

you said you are not going to release him. 

Mr. HOLDER. On the basis of what? Why would you say that? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well this is a public hearing, our enemies are 

listening, you have just said that you are going to hold this guy in 

jail if the court orders him released. And the purpose of the trial 

is to show the nobility of American justice and we treat everybody 

equally and the terrorists will like us, you know, kumbaya. Well 

if the court order is saying release and you are going to hold him 

in jail you just nullified all that, right? 

Mr. HOLDER. See this is the danger—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I yield, Mr. Chairman. If I am missing 

something I am missing something. This just does not make any 

sense at all. This is war. You hunt them down you kill them or you 

hold them forever. This is not complicated to a Texan. 

Mr. HOLDER. Okay, but this is my fault for having gone down the 

road of a hypothetical, and I should have simply said the hypothetical that you have posed is not a real one on the basis of our 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
62 

experience and the facts that we have over the years in Republican 

and Democratic administrations. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But I hope you can see my concern. You say 

that if Osama Bin Laden is captured he is entitled to the same, you 

know, he is going to be treated as a murderer like Charles Manson. 

We are going to try KSM—— 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not quite what I said. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is the gist of your testimony. Is that he 

is—— 

Mr. HOLDER. That is not what I said. 

Mr. CULBERSON. As a murderer is treated as a murdered like 

Charles Manson. They are not even in the same category. And it 

is just a real concern, Mr. Chairman, and I think it exposes the immense danger of going down this path, Mr. Attorney General. We 

are at war, you cannot treat these people, this is not a war on 

crime, this is a war on terrorists, and you treat them like you 

would Nazis. If you captured a Nazi on the battlefield you should 

treat them no different than you would a terrorist captured on the 

battlefield. And that is the danger, you have opened up a can of 

worms and pandora’s box. We need to stick with what works. We 

are at war. You hunt them down and you kill them or you capture 

them. 

Mr. HOLDER. I think you are right, we do stick with what works 

and we look at history, we look at facts, we don’t look at hyperbole, 

we don’t look at campaign slogans, we don’t use fear. And if that 

is the case there is no reason for us to have any concern or fear 

that our Article III courts, our military efforts, the use of military 

commissions, or our diplomatic efforts will not ultimately be successful in winning this war. 

But as I said before, if you take from us, if you take from us—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Not suggesting that. 

Mr. HOLDER. That is in essence what you are trying to say. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will give the witness a chance to finish his answering. 

Mr. HOLDER. I was simply going to say if you take from us the 

ability that has been used by Republican and Democratic administrations and attorneys general to use the Article III courts in the 

successful way that we have you will weaken our effort in this war 

that we must win. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Attorney General, I would only add to that 

other administrations have likewise not taken those tools out of 

their toolbox presumptively. The law works wonderfully when it 

works in the context of real cases, and chasing hypotheticals can 

be extremely difficult in the law. Tangibility is always helpful in 

answering these kinds of questions. 

I thank the Attorney General for his service and for his testimony here today. I compliment the Administration on really ensuring that process is re-emphasized at the Department, and thank 

you very much for doing a very difficult job extremely well, both 

in regard to the conventional crime responsibilities and the effort 

of the Department to handle these very complicated, difficult terrorist situations with professionalism while keeping in mind all of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
63 

the responsibilities and rights that you must balance under the 

Constitution. 

Thank you for your testimony here today, Mr. Attorney General. 

Mr. HOLDER. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
64 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 56795A.008
65 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 56795A.009
66 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 56795A.010
67 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 56795A.011
68 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 56795A.012
69 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 56795A.013
70 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 56795A.014
71 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 56795A.015
72 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 56795A.016
73 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 56795A.017
74 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 56795A.018
75 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 56795A.019
76 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 56795A.020
77 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 56795A.021
78 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 56795A.022
79 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 56795A.023
80 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 56795A.024
81 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 56795A.025
82 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 56795A.026
83 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 56795A.027
84 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 56795A.028
85 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 56795A.029
86 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 56795A.030
87 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 56795A.031
88 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 56795A.032
89 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 56795A.033
90 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 56795A.034
91 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 56795A.035
92 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 56795A.036
93 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 56795A.037
94 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 56795A.038
95 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 56795A.039
96 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 56795A.040
97 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 56795A.041
98 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 56795A.042
99 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 56795A.043
100 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 56795A.044
101 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 56795A.045
102 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 56795A.046
103 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 56795A.047
104 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 56795A.048
105 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 56795A.049
106 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 56795A.050
107 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 56795A.051
108 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 56795A.052
109 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 56795A.053
110 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 56795A.054
111 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 56795A.055
112 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 56795A.056
113 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 56795A.057
114 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 56795A.058
115 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 56795A.059
116 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 56795A.060
117 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 56795A.061
118 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 56795A.062
119 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 56795A.063
120 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 56795A.064
121 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 56795A.065
122 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 56795A.066
123 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 56795A.067
124 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 56795A.068
125 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 56795A.069
126 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 56795A.070
127 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 56795A.071
128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 56795A.072
129 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 56795A.073
130 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 56795A.074
131 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 56795A.075
132 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 56795A.076
133 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 56795A.077
134 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 56795A.078
135 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 56795A.079
136 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 56795A.080
137 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 56795A.081
138 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 56795A.082
139 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 56795A.083
140 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 56795A.084
141 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 56795A.085
142 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 56795A.086
143 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 56795A.087
144 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 56795A.088
145 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 56795A.089
146 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 56795A.090
147 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 56795A.091
148 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 56795A.092
149 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 56795A.093
150 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 56795A.094
151 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 56795A.095
152 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 56795A.096
153 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 56795A.097
154 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 56795A.098
155 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 56795A.099
156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 56795A.100
157 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 56795A.101
158 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 56795A.102
159 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 56795A.103
160 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 56795A.104
161 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 56795A.105
162 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 56795A.106
163 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 56795A.107
164 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 56795A.108
165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 56795A.109
166 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 56795A.110
167 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 56795A.111
168 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 56795A.112
169 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 56795A.113
170 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 56795A.114
171 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 56795A.115
172 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 56795A.116
173 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 56795A.117
174 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 56795A.118
175 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 56795A.119
176 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 56795A.120
177 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 56795A.121
178 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 56795A.122
179 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 56795A.123
180 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 56795A.124
181 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 56795A.125
182 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 56795A.126
183 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 56795A.127
184 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 56795A.128
(185) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FY2011 BUDGET 

OVERVIEW 

WITNESS 

ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Good afternoon. The subcommittee would like to welcome Robert 

Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to discuss 

the FBI’s 2011 budget request and related issues. 

We are pleased to have you here, Director Mueller, and thank 

you for your appearance. The FBI’s budget request for 2011 totals nearly $8.2 billion. 

Within such a large total there are clearly many programmatic and 

policy issues to cover. Too many, in fact, for any one hearing to 

cover exhaustively, but I do hope that we can use this opportunity 

to focus on at least a few important areas which we consider high 

priority. 

The first of these areas, for me, is white collar crime. Our economy has suffered billions of dollars in losses due to the illegal and 

immoral behavior of individuals who capitalized on weaknesses in 

the regulatory and enforcement system to profit at the expense of 

shareholders, investors, homeowners, workers and taxpayers. 

While many firms on Wall Street have recovered and are, in fact, 

making substantial profits again, there are millions of regular 

Americans who are still hurting and have yet to see any real justice for the economic violence that was perpetrated on them. 

I am glad to see that this administration has recognized the 

error of past practices and is now proposing to invest in your fraud 

enforcement programs rather than raiding those resources year 

after year to pay for other priorities, Mr. Director. This is the priority now. What remains to be determined is whether the size of 

this investment is sufficient to the size of the problem. Your budget 

request proposes to add 62 new agents for white collar crime, but 

compared to the thousands of active cases and billions of dollars of 

losses, the question is, does that seem small? I am anxious to explore this during your testimony. 

The second area of concern is law enforcement in Indian country. 

This subcommittee has heard many times and from many different 

people how desperate the law enforcement situation really is in Indian Country. Unfortunately, it’s not obvious exactly how to solve 

this problem. Will clarifications to the jurisdictional construct help? 

Will more agents or more prosecutors or better evidence processing 

capabilities do the trick? Do we need to focus on building community trust between the tribes and Federal law enforcement entities, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
186 

or on significant substance abuse problems among tribal populations? 

I am sure that these are all elements of the solution, and the key 

is to find the right mix of those elements. Your budget contains 

some resources to address one part of this mix, and that request 

is certainly welcome. For too long, the FBI has failed to request the 

resources necessary to improve its presence in Indian Country or 

to follow up aggressively on the execution of existing funds to make 

sure that the resources you have are actually reaching the Native 

American communities for which they are intended. 

The final area that I think needs to be addressed is the treatment of terrorism suspects apprehended in the U.S. This issue 

emerged as a major subject of debate after the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in December when a whole spectrum of public 

figures alleged that the FBI’s provision of Miranda rights to 

Abdulmutallab was unnecessary, misguided, and perhaps even detrimental. It is the position of the administration that there was no 

difference between the handling of this case and the way the FBI 

always handled these cases in the past, and there were apparently 

no criticisms when the FBI gave virtually identical treatment to 

David Headley and Najibullah Zazi, to name recent examples, or 

to dozens of others apprehended during the previous administration. 

I would like to think that much of the current criticisms and misrepresentations are just the result of some misunderstandings 

about what has taken place in this case. The fact of the matter is 

that the FBI has made it clear that it sent experienced knowledgeable agents to question Abdulmutallab. Beyond this one particular 

case, I believe there are also some fundamental misunderstandings 

of the overreaching legal framework in which you operate when 

someone is apprehended within our borders for committing or attempting to commit a terrorist act. Can that person legally be held 

without charge or without the provision of certain constitutional 

rights? Whether he is a U.S. citizen or not, once in custody, what 

are the provisions with regard to his advice on his right to remain 

silent, his right to retain counsel, and the government’s right to use 

statements against him? 

These are all questions which I am sure will be explored. The 

FBI simply cannot take a suspect apprehended domestically and 

just pack him off to Guantanamo Bay. You can’t turn him over to 

CIA, which does not have authority to operate domestically, and 

you can’t decide to give him to the military where, by the way, he 

would still be entitled to constitutional rights. I understand that 

there are differences of opinion, and we look forward to exploring 

them in the context of the Constitution and the reality in which we 

find ourselves. I intend to pursue these topics in more detail during 

our rounds of questioning, and I also hope to address some newly 

emerging problems with the development of the Sentinel case management system. This is a critical effort and one that absolutely 

must succeed in order for the FBI to fully bring its investigative 

technology into the new century. 

Before we get into these issues, however, I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wolf, for any comment he may have. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
187 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. WOLF

Director Mueller, I join the chairman in welcoming you this 

morning to testify before the committee. I am pleased that we are 

holding the hearing. For 2011, you are seeking an appropriation of 

$8.3 billion, an increase of $366 million or 4.6%. We look forward 

to your testimony on the new increases you are seeking as well as 

on the FBI’s continuing with transformation activities to fulfill its 

role as the key domestic counterterrorism and intelligence agency. 

In addition, I am interested to hear more about the FBI-led effort 

to establish a new interagency capability for the interrogation of 

high-value terrorist suspects pursuant to the recommendations of 

the interrogation task force set up last year by executive, and yesterday I asked the Attorney General and I sent a letter down to 

the administration asking that the HIG be relocated at the 

counterterrorism center. 

The whole purpose of establishing a counterterrorism center was 

to bring people of different backgrounds, different agencies together, and rather than having it in a separate building away from 

there; so I would like to get your comments with regard to this. 

This function is critical to the intelligence gathering, and as the 

Christmas Day bombing revealed, there is an unacceptable level of 

confusion about how such interrogation should be handled. 

Lastly, I would like you to pass on to your people our appreciation for their hard work, the work of your agents, your analysts 

and support staff to protect the Nation from terrorism and crime 

is perhaps the most important activity that we support in this subcommittee. I recognize the tireless efforts that are required to carry 

out those responsibilities, and your people should be commended, 

and quite frankly, speaking for myself, I think you should be commended. I think you have provide a great service to the country. 

Your wife and I would probably differ but I am not looking forward to the day that you leave because I think you really have in 

this difficult time done an outstanding—I would say your people 

have done a good job, but I think you have too, and I want to go 

on the record with that. 

I yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Mueller, as you may know, your written 

statement will be made a part of the record and the committee invites you to proceed with your oral testimony. Thank you. 

ORAL REMARKS OF DIRECTOR MUELLER

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Congressman Wolf, thank you for your comments. You 

probably do differ with my wife who is looking forward to that 

time. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today before this 

committee to discuss the budget for 2011. The FBI is requesting 

approximately $8.3 billion to fund more than 33,000 FBI agents 

and staff and to build and maintain our infrastructure. This funding is critical to continue our progress in transforming the FBI into 

an intelligence-driven, threat-based agency and to carry out our 

mission of protecting the Nation from ever-changing national security and criminal threats. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
188 

Let me start by discussing a few of the most significant threats. 

Fighting terrorism remains our highest priority at the FBI. Over 

the past year, the threat of terrorist attacks has proven to be both 

persistent and global. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are still committed to striking us in the United States. We saw this with the 

plot by an al Qaeda operative to detonate explosives in New York 

subways and the attempted airline bombing plot on Christmas Day 

to which, Mr. Chairman, you have alluded. Both incidents involved 

improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and underscore the importance of our continuing to develop explosives intelligence to support 

and guide terrorism-related investigations. 

Homegrown and lone wolf extremists pose an equally serious 

threat. We saw this with the Fort Hood shootings and with the attempted bombings of an office tower in Dallas and a Federal building in Springfield, Illinois. We have also seen U.S.-born extremists 

plotting to commit terrorist acts overseas, as was the case with the 

heavily armed Boyd conspiracy in North Carolina, and David 

Headley’s involvement in the Mumbai attacks from his home base 

in Chicago, Illinois. 

These terrorist threats are diverse, far reaching and ever-changing. Combating these threats requires the FBI to continue improving our intelligence and our investigative programs and to continue 

engaging with our intelligence and law enforcement partners both 

domestically and overseas. Accordingly, for fiscal year 2011, we are 

requesting funds for 90 new national security positions and $25 

million to enhance our national security efforts. 

Next let me spend a moment discussing the cyber threat. Cyber 

attacks come from a wide range of individuals and groups, many 

with different skills, motives, and targets. Terrorists increasingly 

use the Internet to communicate, to recruit, to plan and to raise 

money. Foreign nations continue to launch attacks on U.S. Government computers and on private industry hoping to steal our most 

sensitive secrets or benefit from economic espionage. Criminal 

hackers pose a dangerous threat as well as use the anonymity of 

the Internet to steal identities and money, across the country and 

around the world. These attacks undermine our national security 

and pose a growing threat to our economy. We are seeking 163 new 

positions and $46 million for our cyber programs to strengthen our 

ability to defend against cyber attacks. 

Let me turn for a moment to white collar crime. Mortgage fraud 

is the most significant threat in our efforts to combat white collar 

crime. Mortgage fraud investigations have grown five-fold since 

2003, and more than two-thirds of these cases involve losses of 

more than $1 million each. If trends continue, we will receive more 

than 75,000 leads regarding mortgage fraud in this year alone. Securities fraud is also on the rise. We have 33 percent more security 

fraud cases open today than we had 5 years ago, and the economic 

downturn has exposed a series of historically large Ponzi schemes 

and other investment frauds. And of course, health care fraud remains a priority for the FBI given the estimates on the billions lost 

to fraud each year in health care programs. 

Investigating and bringing to justice those who commit fraud is 

critical to restoring public confidence in our Nation’s mortgage, financial securities, and health care industries. We are requesting 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
189 

funds for 367 new positions and $75 million for our white collar 

crime program. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget also requests new funding for the 

threats from crimes in Indian country and international organized 

crime, and we are also seeking additional funds for our infrastructure to address these national security threats and crime problems 

including funding for training facilities, information technology, forensic services, and as you point out, Mr. Chairman, my written 

statement I submitted for the record discusses these requests in far 

greater detail. 

I will say that over the past several years, we have worked to 

better integrate our strategic direction with a 5-year budget approach and with a more focused human resources management. Indeed, the FBI’s fiscal management has been recognized by the Inspector General’s annual audit as being among the top performers 

in the Department of Justice and we are on pace to achieve our hiring and staffing goals this year. 

Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Wolf, I would like to conclude by thanking both of you and the other members of the committee for your support and particularly in your support of the men 

and women of the FBI, and I am happy to answer any questions 

you might have. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
190 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 56795A.129
191 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 56795A.130
192 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 56795A.131
193 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 56795A.132
194 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 56795A.133
195 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 56795A.134
196 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 56795A.135
197 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 56795A.136
198 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 56795A.137
199 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 56795A.138
200 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 56795A.139
201 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 56795A.140
202 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 56795A.141
203 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 56795A.142
204 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 56795A.143
205 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Director Mueller. 

INTERROGATION OF TERRORISM SUSPECTS IN THE U.S. 

I would like to begin by revisiting the Abdulmutallab case and 

attempting to clarify some issues that have been subject to a lot 

of controversy in the press and in the public and on the Hill. Some 

of those controversies stem from confusion or a misunderstanding, 

perhaps, about how you proceeded on the day that Abdulmutallab 

was arrested and whether the Intelligence Community was consulted about the handling of the case. 

So Mr. Director, can you walk us through the basics of what occurred on Christmas Day and how you interacted with the Intelligence Community, almost a chronology? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Starting around noon, word was received, 

and again, I am not specific on the particular time; so please don’t 

hold me to those, but approximately noon or a little afterwards we 

received word that an individual on a plane bound to Detroit, I believe from Amsterdam, had apparently attempted to set off something. Initial reports indicated it may have been firecrackers. When 

the plane landed, first on the scene were those at the airport, principally Customs and Border Patrol and ICE agents. We were shortly there ourselves and learned that an individual had attempted to 

trigger an explosive device on the plane and had been stopped by 

one or more passengers. 

He was placed into the custody of—I believe it was Customs and 

Border Patrol, and because the device, as he attempted to ignite it, 

had burned him, he was taken in custody to the hospital. As we 

found out about that, we immediately attempted and did find out 

information about him, understood that he was of Nigerian background and had flown in from Amsterdam. Immediately e-mail 

traffic began from both Detroit to our National Joint Terrorism 

Task Force here in Washington, and out to various agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, National Counter 

Terrorism Center, and the Intelligence Community about what little information we had. That correspondence carried through the 

afternoon. 

At approximately 2 o’clock, our agents went to the hospital and 

interviewed Abdulmutallab with the specific objective of finding out 

whether there was any immediate threat of additional bombs on 

other planes or additional persons on that plane who might constitute a threat. They spent up to an hour interviewing 

Abdulmutallab. 

As has been pointed out, the determination was made not to provide Miranda warnings on the belief that this was information that 

was absolutely essential to determine public safety and so that 

interview was conducted along those lines. We continued to obtain 

information from various entities in the Intelligence Community 

throughout the afternoon, and at 5 o’clock that evening, there was 

a video teleconference that was established by John Brennan at the 

National Security Council. 

We attended that video teleconference where most of the members of the Intelligence Community representatives of the Department of Justice, NCTC, National Security Council, and of course, 

representatives of the FBI, reviewed what had happened and what 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
206 

was going to happen thereafter. There was the ongoing assumption 

at that time that Abdulmutallab, having been arrested on United 

States soil, would proceed through the Article III process. There 

was no debate at that time whether there was the issue of whether 

or not to Mirandize him. 

Later that night it was determined to try again to interview 

Abdulmutallab, and at that time, it was determined both by the 

Department of Justice and the FBI that we would follow our ordinary procedures and attempt to interview him and provide him his 

Miranda warnings. When the agents went in that evening, he was 

less responsive to interviewing. He was not providing basic booking 

information. He was read his Miranda rights and discontinued any 

conversation afterwards. He remained in custody in the hospital 

that night and was brought before the magistrate the following 

day, as is required under rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, later on the following day. That, in brief overview, is 

what happened that day, consistent with the practices that we 

have utilized generally throughout any arrests that we do in the 

United States. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Was there communication with the Intelligence 

Community about how this case was being handled? Was there cooperation among the various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies during this process? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, there was continuous coordination in obtaining information to the extent that we could pull it from our various 

archives the afternoon of Christmas, and the communication was 

between persons not at the highest level. In other words, I would 

not have been necessarily involved in that communication nor Secretary Napolitano nor the Attorney General. But yes, in the discussions throughout that afternoon, there was a colloquy between various elements of the Intelligence Community and the law enforcement community as the events unfolded. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Were his arrest and the process that you just described handled any differently than the process followed for any 

other terrorist suspect arrested in the United States either before 

or after 9/11? 

Mr. MUELLER. The only distinction I would say is that we made 

the determination early on not to Mirandize him in the initial 

interview. We knew we had a relatively short window of time in 

order to conduct that interview and believed that in that window 

of time we had to focus on immediate information relating to public 

security. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You indicated that the next day the suspect was 

taken before a magistrate? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. We are required under the rules to present 

the individual in custody before the magistrate. Generally we are 

required to do it within a 24-hour period. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is there a Mirandizing requirement at that 

time? 

Mr. MUELLER. That happens whenever you are presented to the 

magistrate. The magistrate will review your rights for you. And it 

was done on that occasion. At least that is my understanding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So the court itself would advise the defendant of 

Miranda rights at that time? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
207 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So really there is a requirement that, except for 

the public safety aspect of this, a suspect arrested in the United 

States would be subject to Mirandizing under the law? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Once that person has been presented to the 

magistrate for any initial appearance. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There has been considerable discussion about 

Miranda warnings and how they may or may not impact suspects 

from cooperating with investigators. I would like to just explore 

that a bit with you. Given that a suspect is going to be advised of 

his rights by a court within hours after his or her arrest, the FBI, 

is it correct, generally provides Miranda warnings itself so that you 

can take full advantage of anything he might say in the intervening period and preserve it for an Article III court? Many people 

have contended that the moment a suspect is provided Miranda 

warnings he will immediately cease cooperating with you. 

So I am asking in your experience, is it the case that suspects 

become uncooperative and invoke their right to remain silent after 

being read Miranda rights, and does that attitude persist? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me divide it up in two parts if I could. The 

first part with regard to our policy, we make hundreds of arrests 

a day across the country. State and local law enforcement make 

thousands of arrests across the country daily. It is generally the 

protocol for ourselves as well as State and local law enforcement 

to provide Miranda warnings before interrogating somebody who is 

in custody to maximize the opportunity for utilizing whatever is 

said by that individual in the case against him in court. 

Turning to the second part of that in terms of what one can anticipate, it really depends on the case. I think prosecutors and 

agents and police officers would say that on many occasions, persons who are Mirandized agree to cooperate afterwards and reach 

some sort of understanding whereby they would have to truthfully 

cooperate in order to get some consideration in terms of sentence. 

There are others who will never cooperate. 

Richard Reid is an example of an individual, the shoe bomber, 

whose arrest was I think in 2002, who has never cooperated to this 

day even given Miranda warnings, and there probably are others 

out there who might have cooperated had they not been given Miranda warnings. So it really depends on the circumstances of the 

case. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There has been a lot of discussion of whether 

Abdulmutallab was willing to talk to you and whether the provision of Miranda warnings prevented you from achieving some form 

of cooperation from him. When agents spoke to him following his 

medical procedure, was he uncooperative? 

Mr. MUELLER. My understanding is that he did not display the 

same willingness to respond to questions that he had displayed 

earlier in the day when we first interviewed him. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about now? Did he cooperate with you 

some time post-hospitalization or post-operation, after having been 

advised of his right to remain silent and the right to retain counsel? Is he cooperating with you now? 

Mr. MUELLER. He has been providing information, yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. He has been? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
208 

Mr. MUELLER. He has been, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t know that you can answer this, but what 

causes his cooperation now? 

Mr. MUELLER. It may well have been a combination of factors, 

and I can generally say that I think his family had some role in 

that. The fact that he faced substantial—life imprisonment probably played some role in that. There may be a number of other factors. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, there is no clear lawful authority to move 

a defendant out of the civilian system; is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that, when you say no clear authority, I 

do believe that this issue has been litigated and come up with different results in different circuits. So to the extent the question is, 

is there any certain authority on that, I don’t believe there is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we have heard in the media and elsewhere 

that the military should have taken custody of Abdulmutallab. 

That is a contention that is out there, with the implication being 

that the government would have gotten more out of him if the military had been allowed to handle his case. Since 

9/11, has the FBI ever arrested a suspected terrorist inside the 

United States and immediately turned the person over to the military? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, we have not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And for both the past administration and this 

administration, that’s a true statement? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have not done that. Let me just put it this 

way: assuming the President has the authority to direct that, we 

have not been directed to do that ourselves. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Have you ever turned such a person over to the 

military later in the process, such as after their first appearance 

in court? 

Mr. MUELLER. The FBI has not. There have been other occasions 

where the Marshals Service, upon the direction of the President, 

has, I believe, turned at least two individuals over to the military. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you know who those two individuals were? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think one is named Padilla and the other was 

al-Mari, both of whom were directed into military custody for a period of time, and then were returned to the Article III courts for 

disposition of their cases. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And who had custody of those individuals? 

Mr. MUELLER. At the outset, we probably did the arrests on both 

of them. I think we did the arrests on both of them. They went into 

the Article III court system, into the custody of the U.S. Marshals 

Service as their cases were going to the courts. They were then 

transferred to the military for a period of time and then transferred back into the custody of the Marshals Service for disposition 

of their cases. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just backing up a little bit, you didn’t make that 

decision? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, we did not. That is the President’s decision. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In those two cases did the President make that 

decision? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that is the case. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
209 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. President Bush made the decision to transfer 

those two individuals over to the military—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that to be—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. For disposition. Are those defendants still in military custody? 

Mr. MUELLER. Mr. Padilla went to trial before an Article III 

court, I believe in Florida, was convicted, and is serving his sentence in the U.S. prison system. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So that implies to me that they came back from 

military custody into the civilian forum? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. In both of those cases, they came back 

into civilian—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How did that happen? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe it was directed by the President that 

they be returned to the custody of the Attorney General. That was 

exercised through the Marshal Service. As for al-Mari, I believe he 

was sentenced. He may well still be in jail or may have been released. I would have to check on that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But was there not an intervening challenge by 

the defendants to their detention in the military system? The judiciary issued contradictory decisions about whether the transfers 

were legal and both the civilians moved back into civilian custody. 

My question is, did the courts direct that they be sent back, or did 

the Bush administration send them back before a court’s determination was made whether they were illegally detained in the 

military system? 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not reviewed their cases recently, but I do 

believe one circuit ruled against the transfer of the individual into 

the military system whereas the other circuit upheld the transfer. 

Neither of the cases reached the Supreme Court and both were resolved in Article III courts before it could go to the Supreme Court. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So I guess faced with conflicting decisions in different circuits, the administration pulled them out of military custody and put them back over into the civilian forum? 

Mr. MUELLER. I was not involved in the decision-making process, 

but I can say that they did come back into that—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Both of them, although one circuit determined 

that a transfer to military custody was lawful; so there was a contradictory—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Excuse me a second. 

That is right, sir. I just wanted to check up and make certain I 

was on solid ground. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So there is no clear legal authority to transfer 

terrorism suspects arrested inside the United States to the military? 

Mr. MUELLER. You would have to go to constitutional scholars 

other than myself to—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Based on court decisions, we have a conflict in 

the court decisions. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think there is a conflict. Again, the cases may 

have been somewhat different. All I can say is that I am probably 

not the person to opine on to what extent it still remains unsettled. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I probably should know, but do you know whether those cases went to the district court or circuit court? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
210 

Mr. MUELLER. Both went to circuit courts. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So we have a difference of opinion in two different circuits. 

Being in the civilian system does not mean an interrogation 

won’t be useful; that is the point of this next line of questioning 

I have. So we have established for this purpose that there really 

aren’t any constitutional alternatives that the FBI’s handling these 

cases directly. Let’s turn then to the contention that your interrogation of Abdulmutallab wasn’t necessarily effective. That is an accusation. Some critics have charged that you could have achieved 

a more effective interrogation if there were better interrogators 

available. As I say that, I have not seen a shred of evidence to substantiate that from my position. But just to explore this contention, 

do you believe that you had the right mix of agents on the ground 

for the initial interviews of Abdulmutallab? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think if you put this into context, in the 

middle of Christmas Day there is this attempt by an individual to 

blow up a jet as it was coming into Detroit. Nobody could quite obviously have anticipated that and it could have gone into any city 

in the United States. I believe that the Special Agent in Charge 

there and the agents on the ground did an admirable job in identifying persons available to conduct the initial interview. They chose 

an agent who had substantial terrorism experience who had served 

overseas—I am not certain if it was Iraq or Afghanistan, and was 

fairly familiar with terrorism issues and—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Both domestically and internationally, then? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. And also an individual who—he may not 

have been a certified bomb technician, but was expert when it 

comes to explosives because of the necessity of identifying what 

kind of explosive was on the plane and what we were dealing with. 

So I believe they did an admirable job in pulling together the right 

persons to conduct the interviews on the day. Now, down the 

road—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Excuse me—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I am sorry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. You keep that thought. But before we get 

down the road, these individuals who conducted these interrogations, am I accurate in saying that they were members of the FBI’s 

Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to check on that. It may well have 

been. At least one was, but I am not certain. It may have been— 

the bomb technician or another may not have been a member of 

the Joint Terrorism Task Force but had the type of expertise that 

they believed was necessary immediately. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You may want to clarify that for the record. 

Mr. MUELLER. We will get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

IF ANY OF THE AGENTS WHO DID THE INITIAL ABDULMUTALLAB INTERVIEW WERE

PART OF THE LOCAL JTTP 

Yes. Both FBI Agents who were involved in the initial interview of Mr. 

Abdulmutallab were members of the Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Excuse me. Down the road? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
211 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think one of the benefits of the HIG program, the High-Value Interrogation Group program, is that you 

want to pull together persons with a variety of capabilities. You 

want a strong interrogator. You want a strong subject matter expert. You want a person who is knowledgeable of the individual. 

You may need language experts. And we, thereafter as the process 

went on, increased our numbers of persons with various degrees of 

expertise that could contribute to that interrogation, but we were 

dealing with on that day a necessity to respond and within very 

few moments, to get the information we thought was essential. And 

so I do believe that, yes, we could have brought in and had afterwards brought in greater number of subject matter experts, but 

they were not readily available on the ground at that time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The administration recently established the 

High-Value Interrogation Group, the HIG, to interrogate individuals of significant interest to the government overseas; that is my 

understanding. Why wasn’t the HIG deployed to interrogate Mr. 

Abdulmutallab instead of your Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force 

agents, and do you believe your interrogation was effective without 

HIG involvement? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, by Christmas the HIG had not been formally 

set up, but that did not mean that we did not use the same concept 

prior to that time. We recognized for a period of time and certainly 

our agents who are far more expert than I, understand the advisability of having any number of areas of expertise to contribute to 

the success of a particular interrogation. We had used that concept 

previously last fall in Chicago with an individual by the name of 

David Headley, where we pulled various experts to contribute to 

that interrogation. 

On that particular day, we would have been anticipating down 

the road what we would need to flow into Detroit to complement 

the individuals who were doing the initial interrogation, and indeed that is what happened. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, my understanding, and I think your testimony substantiates it, is the proposition that Abdulmutallab was 

interviewed by anybody but absolutely expert experienced interrogators, members of the Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force, would 

be unfounded. And the HIG, as I understand it, might be available 

for consultation on domestic cases. Let me ask you if they would, 

but primarily they are a deployment group for overseas interrogation; is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is correct, but that does not preclude them 

from being used in the United States and that expertise has been 

and will be used in the United States. 

One point I do want to make because I have heard some criticism 

of the fact that he was interrogated by FBI who were in Detroit. 

The fact of the matter is our agents are very experienced. As they 

go through new agents class, one of the key areas that is covered 

is interrogations and many of our agents that come in have spent 

a great deal of time as police officers and that is what you do day 

in and day out. 

I might also add that we have had some successes, some of them 

fairly renowned. An individual by the name of George Piro was selected by the military to do the interrogation—long interrogation— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
212 

of Saddam Hussein. So I do believe we have the expertise. I do believe we had the expertise on the ground that day to do a very good 

job and that the HIG would only augment what we have been 

doing for a number of years. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. At the risk of asking a leading question, I don’t 

suppose you get on the Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force without 

being seriously experienced. 

Mr. MUELLER. Generally that is the case. We certainly have a lot 

of experience on that task force. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My views are as follows: I really want to find out what have we 

learned. What have we learned to protect the American citizens so 

that next time something happens we are safer? There has been a 

lot of effort by the administration trying to defend themselves, and 

I want to make sure that I don’t get into any political questions 

with you, and then there have been those on the other side who 

wanted to perhaps exploit that. Judge Mukasey did a piece where 

he said Abdulmuttalab should have been held as an enemy combatant. I don’t know if you read this. It was in The Wall Street Journal. 

Mr. MUELLER. I generally read his pieces, yes, whether Wall 

Street Journal or—— 

Mr. WOLF. And I will submit that for the record. Judge Mukasey, 

if I recall, was the judge in the ’93 World Trade Center; is that correct. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
213 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 56795A.144
214 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 56795A.145
215 

Mr. MUELLER. That is true, yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. It’s true. And I think he has forgotten more about this 

than most people will ever, ever know. And the point was, and the 

whole purpose of the high-value detainee interrogation group is to 

deal with high-value detainees, not criminal detainees, but the 

high-value detainees as an intelligence point of view; is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. And so we are not really saying that the guy who 

drew the short straw in Detroit on Christmas Day was a bad person. He may have been a wonderful person. I stipulate for the 

record they are wonderful people, but maybe there were some others that could have also added some value to that that were not 

there. And one of the recommendations that I made, and you might 

want to comment on it, is I have asked that the HIG be colocated 

at the National Counterterrorism Center for that very, very purpose because they were not involved—and based on what you said, 

they were not involved before the decision was made with regard 

to Miranda rights. And so therefore—and when Secretary 

Napolitano testified, she said she did not know. 

I believe that Admiral Blair testified over on the Senate side. I 

can still see the hearing. I think the question was asked by maybe 

Senator McCain. I am not sure. I think Senator McCain. And he 

said he did not know. And I think Mike Leiter said he did not 

know. And I think Leiter does a great job. I am very impressed. 

I think the more people go out to the Counterterrorism Center and 

see the number of pieces of information that come in every day and 

how they have to boil it down—and so I think those of us or I— 

I am not speaking for the other side—felt that perhaps if he could 

have been considered an enemy combatant, as Judge Mukasey 

said, and had more opportunity, there may have been a chance to 

say to them, did you see this gentleman when you were in Yemen? 

Did you ever talk to Awlaki? What building were you in? Did you 

ever see any of these pictures, people that have been sent back? 

Are there any American citizens that were in the class with you? 

There are a lot of things that could have been asked. And so I 

think the question is what did we learn? You can spend a lot of 

time going back either criticizing what took place on Christmas 

Day or you could go back and defend what took place. Now, the administration announced that the high-value interrogation—they 

announced it in August; correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain when they first announced it. It 

may have well been last summer, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. In August. And this is one of the most significant 

issues that our Nation is facing because there are young men and 

women that are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and serving us 

well and some of your people have really done a great job. So let’s 

find out what we have learned from it rather than defending or 

tearing it down. And I would stipulate that as great as they may 

very well be, they were not the best people we had in the Nation 

at that time to have interrogated the Christmas Day bomber because they were on vacation. They were having—celebrating the 

birth of Jesus Christ on Christmas Day. They may have been at 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
216 

church service. They may have been somewhere else. And that is 

not bad. It is okay for people to take off. 

And so the point that I have tried to make at that time—because 

this is such an important issue because of the number of people 

who have died in this country, the number of people who died at 

Fort Hood who were impacted by Awlaki; correct? Did he have any 

impact on the major down in Fort Hood? Yes. Did he have any impact on the Army recruiter that was killed? Yes. Did he have any 

impact on John Walker Lindh, who may have been responsible for 

killing or involved in the killing of Michael Spawn, the first CIA 

people from my district? The answer is probably yes. And you could 

go on and on and on. 

So I think it is what did we learn—without being defensive or 

without being protective, what did we learn to truly make sure that 

the next time, and unfortunately there may very well be a next 

time, to make sure that we do everything we possibly can? Now, 

I have talked to your people and they tell us, and I think you sort 

of acknowledged it, that the HIG will be used domestically. It won’t 

only be for international. But that is accurate, it may very well be 

used for domestic—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. So I think that is where I go. And I read the interview and I read the stories of the fellow Piro. He’s a great guy, but 

how long did Piro have with Saddam? 

Mr. MUELLER. Months. 

Mr. WOLF. Months. 

Mr. MUELLER. Months. 

Mr. WOLF. Months. But he understood the culture. He understood—I can still remember the time that former Congressman and 

Secretary Richardson met with Saddam Hussein, when he put his 

sole up and Saddam got up and walked out. Culturally that was 

not appropriate. So to have someone who understood the culture 

and the language—and the point is they were probably very good 

people, but there are probably people that are better in the country 

and in order to make sure that America is safe and secure, I think 

we should do everything we possibly can. 

Let me ask you some questions—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Can I respond if I could to a couple of aspects of 

that? 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Mr. MUELLER. First of all, with regard to military commissions 

and the support of military commissions for the trials that Judge 

Mukasey argued for, I believe the President has the authority and 

the right to determine where a person is to be tried, whichever. 

And I also believe that the most important thing we need to get 

is intelligence to prevent additional attacks and we want the best 

possible people doing interrogation, as soon as possible. 

The one thing I do think is lost in some of this dialogue is that 

one has to make decisions relatively quickly in order to maximize 

the opportunity to get that information and intelligence, and oftentimes where the opportunity is greatest is after the arrest. And 

most police officers, I think, will tell you that that is the time 

where you have the greatest opportunity to obtain the information 

you need. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
217 

I would have liked to have gotten out to Detroit. The plane came 

in around 12 o’clock. Abdulmutallab is at the hospital at 2 o’clock 

and we have got a very small window of opportunity to interrogate 

him before he goes under surgical procedures. I could not get an 

expert on Nigerian radicalism at that point. I could not get somebody from Quantico who does this for a living at that point. And 

the individuals were selected for their capabilities to do those interviews. 

And what is lost in the dialogue is that we were relying on the 

people in the field who were doing this and reacting to a number 

of stimuli that come through either what is happening at the scene, 

what is happening dramatically, what is happening right after the 

scene, or the willingness for the person to talk at that particular 

time. And I think what our people did, and cannot be lost in the 

future, is to keep the opportunities open as long as you can but 

take advantage of those opportunities when they are presented to 

us. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure, I agree with that. And I think it’s important not 

to browbeat and go after—my dad was a Philadelphia policeman— 

not to go after the people who were on the scene. That is not the 

point. The point is what do we learn by that? And I think the article—and I wish I still had it. We will submit it for the record. I 

think what Judge Mukasey was asking for was not that he be tried 

in a military tribunal. I think he felt, and I could be corrected here 

because it has been a long while since I have read it, that he be 

held as an enemy combatant for a long time that would have given 

an opportunity for your very best people to have interviewed him 

and then after that he could have gone to an Article III. 

So I think it’s an issue of timeliness and length of time. And, listen, I have great respect. I mean the policemen or the person at 

that moment, you get these silk stocking lawyers from the big 

firms that come in and make a value judgment. That man or 

woman on the street at that time has to make a very tough call— 

and I respect that. 

What do you think about the idea—and I have sent a letter down 

to the administration. I did not send it to you because on some of 

these I don’t send it to the Bureau because it is a political judgment to a certain extent, but what I did was—and I talked to John 

Brennan and I sent a letter to the President’s Foreign Intelligence 

Advisory Board, to the Secretary, to former Senator Boren and also 

Senator Hagel, both good people, asking them to look into the possibility of co-locating, the HIG at the Counterterrorism Center so 

that they are there at that very moment when something is coming 

in and also when you are out there at the center, the breaking 

down of the barriers because they are in the same cafeteria together. They kind of know each other and relationships develop. 

What are your thoughts about locating it there? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think you are aware from past discussions 

that I am a firm supporter of the National Counterterrorism Center. Early on we were one of the first occupants. I moved our 

Counterterrorism Division from FBI headquarters out there so that 

we co-located with NCTC and other elements of the Intelligence 

Community. I would have liked to have had the HIG located there. 

We talked about getting space there. And my understanding from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
218 

the response of those discussions is that they are stuffed to the 

gills and we could not get the space there for what we wanted to 

do. 

I can tell you we are operating out there, putting together our 

HIG. Our people are out there today. But we needed additional 

space that they could not accommodate. Ideally it would have been 

nice but now the space that we do have, which I think you are familiar with, also gives us space that we can move in relatively 

quickly and also is well on its way to being SCIF’ed, and so that 

was a consideration. I agree with you. Ideally I would like to have 

them there but they did not have the space. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. They tell me they actually won’t get into their 

current place until August 1. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would love to have another building—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I am going to continue to push this because I 

think it is a bigger issue, and let me say, I am also going on 

record—having complimented you and your people, I also want to 

compliment Michael Leiter and the group at the Counterterrorism 

Center. If everyone who writes a critical article or makes a comment could go out there and spend a day and look at the number 

of things that come in every day and then to boil that down, I felt 

that there was maybe a political decision made that was wrong, 

but the fault was really not out there. And if you begin to browbeat 

the people out there, you begin to get them so skittish that they 

are going to make a mistake sometimes. So anyway I am going to 

continue to push to see if we could have it relocated there. 

The administration has been unwilling to share with the Congress any details about the Nation’s new interrogation policy, and 

based on the Christmas Day bomber case it looks like there is some 

confusion out there as to what is the policy, and so—not generally 

like a newspaper story but what is the real policy? So has a charter 

or an MOU been written for the establishment of the HIG, and if 

so, could the committee see it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I think it is being modified to address the 

issue of—use of the HIG within the United States and I do believe 

there is every intent to provide it to Congress as it is finished. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. So the modification is so that the HIG will be 

used potentially here in the—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Could be, yes. Not—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, when—— 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. But allows it to be used, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Allowed, sure. Well, when it is available if you could 

just submit it for the record—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe there is an intent to provide it to you. 

Mr. WOLF. If the deployment is domestic, as the decision has 

been made, does HIG still adhere to the rule of intelligence gathering taking priority over the law enforcement. 

Mr. MUELLER. Generally, yes. I would say yes. I think every circumstance is a little bit different, but one of the things that the 

HIG has to do is put together an interrogation plan that has the 

input not just from the bureau and others in the law enforcement 

community but also input from the Intelligence Community. So the 

plan would address that particular issue with input from the various communities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
219 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. The last question is a budget issue too. What 

are the FBI’s funding requirements associated with the HIG and 

how much are you allocating in fiscal year 2010 and how much are 

you requesting in fiscal year 2011 and what does the FBI estimate 

a full year recurrent cost of the HIG once it is fully set up. 

Mr. MUELLER. We were—we were late in attempting to obtain 

the funding in the 2011. It will be in the 2012. As to the particular 

figures, I would have to get back to you on that. I will tell you that 

the FBI is footing the bill for the space. We hope to get contributions from the others. And the personnel will be contributions from 

the—contributing from various associated agencies. 

[The information follows:] 

BIG BUDGET NUMBERS

The FBI is bearing the initial administrative costs for the HIG in FY 2010; however, participating agencies are bearing the cost of the salaries and related expenses 

(travel, transportation, etc.) for their agencies’ personnel. The initial costs of facility 

build-out and personnel cost of the HIG Director is approximately $6 million. 

There was no specific request for HIG funding in the President’s FY 2011 Budget. 

By the time the Interrogation Task Force concluded, and recommendations were 

sent to the President, decisions on the FY 2011 Budget had already been made. The 

FBI will work with participating agencies to identify and relay funding requirements through appropriate channels to the Department of Justice, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and Congress. 

Mr. WOLF. Will that be based on the number like if there is overhead and everything like embassies do abroad, will that be if you 

have three people, you will pay a percentage of it or how will—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I would like to split it up as much as I can. But 

I want to get as much input, whether it be from the perspective 

of people or funds, from other agencies who are participating, but 

I did not want to hold up the process as we went through this. 

So I have got the people on the ground. We have got the experts 

together. We are well on our way. And with the building blocks, my 

hope is I would have contributions from other contributing agencies, and then my hope is that we would have something in the 

2012 budget that would make this a continuous budget item down 

the road. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but 

since we are on that issue, I will just kind of end with that and 

go back to you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Director, first I do want to congratulate you 

and all the men and women who work for the FBI. You do a good 

job. Our job in oversight, we have to look at certain things that we 

think how we can do better. One of the issues I want to talk about 

is your national security branch. You know, the intelligence is one 

of the best defenses against terrorism and we need to really focus 

on that. 

In the beginning when the national security branch stood up, I 

was concerned it was more of the culture which is supposed to be 

of the FBI—investigate, arrest, and convict. But when you are dealing in the intelligence arena you need a certain kind of culture and 

collecting and analyzing and issues like that. Then there were 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
220 

some problems with certain people leaving, whatever, but I understand that the national security branch is really coming together 

pretty well, and could you explain where you are on that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. First of all, I do think that because you are 

an FBI agent and well versed in law enforcement techniques, that 

does not mean you cannot utilize those skills to develop intelligence. And I do believe early on, our organization, agents, analysts, and professional support understood that we had to prevent 

terrorist attacks, and that is a result of good intelligence, not necessarily putting people in jail. 

The caliber and quality of the intelligence analytical corps has 

dramatically improved over the last several years. Actually, Harvard Law School is doing a study, and has looked at us under the 

microscope in terms of an organization going through change, and 

we had a professor go out and visit offices he wanted to go to. He 

visited them 2 years apart, and he came back and he basically said, 

This is a different, completely different analytical corps than I saw 

2 years ago. 

I do believe that the quality of our products, the ability of a Special Agent in Charge of a division to look at what is happening in 

his or her domain and understand the intelligence threats and then 

task persons to collect against the gaps that we don’t have has dramatically improved. 

Mr. MUELLER. The areas in which we still need improvement are 

to continue to grow our analytical corps and the persons who can 

support that analytical corps; and data input and the tasks that 

are necessary to accumulate the data that can then be analyzed. 

The other side of it is data aggregation and better search tools on 

the IT side. 

So those are the areas in which we still need to drive forward, 

again, continuing to improve our analyst capacity with additional 

personnel as well as improved information technology. 

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES BETWEEN FBI AND DHS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Now, you were a prosecutor years ago and 

then in this role, so you knew law enforcement pretty well. Anyone 

who has been in law enforcement understands sometimes there are 

turf battles, whether they are Federal, State or local. 

What I am concerned about—because I am on another subcommittee, Appropriations with Homeland Security—is really the 

issue of who is in charge with respect to the FBI and Homeland 

Security. If I were the President, I would have the FBI in charge, 

by the way. 

There have been turf battles that I have been aware of and whatever, and these were years ago, but I think it is really important 

that you and Secretary Napolitano really focus on where we are 

and on who is in charge of what, not only in Homeland, but you 

are talking cybersecurity, as an example. 

The President gave a directive to Homeland Security that they 

are supposed to be involved in dot-com and dot-gov. I see Homeland Security as having so many missions on their table that I 

don’t know how they are going to accomplish all of them, and I 

think there are 22 different areas that they have to deal with. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
221 

I am really focusing more on the issue of terrorism and on how 

you deal with them on that issue. 

Secondly, if you could address the cyberattack. We know cyber is 

a very serious issue. It is a serious threat to our country, to our 

businesses. Yet Homeland Security has a long way to go in order 

to be able to develop the programs that are necessary to deal with 

this issue. I feel more secure that NSA, who has the military side, 

has the technology—they need to know where it goes—but I think 

Homeland Security has a ways to go. 

So, in working together with them on those two issues, how are 

you dealing with Napolitano? Do you have any recommendations 

on who should be in charge of what or who should have certain responsibilities? 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t disagree. There has been some ambiguity, 

let me say, in terms of certain areas when it comes to terrorism, 

most particularly in terms of the delivery of information to State 

and local law enforcement. In the past there has been confusion as 

to their relationship with fusion centers, which have been established in every State, generally through the Governors and the 

Joint Terrorism Task Forces. Almost everyone I know defers to the 

Joint Terrorism Task Forces when it comes to action. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Can I stop you there? 

I think that the Joint Terrorism Task Force is probably our best 

defense right now against terrorism because of the strike force concept. You are in charge, and you know you are in charge, but you 

have disciplines from every major agency in the United States 

there to fight terrorism. So I think it is a great program. 

Mr. MUELLER. And I believe that that is acknowledged. 

The issue that we are working out with DHS, and we are doing 

it jointly, is the relationship of the fusion centers to Joint Terrorism Task Forces. No two fusion centers are necessarily the 

same. They are different. They have been established often for different purposes in different aspects of the local government. Our effort is to contribute to the success of the fusion centers and also 

to make certain that fusion centers are contributing to the success 

of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and we are doing that jointly 

with DHS. 

Very briefly, on the cyber side, our role is investigating cyber attacks, preventing cyber attacks. Our principal vehicle to do that is 

the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, which has the 

contribution of any number of agencies, including NSA, to identify 

particular threats and to investigate the sourcing of those threats 

and attribute them to either a country, an individual or a group of 

individuals. That is our role. 

I think it is relatively clear that we do not have a role in protecting dot-com, dot-edu or the rest. That is DHS’s responsibility. 

I do believe that our role, and the principal role that we should 

play—and I think we play it fairly well—is to bring to the Cyber 

Task Force arena what we have learned and have utilized in the 

Joint Terrorism Task Force arena. 

HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Another area is homegrown terrorists. 

When you are looking at what we are doing throughout the world— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
222 

and I think our military, our CIA and NSA are doing a really good 

job in other parts of the world, but more and more, I am concerned. 

We are getting information that we are going to see homegrown 

terrorists, and it already started just last week, and then we had 

the Colorado issue. You know, there are certain people who might 

be in certain minority populations or whatever who have been 

treated very poorly throughout their whole lives, and who are very 

much vulnerable to having an al Qaeda-type situation recruit them 

for jihad or whatever. 

How are you dealing with homegrown terrorists? What is your 

opinion on the homegrown terrorist issue? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not think you can really attribute homegrown 

terrorists—I would call them lone wolves—to any particular segment of any society. Abdulmutallab had one of the best educations 

you could get in the U.K. He came from a very wealthy family, and 

he was not homegrown, quite obviously. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Part of my question, and where I am leading, though, is like the woman who was—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, I know. She is the one who was just arrested, 

‘‘Jihad Jane.’’ 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER. There are a number of ways that we do that. We 

try to pick up on communications, whether it be the Internet or 

otherwise, in which a person has gone from First Amendment protected activity to undertaking some attack. We have a number of 

tripwires around, whether it be in chemical companies or in weapon shops, where we ask people to alert us to persons who may display the characteristics of somebody who may utilize a weapon or 

explosives to kill others. 

It is the most difficult thing we address because you don’t have 

the opportunity to pick up on communications. You don’t have the 

opportunity to pick up on persons who may be on the periphery to 

this to whom this person may have talked, and it is the biggest single threat that we face in the counterterrorism arena in the United 

States. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Sir, I have one more question. Do I have 

any time left? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are fine. Continue to march. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. I want to talk about domestic gangs. 

Gangs are a serious problem in this country. 

Mr. MUELLER. It is also in the domestic terrorism arena. In 1995, 

McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City building. That is still the type 

of domestic terrorist incident that can kill many people and that 

we have to be alert to. So it is not just somebody who follows an 

international terrorist ideology; it is also somebody who is much 

more domestic oriented. 

THREATS FROM GANGS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. The issue of gangs. Gangs are a very 

serious problem. A lot of times you have children in middle school 

who are being recruited for gangs. There is a lot of reason for that. 

Their family lives are not very good, and the gangs become their 

families, but there are a lot of issues there. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
223 

What do you feel are the biggest threats for gangs and which 

gangs at this point? I mean, you have Crips. You have Bloods. You 

have MS–13. It is on the east coast, west coast and in a lot of parts 

of the country. 

The other issue, too, is that we have spent so much money on 

terrorism, and we have not spent as much money on drugs, and 

drugs probably still impacts more people in this country in a negative way than terrorism does. It is unfortunate that we have not 

been able to give the resources to drugs that we should. And that 

ties into some of the gang issues, too, because a lot of the gangs 

are dealing with drugs, prostitution and that type thing. 

Mr. MUELLER. We have doubled, if not tripled, Safe Street Task 

Forces since 2001, which have, in my mind, the same types of capabilities that Joint Terrorism Task Forces have. Gangs have proliferated since the last time we were here. I am not certain that 

hundreds of thousands of the percentage of growth in gangs, but 

gangs have proliferated over the last several years. You mentioned 

a few. MS–13 is still bloody and violent. 

The other aspect that we have seen is where gangs used to be 

fairly localized and then became nationalized, now they are internationalized. We have close working relationships—for instance, if 

you talk about MS–13—with El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, 

and Mexico, because there are substantial components of those 

gangs operating in those countries. We have a task force down in 

El Salvador now that focuses on the MS–13 gangs, because it is a 

revolving door between El Salvador and the United States. It is 

true with many other gangs at this point, but we have asked, and 

have received over the last several years—and I believe we have 

a request in this budget—for additional capabilities when it comes 

to addressing the gang phenomenon. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Director. 

Mr. MUELLER. Sir. 

NEW AGENTS VISITING THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM

Mr. SERRANO. Prior to asking you a couple of questions, does the 

FBI still continue the practice of bringing new agents to the Holocaust Museum? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SERRANO. Just to have you on the record once again, because 

you know I am a big supporter of that action, could you tell the 

committee why you think that is important, why the Bureau thinks 

that that is important? 

Mr. MUELLER. The worst thing that can happen to law enforcement or, for that matter, to an intelligence agency is to lose sight 

of the fact that the public has given you an immense amount of 

power to exercise. They give you a badge and a gun, and you have 

tremendous power to affect persons’ lives. It is important that each 

of our agents, analysts and others understand that power, and, 

most particularly, that you have an obligation not to abuse that 

power. So the trip to the Holocaust Museum is to impress upon 

people what can happen when you lose sight of the authority you 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
224 

have been given and the constraints upon that authority to do 

good. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I thank you. I thank you for that statement, 

and I wanted to put you on the record again, because I think it is 

really something that is very, very important and something that 

I commend you for. 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just check on one thing, if I may. I haven’t 

been asked that question in the last few months. I wanted to make 

sure I was right when I said absolutely. If they discontinued it, I 

didn’t know about it. But no, it is firm that that is the case. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I am glad they didn’t. 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME

In past hearings we have discussed publicly, you and I, my concern and the concerns of others that the focus on the war on terror, 

which is extremely necessary—at the top of our list—would take 

away from the whole issue of the war on white-collar crimes. In 

view of what happened on Wall Street, and in view of what happened to our economy, we know that some people have been convicted and have gone to jail who had certain dealings within our 

economy, but as for so-called insiders, to my knowledge, none have 

been indicted or convicted. 

So, first, am I correct? If not, then what has happened there to 

make people like me feel that while we are fighting the very important and necessary war on terrorism, we are not short on resources 

or on man/womanpower, if you will, to fight the other wars that we 

have to fight? The drug war is also included in that. 

Mr. MUELLER. We have been given additional resources for 

white-collar crime, and we requested additional resources in the 

2011 budget, but we have probably close to, the last I saw, 2,900- 

some—I am sure it is up to at least 3,000 or over in terms of just 

mortgage fraud cases. We are not talking about corporate fraud, securities fraud, other fraud. This is just in mortgage fraud cases. 

Now, our effort has been to identify those cases with losses in excess of $1 million, and we have taken the most serious cases and 

are running with them. We have set up a number of working 

groups and task forces around the country to enlist State and local 

support, but also to triage the cases, attempting to get State and 

local law enforcement to follow up on cases that we don’t have the 

resources to meet and to track. We would like to be dealing with 

more, but the fact of the matter is, that there are so many out 

there that we can’t reach all of them. 

We have been very successful in the cases we have brought, and 

we have brought cases against insiders. We have brought cases 

against banking executives and securities firms executives. We currently have a number of pending prosecutions of high-profile persons who have abused their trust at the top of various organizations. 

I would be happy to give you more of a breakdown of the number 

of indictments and the number of persons and what we have done. 

I cannot tell you that we are able to do all we would want. We do 

have to triage, but it is much like that which we saw immediately 

after 2001–2002 when we had a series of corporate cases— 

Worldcom, Healthcom, Enron—where we had a substantial chalVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
225 

lenge to get through those cases in the same way we are going 

through these cases now. 

Mr. SERRANO. So, when you say you wish you could do more, is 

that because there is so much out there that it is hard to keep up 

with all of it, which is a terrible sign, or is it that there is a shortage of resources? 

Mr. MUELLER. It is a shortage of resources. We can use many 

more forensic accountants. I can use far more agents who have 

spent time on Wall Street, who know Wall Street, who have done 

well—I mean, the good agents from Wall Street who know Wall 

Street. 

Mr. SERRANO. I got worried for a minute. 

Mr. MUELLER. We do have a number of those. They help to prosecute them because they know the ins and outs. It is always a 

question of resources, and I think we are making a substantial 

dent in the workload, but yes, it is always a question of resources. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now, at the expense of getting the obvious answer, 

which is that it is a great relationship, what is the relationship between the Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 

terms of their turning over information to you or their doing some 

legwork, if you will, if that may help you? 

Mr. MUELLER. There has been a wholesale change at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The individuals who come over to 

take over the investigative side of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission are former Assistant United States Attorneys, who 

have worked well with the FBI over the years and with whom both 

we and the Department have a very close relationship. 

There is one area I know we are working closely on, and that is 

making certain that documents that are subpoenaed by one entity 

go to a database so that, if there is authority for the other entity 

to have those documents, you don’t have to replicate what had been 

done by the previous entity. It seems basic and simple, but we have 

been working with them so that there is a common database structure. When we pull in documents, we want to ensure that they can 

be utilized and searched, given the appropriate authorizations by 

the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and then be 

ready for the prosecutors. That has not always been the case. 

That is just a small example of an area we are working on to 

make certain that we coordinate the civil on their side with our 

criminal activities. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

HATE CRIMES ENFORCEMENT

Let me take you over to the area of hate crimes. As you know, 

the President has signed new legislation that covers issues that we 

needed to cover in this area. There is also the concern that many 

of us have about hate crimes directed at immigrants or having to 

do with the whole immigration issue. As we get closer, hopefully, 

to an immigration reform bill, I think there will be more people 

acting out their anger and their hate and their differences with the 

immigrant community. Also, if this economy doesn’t turn around 

quickly, there will be more feelings somehow that immigrants are 

causing problems. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
226 

So, in general, as to the issue of hate crimes, what can you tell 

me about the involvement of the FBI? Again, is the Bureau in the 

situation where it can’t do as much as it would want to do for 

whatever reasons—resources or that it is just focusing in on the 

war on terror? 

Lastly, what kind of requests, if any, are you getting from local 

authorities on issues that they feel they need FBI involvement? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we have augmented our agents and our 

focus on civil rights in general, of which hate crimes, quite obviously, are a strong part. 

As I believe you are aware, we had an initiative looking at the 

civil rights cases that had been unaddressed for 40 or 50 years, and 

that initiative we have been involved with for now 2 years. We 

have had some very successful prosecutions even though they are 

30 or 40 years after the events themselves took place. 

But when it comes specifically to hate crimes, we generally back 

up State and local authorities. They want to handle them. If we do 

not believe they are being handled appropriately, we and the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office will move in to make sure they are handled appropriately. It is not an overwhelming workload, and we should be 

available, because if we are not available to do that, nobody is. 

So we have not seen, I don’t believe, an uptick in hate crimes, 

although, with the new legislation, we undoubtedly will see an uptick in the numbers, and we will have to address those. 

The other thing I would say we are pressing on is when it comes 

to reporting the numbers for the reports that we produce in terms 

of crime up and down and the like. State and local law enforcement 

have not been amongst the leaders in terms of reporting hate 

crimes, and so we continuously push State and local law enforcement to record that so that we have some accurate accounting 

throughout the country as to what is happening with that type of 

criminal activity in the same way we do with rapes and murders 

and robberies and burglaries. 

RECRUITMENT IN DIVERSE COMMUNITIES

Mr. SERRANO. One last point and question, Mr. Director. In the 

past, at public hearings, in private and over the phone, I have discussed with you incidents where I have felt that the Bureau was 

taking actions that I thought were unfair—not taking actions, but 

things that have happened historically about the treatment of certain communities by the FBI in general. For the record, you and 

I have discussed this, and I believe it has been very helpful, for instance, in releasing documents about 60 years of FBI behavior towards the Puerto Rico independence movement and so on. 

Having said that, you know I have great respect for the Bureau, 

and I have great respect for you, and I think that anyone who is 

a member of the FBI is a person who should be proud of the work 

they do. So, with that in mind, every chance I get, I encourage people from my community to consider the Bureau as a career. So I 

bring the question of recruitment. 

How do you recruit these days? Where are you recruiting these 

days? Are you recruiting? How do people from communities like 

mine, both the physical community and the racial and ethnic community that I represent, get a shot at joining the Bureau? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
227 

Mr. MUELLER. Everybody has a shot at joining the Bureau. 

I will tell you, though, that it goes back to what I say about the 

power that one has when you give one the authority of being an 

FBI agent. We generally take persons who have had another career 

beforehand. In other words, the most important criterion, in our 

mind, is judgment, maturity and integrity in terms of becoming an 

FBI agent. Consequently, we don’t do as well as other agencies who 

recruit out of college, and it is for the reason that we believe that 

the Bureau is enhanced by having persons with a number of skills. 

It can be military. It can be police. It can be a teacher. It can be 

an accountant. It can be, in this day and age, somebody with regional expertise or languages. But generally, they will be 3 or 4 

years out of college when they come to us. We have recruiting 

drives for particular specialties. 

I will tell you I think last year we had something like 73,000 individuals who sought to become special agents, but that does not 

mean that we want you to, in any way, reduce your encouragement, your recruiting a person from your community. We need the 

representation of every person in this country. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I am considering a next career at this point. 

Mr. MUELLER. I can give waivers. 

Mr. SERRANO. I am glad you cleared that up about 3 or 4 years 

out of college. The way you were saying it, for a while it sounded 

like the Bureau was going to have a lot of older people. I am glad 

you cleared that up. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Director. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Let me first applaud your efforts. I wrote to you about this whole 

mortgage fraud area over, I think, 2 years ago and about the fact 

that these numbers of cases are, well, quite close to 3,000 now, up 

from, I think you testified in your written testimony, 400. So, from 

2003, I think it is extraordinary and important, and I note that 

there have been significant arrests in Pennsylvania, in and around 

Philadelphia, and I am very pleased that the FBI has been quite 

aggressive on this matter. 

I want to go through a couple of things. 

TERRORISM INTERROGATIONS, CONTINUED

One, your long public service from your days of leaving the 

Armed Forces goes over any number of Presidencies; as best as I 

can count, you know, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton, Carter, 

and now President Obama. So you have served in a variety of capacities. You took this job a few days before 9/11. Since that fateful 

day, you have done a great deal to make sure that our country 

could be safe, and you should be applauded for that. 

Given your entirety of your experience, I know there is probably 

some discomfort about the criticism about how we are handling 

some of these cases now, and I just want to go back over some material because I think that you said—and I want to make sure that 

we get it on the record—that no arrests in the United States of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
228 

America are being handled any differently for suspected terrorists 

since 9/11 up until this moment; is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. With the rest of the United States, we have followed essentially the same procedures, yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So, in fact, what is being criticized by this Christmas Day activity is kind of like somehow we played a weak hand. 

From my read of this, it is not actually true. That is to say that 

what you had was you had a suspect who was injured—that is, an 

explosive went off, and he was injured—and before he could get 

medical treatment, surgery, he was questioned to make sure that 

there was no other immediate public danger. Then he went into 

surgery. When he came out of surgery, as many who have been in 

surgery, he was less responsive. Then after that point, he became 

more responsive and has been cooperating. 

Am I mischaracterizing that in any way? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. I think—and that is accurate. The only thing 

I would say is that after he came out of the medical procedures— 

I am not sure it was surgery, but there were certainly medical procedures—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Whatever it was. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. He was suffering burns, and that he 

was less responsive that evening than he had been before in terms 

of answering questions. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right; but that the notion that somehow he was 

being coddled just doesn’t square with the facts in this instance. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am sorry, sir. I had not heard that word. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, coddled. There has been a lot of criticism that 

he is being treated—you know, that we should be so much more 

aggressive somehow, you know, like we have been in the past with 

the shoe bomber. But your testimony is that this is exactly the 

same way these matters have been handled? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think they have been handled pretty much identically, yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. I want to just cover one other thing. 

CIVILIAN TRIALS FOR TERRORISM SUSPECTS

Now, there has been a lot of discussion about trials. You are 

aware and you testified about all of the threats facing the country 

from the national criminal enterprises, you know, both the Albanian mafia and the African criminal organizations. You can go 

through a whole list. We have domestic terrorists and the drug cartels. We have had a lot of trials in America. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So you have an expert view about the threats that 

face our country. 

Is there any circumstance in which you would advise our country 

that we couldn’t put someone on trial that we had captured because we would be unsafe? I mean, have we gotten to the point 

where these threats outweigh our pursuit of justice, and that the 

FBI could not protect an American city in which a trial was taking 

place? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think we are getting a little bit beyond where 

I feel comfortable testifying. It is really speculative. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
229 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Well, you can see, heretofore all of the cases 

that have gone on, and there have been some 300 trials of terrorists in the country. Have there been incidences where those trials 

were taking place in which Americans have been harmed or have 

been under some threat? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. That is to say I don’t believe any have been 

harmed. As to say under a threat, I can’t speak to that because I 

am not familiar with the circumstances, but I am not aware of a 

person’s being harmed or of any serious threats in the course of one 

of those trials. 

Mr. FATTAH. You just had very significant success today, in 

terms of the Mumbai attacks, at a trial in which someone was 

found guilty of the attacks in India where 136 people lost their 

lives, right? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I believe there is an individual who is going 

to plead guilty—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Pled guilty. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Either today or tomorrow. 

Mr. FATTAH. Today. You have been in here. I have been out 

there. 

Okay. So, you know, what I am saying is that we are going after 

drug cartel leaders, and we are going after people involved in 

criminal enterprises in a variety of ways. I just want to be clear 

because there is a lot of political dialogue as to whether we could 

put someone on trial in New York City or not. Rather, we have gotten to the point—in many developing countries, you know, putting 

someone on trial is a dangerous thing. You know, it could be a 

problem. I just thought in the United States of America that we 

would not be in a position where we would be fearful of taking 

someone who had harmed American citizens and of putting him before the bar of justice. 

Mr. MUELLER. I understand your concern, Congressman. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Director, for being here. 

DNA AND FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS

I have two questions. The first is an issue of great concern to 

hundreds of jurisdictions around the country, dealing with the 

backlog of DNA profiles collected from crime scenes and offenders. 

In Los Angeles, as you know, the LAPD and the sheriff’s department have backlogs of several thousand sexual assault kits. In 

order to close those backlogs, the city and county have often 

outsourced their samples to private labs. You know, that has been 

helpful, but there is now a second backlog that has been created 

because once the samples come back from the private labs, the city 

and county need to do a technical review of every case to ensure 

that the private lab did the job right. 

So, last year, for example, with the Chairman’s help, we got 

$500,000 for the City of Los Angeles to get through the backlog. 

They used that money to contract out. They got through the backVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
230 

log by contracting out, but now they still have not uploaded them 

in CODIS because of this 100 percent technical review requirement. 

That doesn’t make sense to me for a couple of reasons. One, it 

is expensive. Two, none of the technical reviews have come up with 

any errors that I am aware of in terms of the private labs. Three, 

you could have a 100 percent requirement of a technical review 

where there is a match made once it is uploaded into CODIS. 

Therefore, only when it is actually utilized do you need to go 

through, you know, what looks increasingly like a redundant step. 

So my question is: Is this really necessary? Can’t we really cut 

down on the backlog, really at no expense, by eliminating this 100 

percent review requirement except in a case where it is a hit in 

CODIS where it could actually make a difference? That is the first 

question. 

The second question on mentoring. One area we have tried to 

make progress in dealing with circumstances where sex offenders 

take advantage of volunteer programs is to have a system of 

screening volunteers for mentoring programs. Congress tried to accomplish that goal first with the National Child Protection Act of 

1993 and later with the Volunteers for Children Act. Youth-serving 

organizations got access to FBI checks working with their States. 

Still, though, more than two-thirds of the States don’t have a workable, affordable system for youth-serving organizations to screen 

the people who want to volunteer with them. 

In 2003, we passed the PROTECT Act, which was a national 

pilot, allowing youth-serving organizations to conduct national fingerprint-based background checks. The FBI has now run, I think, 

60,000 checks through the pilot. In 6 percent of those cases, they 

have turned up criminal records of serious concern. For example, 

the pilot identified an applicant who was a registered sex offender 

for having intercourse with a child under the age of 15, but because 

he was applying in a different State, only a national check would 

have turned up his record. These checks can be conducted for a fee 

of less than $25. 

I have introduced legislation, with the support of Chairman Conyers, the Child Protection Improvements Act, which is bipartisan 

legislation to build off the success of that pilot and to put in place 

a permanent fee-supported system to ensure that every child-serving organization has the ability to quickly and cheaply do these 

checks. Senator Schumer introduced identical legislation in the 

Senate, but the bill has been stymied, notwithstanding bipartisan, 

bicameral support, in large part because we were told, despite repeated requests to the DOJ and the FBI, no formal comment has 

been offered on the bill, so they are reluctant to move the bill without having the DOJ or the FBI weigh in one way or the other, we 

like it and go forward, or we don’t like it and would like to see it 

fixed. 

So I wrote, along with Senator Schumer, Congressman Mike Rogers, Senator Hatch, to the Justice Department, asking for the Department’s views on the bill, and we still have not heard back. If 

you could get us an answer, let us know whether you support it 

so we can move forward, or if you think things need to be changed 

in it, let us know that, too. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
231 

Mr. MUELLER. Addressing the second question first, I will say I 

will carry back to the Department of Justice your request for their 

views on that particular legislation. I understand the importance 

of that legislation, but I will carry the request back to the Department of Justice. 

[The information follows:] 

VIEWS ON THE CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT

The FBI does not have any comments at this time. Any Department of Justice 

or Administration views will be provided through the normal Executive Branch legislative review process. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I think, you know, they are going to be principally interested in what is the FBI’s view on this because it implicates the FBI more than any other part of the DOJ. 

Mr. MUELLER. If it is a question of additional name checks, we 

can handle that. If it is a question of who pays, then that is another issue altogether. I don’t know the ins and outs of the bill. I 

would expect that someplace in there the cost of doing this is a factor in somebody’s view, but we do millions of name checks now. We 

are through our name check backlog, and I can’t imagine that that 

would be a substantial issue for us, but I don’t know what other 

issues there might be. In any event, I will take it back to Justice 

and try to get back to you on that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. 

Mr. MUELLER. On the DNA backlog, and from the dialogue we 

have had over the years on the DNA backlog and on the ingestion 

of the samples, addressing, first of all, your question in terms of 

the request for quality control and where it is reviewed by a separate set of experts before it is put into CODIS, we are looking at 

that. 

My expectation is we will remove some of those hurdles in the 

very near future. I know that has been an issue. I know you raised 

it yesterday with the Attorney General. It is one we have been 

looking at, and we want to remove the obstacles to the providing 

of those samples to CODIS. So I think we will be able to get back 

to you relatively shortly with what we hope will be a fix in that 

area. 

[The information follows:] 

ANSWER ON FIX FOR THE DNA TECHNICAL REVIEW PROBLEM

Many law enforcement agencies collaborate with private laboratories for analysis 

of their DNA samples. The FBI Laboratory is currently reviewing its existing policies, standards and protocols, to include requirements for outsourcing DNA analysis 

to private laboratories and review of their results by public law enforcement laboratories, to enhance NDIS efficiency. Private laboratories are and will continue to be 

an integral part of the process and a contributor to the success of NDIS. The current 

policy assessment will engage both public and private laboratories in identifying 

ways to enhance these contributions. 

More generally, I would say that the backlog that we have had 

in terms of processing DNA samples will be reduced to almost 

nothing by September. We now ingest, I think it is, 25,000 samples 

a month. Now we will go up to 90,000 a month given the resources 

that were appropriated for us back in 2009. We have now brought 

those persons onboard. We are reorienting how we do things, and 

we are also using robotics in ways we have not in the past so that, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
232 

by September, our hope is that there will be no more than a 30- 

day delay in ingesting any new samples that come in regardless of 

the amounts that have tripled or quadrupled over the years, as I 

know you understand. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do you know where the backlog is now? What kind 

of numbers do you have? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. I have 

charts showing the elimination by September, but where we are 

right now in March, I would have to get back to you on it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If you would, which would be where we are now 

compared to a year ago—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. And how fast we are processing them 

as compared to a year ago. That would be very helpful. 

[The information follows:] 

UPDATE ON DNA BACKLOG

As of March 2010, the backlog of offender samples at the FBI Laboratory was 

298,749 samples. One year ago, the FBI Laboratory’s capacity for analyzing offender 

samples was less than 700 samples per month. Because of enhancements and technology improvements, the capacity of the FBI Laboratory for offender sample analysis has increased in the past year to approximately 25,000 samples per month, 

with the eventual goal of analyzing approximately 90,000 samples per month. With 

the capacity of 90,000 samples per month, the FBI will be able to analyze all samples received with a 30 day turnaround time once the backlog is eliminated. At this 

time, the FBI anticipates the backlog will be eliminated by fall 2010. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would like to work with you also on a couple of related issues. One is the lack of uniformity in the loci that we look 

at and those that others in Europe and other parts of the world 

look at. Our databases can’t talk to each other because of that. I 

would love to see if we could work on an international effort to harmonize, you know, what part of the DNA strand we look at to compare. 

The arrestee issue, which the President recently spoke in favor 

of, we would love to try to advance. 

Finally, a couple of other, I know, controversial issues, but the 

running of partial DNA as well as—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Familial DNA. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. Familial DNA, both of which I support 

and think make sense, which will take violent people off the 

streets, and I think we can have the right safeguards in place not 

to violate anyone’s privacy. 

So I look forward to working with you on those issues. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MUELLER. I do, too. 

If I might add, of the universe of samples that are to be ingested 

in, we also look at what we are going to have to do to ramp up to 

obtain those samples. 

The other thing I would say, in terms of working with Europe, 

one of the biggest concerns we have with Europe is their privacy 

rules that inhibit dialogues and discussions in terms of exchanges 

and the capability of identifying criminals who populate both our 

side of the pond and the other side. 

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. If I have time, yes. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
233 

Mr. FATTAH. I know in the European Union, all of those in law 

enforcement have been cooperating one to another in between their 

various countries on all of this. 

Are you saying that, in terms of interacting with us, there is still 

a ways to go? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, but in terms of the action amongst themselves, it is the lowest common denominator. Then it is a question 

of if they have different views on privacy than, perhaps, we do, and 

that becomes a problem when the law enforcement elements of 

both countries want to work things out and exchange information. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Director Mueller, it is well established and sad 

fact that public safety services in Indian Country are severely lacking, the result being that the criminal victimization rate on tribal 

lands is significantly in excess of the national average. I know you 

know that, and I know of the kind of scarce resources you are dealing with as you address that problem. 

A Native American living on reservation lands can expect fewer 

police officers, longer emergency response times and higher crime 

rates than the average person living outside of Indian Country. I 

know that I am not alone in finding these disparities disturbing 

and unfair. 

I am pleased to see that this administration, the Department of 

Justice and the FBI are all supplementing the increased resources 

provided by this committee last year to address this problem. 

I know it is further disturbing, fundamentally disturbing, that 

the victims and the targets of these crimes are predominantly 

women. Because of the jurisdictional issues, there are structurally 

difficult questions about going into an investigation and helping to 

provide law enforcement activities in Indian Country. But there is 

also just a fundamental lack of resources, too. 

So can you describe the trends the FBI has seen in the level and 

types of crimes committed in Indian Country over some reasonable 

period, say, over the last 5 years? 

Mr. MUELLER. I will probably have to get back to you with specific statistics on that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You may submit that for the record. 

Mr. MUELLER. I will do that. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
234 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 56795A.146
235 

Mr. MUELLER. I can tell you I have tried to corral off the resources the Bureau is putting into Indian Country. From September 11th, I had to reassign a number of criminal agents. I have 

left the same numbers of criminal agents working in Indian Country since that time, but it still is inadequate. It is not enough. 

When you say crimes against women, it is crimes against women 

and children. We take the most serious ones, but it is inadequate, 

and I am not certain ultimately that we in the FBI can satisfy the 

need for police services in Indian Country. It is going to take other 

organizations to be ramped up and to have the training and the capability of addressing crimes on Indian reservations as well as ourselves. It is an issue that we try to address with the resources that 

have been allocated to it. We have requested additional resources 

and are getting some, but it still is not necessarily adequate to the 

crime that we have seen grow over the last several years. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I commend you for your request for additional 

resources, and I can assure you that this subcommittee is going to 

be inclined to be responsive. 

On a practical level, as I understand it, there are over 200 individual reservations and you have, approximately, 100 officers to 

cover those 200 reservations. 

Does that sound right? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is correct. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I guess it just prompts me to ask: What can you 

expect to accomplish when you are spread that thin? I mean, on 

the face of it, that is inadequate. 

Mr. MUELLER. What we accomplish is we address the most serious cases with the United States attorneys, but our agents’ work 

is stretched. Their caseloads are unbelievable. The time they spend 

away from their families and other life to provide the services to 

the Indian Country is truly remarkable, but every one of them 

thinks that they are contributing substantially in the work that 

they are doing; but we are overstretched. 

There are others with the State and local authorities who may 

have some concurrent jurisdiction who are also overstretched, but 

we do what we can with the resources that are allocated to it. The 

one thing I have made certain is that they have not been reduced 

even though we have the first priority of stopping the next terrorist 

attack. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Here, if you are able to provide it accurately, or 

for the written record, how would you compare your law enforcement presence in Indian Country to your presence in comparablysized rural areas? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it really would be difficult to look at apples 

and oranges. There are areas in the far West where we have very, 

very low coverage, but where the population is fairly low. I would 

have to get back to you in response to that question. 

[The information follows:] 

COMPARISON OF AGENT COVERAGE IN INDIAN COUNTRY TO COVERAGE IN

COMPARABLY-SIZED RURAL AREAS

The FBI does not currently have this data available; however, the FBI has been 

specifically appropriated funding for 70 Special Agent positions to address its responsibility to investigate crimes in Indian Country. The FBI has supplemented 

those 70 specifically appropriated positions with additional Violent Crime Special 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
236 

Agents and has consistently dedicated over 100 agents full-time to investigate crime 

in Indian Country over the past 10 years. In addition to the full-time dedicated Indian Country agents, over 40 Special Agents work part-time on Indian Country 

cases. The majority of the Special Agents working on Indian Country cases are assigned to small rural Resident Agencies. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Maybe this would be an even better comparison. 

How about the areas where crime rates are comparable to those in 

Indian Country? In other words, where are the areas with comparable crime rates to crime rates in Indian Country, and how do 

you compare your coverage in those areas to Indian Country? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

COMPARISON OF AGENT COVERAGE IN INDIAN COUNTRY TO COVERAGE IN AREAS WITH

COMPARABLE CRIME RATES. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs submits crime data within Indian Country to the 

FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) in aggregate at the end 

of the year, which is published in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. The crime data 

submitted only reflects crimes where the sentence is less than one year (due to sentence limitations within the tribal communities). Therefore, it is not possible to compare the level of FBI resources dedicated to an Indian Country region with the level 

of resources dedicated to a similarly-sized region elsewhere in the country with a 

similar crime threat. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did you follow that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Good. 

President Obama’s budget request proposes to add 45 new agents 

to your Indian Country program. As I understand it, those agents 

are to be funded out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Why that arrangement? Why aren’t the requests for that increased number of agents in your budget? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that, sir. I am 

not familiar with the intricacy of that arrangement. 

Excuse me. Just a second. 

I would have to get back to you on that. I do believe that we 

want to prioritize it, but we have the white-collar crime, terrorism 

and the like. Consequently we are looking for support in terms of 

adding agents for this particular responsibility. We have the same 

understanding when it comes to health care fraud, for instance, 

with other departments—HHS—so we are hoping to have— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Transferring the money to pay for your agents? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I don’t know. Maybe with health care or 

white-collar crime, there are spikes in these areas, so maybe it 

makes sense to fund them out of other budgets. It doesn’t make 

sense to me for these agents to be paid for from the Bureau of Indian Affairs because I don’t think there is any contention that this 

is a spike that is going to go away. I think funding them in the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs creates the situation where you are not 

building your base, and where those dollars could disappear very 

easily. 

Different subcommittees have different priorities and different 

demands on their dollars. I think we would rather see this funding 

particularly included in your request so that it becomes a part of 

your base, and so that there is a consistency and a dependability 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
237 

about the availability of the agents we are able to increase who are 

dedicated to these assignments. 

Mr. MUELLER. I will have to get back to the committee on that, 

sir. 

[The information follows:] 

OFFICIAL RESPONSE ON WHY THE INDIAN COUNTRY AGENTS ARE BEING FUNDED

THROUGH BIA 

Twenty-five percent of all violent crimes prosecuted by United States Attorneys 

occur on Indian Reservations. As of March 2009, the FBI had over 2,300 pending 

cases, of which 75 percent involved homicides, sexual/physical abuse of children, 

rape, and aggravated assault. Given the large geographic size and complexity of federal laws in Indian Country, coordination between FBI and BIA is critical. The reimbursable funding through BIA fosters such coordination. The FBI believes additional resources are imperative to combat crimes in Indian Country, whether they 

be directly funded or through a reimbursable program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would like to get some other information highlighting the problems in Indian Country. The FBI budget request 

also proposes to add two forensic examiners to your lab to address 

evidence processing for Indian Country cases. Two forensic examiners. The budget notes that the 164-day average turnaround time 

for Indian Country cases is so lengthy that the results are often 

useless for purposes of intelligence and lead generation. I mean, 

there is almost an inadequacy to the point of not being able to really provide the service in Indian Country. So we are very pleased 

to see this requested increase, and I think we will be very responsive to it. 

If you know, give us for the record how the 164-day average 

turnaround time for lab case processing compares to the labwide 

average turnaround for evidence processing? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. 

[The information follows:] 

LAB-WIDE AVERAGE EVIDENCE PROCESSING TURNAROUND TIME

The average turnaround time for Indian Country casework in Fiscal Year 2009 

was 168 days. The average turnaround time for all casework completed by the FBI 

Laboratory in this same time period was 274 days. 

Mr. MUELLER. Also, one of the things we had requested is, yes, 

additional examiners in the FBI laboratory, but there are other 

laboratories that are closer to Indian Country that might provide 

the same services if they had funding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, we will certainly look at it from that 

perspective as well. 

My understanding is that the violent crime rate in Indian Country is about two-and-a-half times higher than the national average, 

and that 25 percent of all violent crimes prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys occur on Indian reservations. Seventy-five percent of the FBI’s 

2,368 current cases in Indian Country involve homicides, child 

abuse, as you pointed out, or violent assaults. They are really just 

terrible statistics. We appreciate the fact that the administration 

is focusing on it, and we look forward to being responsive to that. 

Mr. Serrano asked a number of questions about white-collar 

crime, so we have some questions for the record that we will submit there to supplement those. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
238 

SENTINEL

Mr. MOLLOHAN. One last line of questioning, Mr. Director. I understand that the FBI has recently discovered some problems with 

phase 2 of the Sentinel program, which will affect the budget and 

the schedule for both that phase and, perhaps, for the overall 

project. That news, of course, makes everybody nervous because of 

the experience with Sentinel’s predecessor, the Virtual Case File. 

What are the problems? What is the nature of the problems that 

we are experiencing with Sentinel? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start by saying that we sent in the requirements for the system back in, I think, 2005, and the contract 

was let in 2006. 

I believe we put in the first phase in 2007. It is a successful system in that we have a number of agents who are already using it 

out in the field. Phase 2 was to go to the field at the end of 2009, 

the beginning of 2010 in terms of pilots. We have delayed that, and 

that delay is attributable to basically three reasons. Over a period 

of time, both the technology, as well as our business practices, have 

changed, and the users have looked for additional items in phase 

2 that had not been, and could not have been, anticipated back in 

2005. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Added requirements from the agency? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, but not large-scale requirements; they were 

rather minimal requirements, but before we pushed it out into the 

field, we wanted to make certain that we maximized the usability 

so it would have a high degree of user acceptance. To the extent 

that we have had it out in the field, it already has a high degree 

of user acceptance. 

The three issues were, first of all, some design changes from the 

perspective of the users that we have been very reluctant to do, but 

these make some sense. Secondly, there are issues relating to coding that we needed to address before we sent it out. Thirdly, there 

are system requirements that we wanted to make absolutely certain that we had in place so that, when we rolled it out, it would 

be successful. So the pilots that we anticipated rolling out just 

about now or a little bit before now—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For phase 2? 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. For phase 2, will be rolled out this 

summer. We had expected to have the whole system completed in 

2010. It will push the system completion into 2011. 

But I can tell you I am the one who made the decision to delay 

until we got these issues addressed, and I am comfortable and confident that the system is working. It is a good system and will be 

beneficial when we are through. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Phase 2 is a good system, and it is working? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, which is completely different from our previous experience, which I would not want to replicate in any way 

in the future. I can also say, with our contractor, while there have 

been issues, we have a very close relationship. Both ourselves and 

Lockheed want to make certain this works. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, let me ask questions about that. The problems that you have described, are they agency problems because of 

added requirements, or are they contractor problems? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
239 

Mr. MUELLER. There are certainly problems on both sides. This 

is always the case in something like this. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How does that impact the question of the award 

fees? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are in discussions with the contractor on that 

right now. We partially halted the continued work on phases 3 and 

4 until these issues are resolved. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can you describe those? What are those issues 

that you are talking about? 

Mr. MUELLER. The three that I described. 

On the one hand, there were certain things that users requested. 

Secondly, there were coding issues. Thirdly, we wanted to make 

certain that the system, when it goes out, meets the infrastructure 

requirements. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do those changes to the contract and the requirements have a budgetary impact? 

Mr. MUELLER. They will. What size? I cannot tell you at this 

point. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But it has a budgetary impact? 

Mr. MUELLER. It will increase the cost, yes. In looking at it, we 

believe we can address those costs with what we have in our budget; but again, that is something that we are discussing with—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In the 2011 budget request, do you propose to 

pay for those increased costs as a result of these problems? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are at the initial stages of determining exactly—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we have your request. 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have your 2011 request. Is it contained in it? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, it is not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is it possible that you would pay for some or all 

of those cost increases through—what do you call the payments— 

the reward fees, the performance award fees? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. There will be give on both sides. Let me put 

it that way. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So those discussions are ongoing? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, they are ongoing. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Otherwise you would be looking at a reprogramming? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain the vehicle we would use, but we 

will keep what we have to date, and we will continue to keep you 

apprised. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right now you are holding back a portion of the 

contractor’s fees perhaps as a means to pay for it? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have partially stopped the work on phases 3 

and 4 until we get satisfactory resolution of the issues that we 

won’t resolve before we move it. 

Another point I might make is that our experience in the past 

is we had one solid contract. You either lived or died in that contract. After phase 1, we went into an incremental development 

where we decided to develop phases so we could accept a particular 

phase before we moved on to the next phase, and so we could make 

certain that it met our expectations. This is exactly why we went 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
240 

to incremental development as opposed to the development process 

we had used before. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You expect to have this system up and operating 

by? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the system is operating now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. For phase 2, the pilots will begin this summer, 

which will be pushed out to the field as a whole. Basically this is 

the largest phase. The most momentous part of the project is phase 

2. Phases 3 and 4 will follow relatively quickly after that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It sounds like you are on top of it. 

Mr. MUELLER. One has to stay on top of it weekly, absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

GANG ENFORCEMENT

Mr. WOLF. Let me ask you a couple of questions because we do 

have a vote, and I will submit. 

On the gang issue, the committee plused up the gang issue. The 

National Gang Intelligence Center has determined that gangs are 

active in every State of the Union, and that 39 of the gangs have 

been identified as national threats. In 2008, 58 percent of the local 

law enforcement agencies reported that criminal gangs were active 

in their jurisdictions, an almost 30 percent increase since 2004. The 

committee included a significant increase of $25 million above your 

request to specifically address this issue. 

Could you tell the committee how many Safe Street Task Forces 

exist? How many additional agents and task forces will be added 

as a result of the fiscal year 2010 increase? Is this a top law enforcement priority? 

Mr. MUELLER. Excuse me just 1 second. 

I needed to know the background from those who are more 

knowledgeable with the figures. Approximately 13 million is going 

to additional personnel. We intend to establish three new Safe 

Street Task Forces, and to augment the Safe Street Task Forces we 

already have. As I mentioned before, and I can get you the statistics, we have doubled, if not tripled, the number of Safe Street 

Task Forces we put up in the last several years. 

Mr. WOLF. But is the money used in a way—because as you recall, there had been a request that maybe you use the same approach that was during used during the 1960s with regard to organized crime, that this becomes a major effort, that you actually 

have someone in the Bureau who is focusing like a laser beam, because if you live in a neighborhood where you are terrorized by 

gangs, in essence that is a form of domestic terrorism that the people can’t really live and—— 

Mr. MUELLER. We certainly have a gang intelligence center. We 

have gang task forces. But what we have come to understand is we 

need fusion centers focusing on particular gangs. And as I think 

you are aware, we have a specific MS–13 Task Force with persons 

operating not just in headquarters, but also in the various communities like yours, but also Los Angeles, adjunct task forces in places 

like El Salvador. 

So we have focused on gangs in general, but we also are pushing 

to make sure that we focus on particular gangs and take out the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
241 

leadership and, to the extent possible, remove those gangs from 

particular neighborhoods. I think we have had some success in 

neighborhoods in northern Virginia, for instance. And I know that 

the new Assistant Director in Charge has, as one of the mandates, 

to work very closely with you to address that continuous phenomenon that we see there. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Hopefully, we can continue the additional funding. Again, if somebody is living in a poor neighborhood, they fear 

for their family. What impact do you see in the killings that took 

place in Mexico the other day, that violence spreading across the 

border? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have had pockets of violence spreading across 

the border; in particular, when it has come to kidnappings, crossborder kidnappings, San Diego, El Paso, Juarez, San Diego, Tijuana. And we have task forces in both of our cities to address that. 

This occurred on Saturday afternoon and we are working very 

closely with our Mexican counterparts to identify the persons responsible and assure that they see justice. 

I sent an inspector down to take charge of combining the resources, not just the FBI, but DEA, ATF, and others who wish to 

participate to address that circumstance. This is the first instance 

that we have seen, I believe, of individuals associated with the 

American Consulate in Juarez attacked in such a brazen manner. 

Mr. WOLF. Did the car have a Texas license, a U.S. license plate, 

the car that—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not sure whether it did or not. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. That the people who were murdered were 

in? Was that an American car—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on the specifics. 

But in one car there were two individuals murdered. In another car 

there was one individual murdered. His family was actually in another car, but both those cars had come from the same birthday 

party on that day. 

[The information follows:] 

LICENSE PLATE ON CAR DRIVEN BY CONSULAR EMPLOYEE MURDERED IN JUAREZ

The license plate of the vehicle driven by the American citizen victim was a Texas 

license plate, and the license plate of the vehicle driven by the Mexican national 

victim was a Mexican license plate. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I would be interested to know if they were U.S. 

license plates, embassy license plates or Texas license plates. There 

are a number of other questions I will ask on that. 

TERRORIST RADICALIZATION

The radicalization issue, over the last year or so, we have seen 

a disturbing trend of terror attacks planned and carried out by individuals, including Americans, who had been radicalized often 

through contact with violent Islamist influences. The Fort Hood 

killings, the Christmas Day bombing, now Jihad Jane, and others, 

Mobley, the fellow the other day, Mobley. There have been reports 

in recent days of Americans being detained in Yemen, Pakistan, 

and other countries. Does this represent a significant shift in the 

terrorist threat facing the Nation, and how is the FBI adjusting to 

counter these new developments? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
242 

Mr. MUELLER. I think those in the Intelligence Community, including ourselves, would say there has been a shift in the degree 

of concern about affiliates of al Qaeda growing in strength and presenting a more enhanced threat to the United States. By that I am 

talking about the FATA, the Federally Administered Tribal 

Areas—Waziristan, western Pakistan, eastern Afghanistan—which 

has been the heartland of al Qaeda and still presents a threat. We 

saw with Najibullah Zazi, the individual from Denver who went 

back to New York, and anticipated attacking the New York subways back in September. He was recruited and trained in Afghanistan. 

We also are concerned about Yemen individuals. In the last year, 

year and a half, an individual, Bledsoe, who was responsible for the 

Little Rock shootings of the military recruiters, one of them 

died—— 

Mr. WOLF. Did he have contact with Awlaki when he was in 

Yemen? 

Mr. MUELLER. He was in Yemen at the time. He was in Yemen 

and then came back to the United States, but was radicalized in 

Yemen. Abdulmutallab originated in Yemen. We have a number of 

ties now with Yemen; so Yemen is an issue as well as Somalia. And 

we have had a number of individuals from communities in the 

United States who have traveled to Somalia to train and to fight 

with al Shabab, and we have continuing concerns about that being 

exported back to the United States. 

So those are three focal points of our concerns overseas, and then 

we have, quite obviously, what we discussed before, homegrown 

terrorists who have been radicalized on the Internet or otherwise. 

Mr. WOLF. Does it trouble you that there are 50,000 Americans 

living in Yemen today? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that is the case. Many of them are dual 

citizens, but I believe it is that many. 

Mr. WOLF. And the Bureau is dealing with that insofar as—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Not just the Bureau, but in terms of identifying individuals who may have been radicalized in Yemen and 

want to come back to the United States and undertake terrorist attacks, we are attempting to identify those persons. We are also attempting to identify persons who were radicalized by Awlaki or 

others overseas; never traveled overseas, but were radicalized to 

the point where they want to undertake terrorist attacks in the 

United States. 

Mr. WOLF. I am going to submit others for the record. I am just 

wondering who do you think is doing a better job with regard to 

the radicalization issue? Does Great Britain do a better job than we 

do? We used to hear the story, well, that is a problem over there, 

but we don’t have the problem. Now we see Jihad Jane from Philadelphia. I mean, I read your bio. You are from the Philadelphia 

area. She is from Pennsburg, I think it is. We see the five now in 

Alexandria. We see Major Hassan, a Virginia Tech graduate, born 

here. 

Are we doing everything we should? And maybe there should be 

a development of a different approach. Clearly what we used to say 

is no longer the case because it is a problem. Are you thinking deep 

insofar as how do we deal with this from a different way that we 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
243 

continue to adjust because maybe we were not doing as well as 

maybe people said we were in comparison to other countries? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I do think there are somewhat different 

problems that the U.K. faces where it has communities that have 

been alienated, and to a certain extent, I guess you would say, dispossessed, and they are focused on deradicalization in many of 

these communities. 

We have diverse communities of Muslims in the United States, 

and we are all immigrants, and we have immigrants from any 

number of African countries, Middle Eastern countries and the 

like. So there are very few areas that you can look at and say, 

okay, these are pockets—— 

Mr. WOLF. Correct. I am from an immigrant family, too. The tie 

is green, and my grandfather could barely speak English. He was 

German. He had a German bakery in south Philadelphia. What I 

meant was the radicalization. Jihad Jane was not from Yemen. She 

was from the United States, born and raised, and so that is what 

I am talking about from that perspective. You find Mobley, who— 

I think he was. 

So I am talking about a radicalization of a domestic population 

that we hadn’t thought of before. You had me confused thinking 

that in England they talk about the Pakistan community. I am 

talking about domestic recruitment of people who were born and 

raised here in the United States that normally you would not 

think, because if you look at—I looked at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They talked about a number of ‘‘blonde hair, blue 

eye’’ types moving to Yemen who had been radicalized in prisons. 

So to think a little bit differently—and we don’t have enough time. 

Maybe we can talk about it. Are you open to seeing if there is some 

other way to kind of deal with that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. And we have looked at places of 

radicalization, points of radicalization, prisons, for instance, with 

the Federal as well as State and local prison systems, the various 

communities, and working with the leaders, outreach in the communities. 

But I will tell you the one that is most worrisome is the Internet. 

I think everybody will tell you that the influence of the Internet 

not just in radicalization, but moving from radicalization to organization to undertaking terrorist attacks, is the greatest, most serious phenomenon that has resulted, I believe, in many of the 

radicalization cases we have seen in the United States. It has not 

been the communities or persons in the communities, it has been 

the Internet. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. Well, maybe you can have someone come up 

and we can see—there may be something that the committee can 

do with regard to giving you some resources to kind of deal with 

that issue. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Anyway, thank you. I will have questions for the 

record, too, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
244 

FIREARMS TRAFFICKING

I will be real quick, and then we are going to have to run. But 

is there any indication in the case of the three that were killed in 

Mexico that came from the same party that they were targeted because they were American, or do we still not know whether it was 

a case of mistaken identity? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it is too early in the investigation to reach 

a conclusion. I know there has been speculation in the media, but 

I do believe it is too early to reach any conclusion. 

Mr. SCHIFF. On the broader issue of guns going down to Mexico 

from the United States, I know this is an area where ATF probably 

has primary jurisdiction, but what do your agents tell you about 

the willingness of U.S. Attorneys to prosecute these cases, even 

cases that may involve straw purchasers that are fairly low on the 

hierarchy, but nonetheless might lead to the prosecution of those 

enlarged—those engaged in the larger gun trafficking? 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not heard the attitude of U.S. Attorneys. 

Periodically I hear that judges would just as soon not do gun cases 

in Federal court, but it has been some time since I have actually 

been in Federal court, but that is what I picked up. I am going to 

meet with the U.S. Attorneys next week, and that is something I 

will try to remember to mention to them, but I have not heard one 

way or the other. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Please let us know if they need the resources to do 

it or they need the encouragement to do it. 

Mr. MUELLER. I can tell you they will tell you they need the resources to do it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I am sure that is right. 

FOLLOW-UP ON THE ROBERT HANSSEN CASE

Very quickly, and you may need to get back to me in writing on 

this, but in my prior lifetime as an assistant U.S. Attorney, I prosecuted the Miller spy case. So I followed with great interest the 

Hanssen case and now the Aragoncillo case. 

The inspector general did a follow-up report on some recommendations that were made after Hanssen about changes the 

FBI could make to improve its ability to ferret out people who were 

attacking the FBI from the inside, and the follow-up—the recent 

follow-up assessment found that there were several very important 

recommendations that had not yet been implemented, including the 

establishment of a new unit detailed—or dedicated exclusively to 

internal penetration; there was the need to have a need-to-know 

system; the computers, which had probably been set back by the 

Virtual Case File system, Sentinel problems. But also one of the 

key concerns in Hanssen was Hanssen’s ability to walk out of the 

FBI headquarters with these classified documents undetected, and 

the IG also found that the FBI Information Assurance Program 

didn’t address that key concern. 

Can you respond back to us in writing and let us know where 

FBI is in—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that is at least 2 years ago, I may be 

wrong, that IG report. But I know, for instance, we have had that 

unit in place for a period of time, and we have addressed the other 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
245 

concerns that the IG had. But overall, in terms of the recommendations in the wake of Hanssen, we have adopted, I would say, 90, 

95 percent of them. These were several, and I think very few given 

the overall suggestions that were made, that we had to close up, 

but I do believe they were closed. 

[The information follows:] 

PROGRESS IN RESPONDING TO IG REPORT ON HANSSEN FOLLOW-UP

In September 2007, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General issued 

a special report entitled ‘‘A review of the FBI’s progress in responding to the recommendations in the Office of Inspector General Report on Robert Hanssen.’’ Of the 

21 recommendations issued, only nine still remain open. The FBI is working diligently with the Office of Inspector General to resolve these issues, and will keep 

the Committee apprised of the status. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. 

Thanks, Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Director Mueller, thank you very much for your 

testimony here today, and thank you for your service to the country 

and the service of all your employees at the FBI. We will have 

some questions for the record, and I know you will respond to 

them. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
246 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 here 56795A.147
247 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 here 56795A.148
248 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 here 56795A.149
249 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 here 56795A.150
250 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 here 56795A.151
251 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 here 56795A.152
252 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 here 56795A.153
253 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 here 56795A.154
254 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 here 56795A.155
255 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 here 56795A.156
256 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 here 56795A.157
257 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 403 here 56795A.158
258 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 here 56795A.159
259 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 here 56795A.160
260 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 here 56795A.161
261 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 here 56795A.162
262 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 here 56795A.163
263 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 here 56795A.164
264 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 here 56795A.165
265 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 here 56795A.166
266 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 here 56795A.167
267 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 here 56795A.168
268 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 here 56795A.169
269 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 here 56795A.170
270 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 here 56795A.171
271 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 here 56795A.172
272 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 here 56795A.173
(273) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010. 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND 

EXPLOSIVES 

WITNESS 

KENNETH MELSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, 

I would like to welcome Kenneth Melson, Deputy Director of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to discuss his 

agency’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

We are pleased to have you here, Mr. Melson, and thank you for 

your time. I would like to note for members of the public who may 

be present that Mr. Melson, as Deputy Director, is currently heading the agency since the director position is vacant. 

While we are here today to discuss all aspects of your budget request, I suspect that a significant portion of collective conversation 

will focus on firearms trafficking enforcement and your efforts to 

control the movement of weapons across the U.S./Mexico border. This Subcommittee has provided you with more than $100 million over the past few fiscal years to address an ever-growing case 

load of border related trafficking investigations, and we are pleased 

to see some positive results coming out of this effort. 

ATF agents have achieved more than 800 convictions, seized almost 7,000 firearms, and trained nearly 900 Mexican law enforcement counterparts through your Southwest Border programs. 

As valued as these successes are, however, much work remains 

to be done to rein in the violence being perpetrated by Mexican 

drug cartels on both sides of the border. 

In addition to the focus on your Southwest Border mission, I do 

also expect the conversation to touch on a few of your other program areas this morning. One of particular interest to me is your 

regulatory program, which has experienced some challenges since 

your split with the Department of Treasury. The general public relies on the timely issuance of regulations to protect public safety, 

and regulated businesses rely on the timely issuance of regulations 

to guide their commercial behavior. Neither group is well served 

when the regulatory process becomes unnecessarily bogged down. 

I know this is an area that ATF has been focused on improving 

for a few years now, and I am anxious to hear about your progress. 

I am sure other members have a variety of other topics they will 

raise with you, and we look forward to having a lively exchange. 

Your written statement will be made a part of the record. Before 

you begin with your summary of your remarks, I would like to call 

on Mr. Culberson for any introductory comments he may have. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
274 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY MR. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Melson, 

thank you for being with us and particularly for the service that 

you and all of the officers that serve with you do for the Nation 

to help protect us, we generally do appreciate it and commend you 

for all that you do. 

You are requesting an appropriation of $1.16 billion, an increase 

of $42.2 million or 3.8 percent. And considering what the scope of 

your responsibilities are it is actually not that substantial because 

a good portion of that money is simply to maintain staffing levels 

that were provided in the Stimulus Bill for Project Gun Runner to 

address illegal firearms trafficking along the southwest border, 

which is a terrible problem. There is sort of an undeclared war 

going on along the southwest border on the Mexican side that has 

been a continuing catastrophe and a real concern, and we appreciate the good work that you and your officers are doing along the 

southwest border. 

But the Committee would be interested to hear about the 

progress the ATF has made with Gun Runner and what the next 

steps are in the fight against the drug cartels. 

And on behalf of Ranking Member Wolf, he also will have some 

questions about the substantial increase above the request that the 

Committee provided in fiscal year 2010 for the anti-gang activities 

of the Violent Crime Impact Teams, something that is vitally important language that Mr. Wolf put in a number of years ago. 

Again, welcome, we thank you for your service and look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. Melson, your written statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR NELSON

Mr. MELSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culberson, thank 

you so much for allowing us to come today to discuss our budget 

request for 2011 for the ATF. On behalf of the men and women of 

ATF I would like to convey our appreciation to the Subcommittee 

for your interest in our mission and our activities to help protect 

the American public. 

I would like to particularly thank you for your support in our 

2010 budget submission. We are aware that you have many competing priorities and are cutting the budget up to serve all those, 

which is a difficult task. 

As Mr. Culberson indicated, for this coming year, we are requesting $1.16 billion. The request includes $1.15 billion for current 

services and $12 million for building ATF’s capacity to carry out its 

law enforcement missions. 

As you know, ATF’s primary mission is to protect our community 

from violent crime and terrorism by investigating and prosecuting, 

with the help of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the illicit use of firearms and explosives. The synergy between our regulatory authorities and investigative expertise makes the ATF the pre-eminent 

agency for investigating firearms and explosives. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
275 

You may know that we have approximately 601 industry operation investigators, what we call IOIs, who are responsible for inspecting approximately 115,000 Federal firearms licensees, and 

11,000 explosive licensees around this country, which is a total of 

126,000 licensees that we have to inspect. These inspections help 

us identify possible diversion of firearms and explosives from legal 

commerce to illicit activities thereby producing leads for criminal 

investigation. 

Many of the 126,000 licensees do not get inspected for five years 

or more because of a lack of ATF personnel. This really hampers 

our ability to conduct inspections that help us protect the American 

people by providing leads to law enforcement to take crime guns 

out of the hands of criminals. 

The complementary nature of our regulatory and criminal jurisdictions is evident in our history of successes with investigating 

bombings, including the identification and the arrest in 2009 of a 

suspect in West Memphis, Arkansas who had used a bomb to attempt to kill Dr. Trent Pierce. 

Similarly, we have a long and proud history of investigating arsons, including the rash of church arsons in Alabama several years 

ago, and more recently the church fires in Texas. 

I would also like to note that ATF proudly shares our explosives 

expertise with our state and local partners as well as with the Department of Defense through our training in Virginia and the National Center for Explosives Research and Training in Huntsville, 

Alabama. 

You know that a recent OIG report made recommendations to 

clarify the jurisdictional issues between ATF and the FBI with respect to bombings. I want to assure the Subcommittee that the 

ATF and FBI have agreements in place which clarify our roles in 

the vast majority of cases which we work together. And we are 

working diligently with the Department of Justice and the FBI to 

address these areas which remain in need of clarification. ATF has 

worked successfully with the FBI for over 30 years, and we will 

continue to ensure the safety of the American people. 

Another core mission of ATF is to deny organized crime its profits by stopping the illegal diversion of tobacco products, which are 

depriving the states and localities of approximately $5 billion in tax 

revenue a year. 

For example, in one recent case, the ATF and the Fairfax County, Virginia, police department dismantled an organization that 

trafficked more than $2 million worth of contraband cigarettes to 

New York. This organization was also involved in money laundering and bank fraud, and had solicited an undercover agent to 

murder two of its own members. 

For the first quarter of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2010, ATF 

seized $21 million in crime proceeds in tobacco cases. Our Budgetary Division Unit for tobacco cases for the entire year is only 

about $20 to $22 million, suggesting that even after equitable sharing and administrative costs these investigations will be paid for by 

the recovery of illicit crime proceeds. 

With respect to firearms, ATF has the expertise and experience 

to combat the threat to public safety posed by gangs which use 

guns to carry out their illicit activities. Thus ATF has led many 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
276 

successful investigations against well known street gangs like the 

Crips, the Bloods, and MS–13, as well as outlaw motorcycle gangs. 

We have established Violent Crime Impact Teams, known as 

VCITs, in some of the Nation’s cities most impacted by violent 

crime to help identify and arrest the worst of the worst criminals, 

including gang members. We have 31 VCITs currently in such cities as Richmond, Virginia; Birmingham, Alabama; Camden, New 

Jersey; and Houston and Laredo, Texas. 

Our regulatory authority and investigative expertise are also directed at dismantling firearms trafficking networks. Through the 

use of trafficking schemes, criminals divert guns from lawful commerce to be used in illicit activities. Firearms trafficking networks 

extend throughout the United States and affect communities nationwide. 

In recent years ATF has focused its attention on these networks, 

particularly those that exist primarily to supply weapons to the 

Mexican drug cartels. 

Between fiscal year 2005 and 2009, ATF has had a significant 

impact on firearm trafficking in the Southwest Border states. 

ATF has recommended for prosecution 900 cases involving 2,034 

defendants. 497 of those cases have charged violations relating to 

trafficking an estimated 14,923 firearms. In all the investigations, 

over 6,680 firearms have been seized and are no longer available 

to the Mexican drug cartels. 

Of the additional funding we are seeking for fiscal year 2011, approximately $11.8 million is to annualize 37 positions we received 

in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to establish 

Project Gunrunner teams in New Mexico, California, and Texas. 

The annualization of these positions is necessary because we were 

not provided the base funding for the salaries or operational requirements of the three new Project Gunrunner locations. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget cycle is the first opportunity we have 

had to ask for that annualization. Absent that annualization we 

would suffer an $11.8 million operating deficit. 

We are also asking for approximately $2 million in additional resources for our participation in the National Response Framework, 

which is a federal strategy for providing a unified national response to national disasters and acts of terrorism. 

During the past five years ATF has funded these efforts from our 

base budget; we have received no dedicated funds. Instead, we have 

been forced to divert money from other very important programs to 

ESF 13. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culberson, and others, I thank you again for 

the support that you give us and the support of your Subcommittee. With the backing of your Committee I think ATF can 

certainly build on our accomplishments and make our Nation much 

more secure. 

We look forward to working with you in pursuit of our shared 

goals. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
277 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 56795A.174
278 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 56795A.175
279 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 56795A.176
280 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 56795A.177
281 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 56795A.178
282 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 56795A.179
283 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 56795A.180
284 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Melson, the recorder records off a live mic. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, and I have the mic on now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You do. Okay. Thank you. 

PROJECT GUNRUNNER

Project Gunrunner. Update us on Project Gunrunner, talk to us 

a little bit about your successes and what the positive statistics 

that you have cited tell us about what we are really achieving with 

Project Gunrunner and where you think it can take us. 

Mr. MELSON. Well, Project Gunrunner has been a very important 

part of our southwest border strategy, obviously. It has allowed us 

to focus on the trafficking of guns to Mexico, allowed us to work 

with our other federal partners such as DEA and ICE to combat 

gun trafficking, and has created the ability for us to have many 

successes. 

For example, just recently in Phoenix we disrupted a ring that 

was in the process of taking over 40 AK variants down to Mexico. 

We have had great cases and successes in Texas as well where we 

have recently taken of a similar number of guns that were headed 

towards Mexico. 

With the increased leads coming from our tracing and inspections and the increased personnel that we have, we are able to 

build on our investigative capabilities, and I think that Gunrunner 

is a very significant effort on our part, with your support, to combat gun trafficking to Mexico. 

One of the efforts we had last year was what we called GRIT, 

which was the Gunrunner Impact Team. That was a surge in ATF 

personnel in Houston where we sent 100 of our personnel to Houston for 120 days. It was a combined effort of sending IOIs, our investigators, down to inspect the licensees as well as agents to follow up on a backlog of leads that they had in the Houston area; 

It was very successful. We were able to arrest 189 defendants, 150 

of whom were associated with trafficking an estimated 644 firearms. We actually seized 443 firearms. 

Our leads that we developed out of this led to leads for local law 

enforcement and they seized 171 firearms for a total of 614 firearms over this 120 days. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can you put all those numbers in some perspective for us? What increase does that represent, or what percentage 

of the weapons that are in transit to Mexico does this represent? 

Mr. MELSON. Well, it is hard to give you a specific percentage, 

because—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, not specific. 

Mr. MELSON. We don’t know how many guns are going across the 

border. Because if we had that information we would be more likely to be able to interdict them. So we don’t know the universe of 

guns going across. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So when you talk about this in your offices and 

your strategy sessions, you don’t have a sense of what the scope 

and scale of the problem really is to beginning with? 

Mr. MELSON. We know—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know you don’t know the exact number, 

but—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
285 

Mr. MELSON. Right, we know the scope of the problem by the 

types of seizures that are occurring in Mexico. When they raid 

these homes that have caches of weapons in them that gives us an 

idea of the number that is going over. And we can be assured that 

it is only a minimal number that they are recovering in Mexico as 

related to the number that are there. So I think we are probably 

only hitting the tip of the iceberg. 

With guns going across. It is a multi faceted problem. It is not 

just being able to identify the rings that are taking them across, 

but it also is going to include, and this is outside our jurisdiction, 

the southbound check of people going into Mexico, which is not traditionally what the U.S. has done. We usually do the northbound 

checking, the Mexicans do the southbound checks. 

As part of our southwest border strategy we have been working 

very closely with our partners in Mexico. With the resources you 

have given us, by the end of this year we hope to have 19 special 

agents in Mexico in various consulates and in our embassy in Mexico City where we are developing very strong relationships with the 

federal police, SSP, with the prosecutors, PGR, with Aduanas, 

which is the customs people, and others there so that we can get 

better intelligence and better information from their seizures, 

which gives us leads to come back to the U.S. 

And try and determine—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. My line of questioning right now is just 

to get some sense of the scale of this problem. So if you can’t give 

us a really useful estimate of what percentage you are seizing of 

the guns that are going across, give us some sense of the increase 

in seizures that Gunrunner has represented versus pre-Gunrunner 

days. How many more weapons are you seizing today than you 

were seizing before? 

Mr. MELSON. I will have to get back to you with that number, 

but I can tell you in general that it is a significant increase because 

of the additional resources we have along the southwest border. 

I think as our resources grow we are obviously going to seize 

more weapons. I think there is an unlimited number of weapons we 

should seize. 

[The information follows:] 

COMPARISON OF WEAPONS SEIZURE STATISTICS

While ATF has steadily increased the number of firearms seizures relating to 

Project Gunrunner, it is difficult to determine what percentage of firearms destined 

for Mexico are actually intercepted. ATP can, however, illustrate the increase in the 

number of firearms seizures as well as the number of firearms traces submitted by 

Mexico relating to pre and post Gunrunner enforcement. 

The four years preceding the initiation of Project Gunrunner (FY 2002–2005), 

ATF’s four Southwest Border Field Divisions seized 18,267 firearms, as compared 

to the seizure of 31,157 firearms in those same Southwest Border Field Divisions 

during Project Gunrunner (FY 2006–2009). This represents an increase of more 

than 70 percent. 

In 2009, a total of 53,329 firearms recovered in Mexico were submitted to ATF 

for tracing; this is nearly five times the number of traces submitted in 2008. As of 

February 1, 2010, over 3,500 firearms recovered in Mexico have been submitted for 

tracing this year. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well let me get to that, because that is 

really my point here. What more could we be doing? This is a huge 

problem, particularly on the Mexican side. For the record, will you 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
286 

get use of those numbers? And I would also like the numbers on 

the pattern in Mexico, what they are experiencing what they are 

seizing, and maybe estimates about what percentage of the guns 

coming across they are seizing. I suppose they could probably identify the weapons that have come across, or maybe not. But, any 

way, give us some sense of the scale of this problem for the record. 

Do you have any requests in this budget to augment Gunrunner 

in terms of new programs, new dimensions, improvements looking 

forward that you see could be implemented that would make the 

program increasingly effective? Like you said, checking on the 

southbound traffic, for example. 

Mr. MELSON. The President’s Budget asks for the annualization 

of last year’s recovery funds. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many agents did the recovery funds hire? 

Mr. MELSON. It gave us a total of about 25 agents for the recovery. And we need those. And there were additional—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I’m sorry, how many? 

Mr. MELSON. Twenty-five. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So only 25 Gunrunner agents were funded in the 

Recovery Act. 

Mr. MELSON. Well, there were non-agents as well. We had IOIs— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Agents and non-agents? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. MELSON. So we had additional Intelligence Research Specialists (IRS) and IOIs that were down there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. MELSON. And this budget just asked for those annualizations 

because they have done great. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, let me ask a question about that. It is 

great that you are asking for the annualization. So the Recovery 

Act funding was important, obviously, to the Gunrunner program. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you are asking to annualize those 25 new 

hires. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why does the budget not ask for additional 

agents or other additional personnel for Gunrunner? 

Mr. MELSON. We are hoping that as our budget goes through the 

process in the upcoming years that we may have requests for that 

in the budget. I think with more resources down there we can do 

a tremendous amount of work on Gunrunner projects and other 

programs, and not just along the Southwest Border, because this 

has become a national problem. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. So I guess my question is, why aren’t we 

requesting more resources? If Gunrunner is the signature program 

and in your judgment is really having a beneficial payoff, why 

aren’t we scaling that program up if the problem continues to exist 

and we are only seizing a fraction of the guns that are going 

across? 

Mr. MELSON. I think certainly if there were more funding available we could do a lot more. The President’s Budget just asked for 

the annualization. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
287 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If we were to look for places to address this 

problem, forgetting about the funding for a second, what would be 

the most effective effort you could undertake to further reduce gun 

running across the border? 

Mr. MELSON. It would be twofold. One would be for additional 

agents not just along the Southwest Border, but throughout the 

Nation, because the guns are coming from the interior as well. 

The second is for industry operation investigators. Right now we 

have so few to handle so many inspections, which is the real backbone of our investigative capability. Without the compliance by the 

licensees regarding the regulatory matters, which are designed 

solely to help us in law enforcement, we lose a lot of very, very 

good intelligence. 

When we did the GRIT, for example, in Texas, we did in the 120 

days with our surge 1,100 inspections, and some of those licensees 

had never been inspected before. As a result of that, we develop relationships with our gun dealers and we develop intelligence. We 

make sure there is regulatory compliance, which assures us that 

when we recover a crime gun we can trace it to the first retail 

buyer, which helps us in our investigation of these gun trafficking 

organizations. 

The combination of agents and investigators allows us to do 

more—we would love to be able to get on a three-year cycle on inspections. We have a very good relationship right now with the industry and the organizations that represent the industry. I think 

they understand why we do this. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are still talking about efforts that would impact the problem that Gunrunner is focused on. 

Mr. MELSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Because there are some inspections for which an 

increase wouldn’t benefit this effort. What is the target with regard 

to the inspection aspect of this? 

Mr. MELSON. Certainly with respect to explosive licensees that 

would not necessarily pertain to the trafficking of firearms going 

southbound, but all of the other inspections of dealers would. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All across the country? 

Mr. MELSON. All across the country. For example, we just took 

down a case from Minnesota where there was an individual there 

trafficking guns to Mexico. The State of Washington is a source 

state for guns to Mexico. Florida is a source state for guns to Mexico. 

So this is no longer just a Southwest Border state problem. This 

is a national problem that we are seeing. Now the more we squeeze 

down there, because of your helping us to put resources down 

there, the more that activity comes into the interior of the country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does your budget complement Gunrunner by requesting additional funds for these inspections across the territory? 

It does not? 

Mr. MELSON. No, not the 2011 budget. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Mr. Culberson. 

GUN DEALER COMPLIANCE

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wolf. And following up on some of the Chairman’s questions, Director Melson. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
288 

The surge that you did in Houston, we have in Texas a long and 

proud history of, you know, the right to keep and bear arms and 

take a lot of pride in our dealers and owners honoring the law and 

following it. 

Of the inspections that you performed of licensed gun dealers 

what percentage of the dealers that you encounter do you discover 

violations of the law that they are not following the law? 

Mr. MELSON. Well out of the 1100 that we inspected during 

GRIT there were 440 notices of violations. Now those could be very 

minor violations, it could be a couple 4473’s that are missing, the 

forms that you have to fill out when you purchase a weapon, or 

they could be a little bit more serious. But 440 violations out of the 

1100 inspections; there were 78 adverse actions. 

Nationwide over the period of last year, about 53 percent of the 

inspections discovered no violation whatsoever, and less than one 

percent of licenses were revoked as a result of serious violations 

that affected public safety. 

I don’t believe that the firearms dealers are the primary source 

of the problem in the U.S. with respect to a knowing involvement 

in providing guns for trafficking going south. Their important role 

for us is the regulatory compliance, making sure that their acquisition and disposition book is in order, that they do the 4473’s, that 

they do the multiple sales reports. 

We have found in Texas, when we were down there on the GRIT, 

that there were some firearms dealers that proactively called us 

and told us there was suspicious activity in their gun shop, which 

led us to an investigation that resulted in arrests. So these gun 

dealers are cooperating with us. And I really think that the more 

we get out there and work with them in inspections the more they 

understand that we are not out to get them, we are not out to get 

lawful gun purchasers or possessors; we are out after the criminals. 

And the regulatory scheme is designed solely for us to be able to 

do that trace, to create the investigative lead, to capture the criminal. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So it is fair to say that over 99 percent of the 

gun dealers in the United States are following the law, and if they 

have a problem it is paperwork and minor? 

Mr. MELSON. I think it is correct to say that 99 percent of the 

inspections that we do each year are of gun dealers that substantially follow the law. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And the problem we see with guns going south, 

those guns in your experience are coming from what type of 

sources? Because some of my colleagues love to point to the weapons flowing south is some indication of gun dealers breaking the 

law, of law-abiding citizens breaking the law, and therefore we 

need gun control, which of course defies common sense, because 

Washington, D.C. has gun control and is one of the most dangerous 

cities in the United States, and Houston, probably at least a third 

of my constituents are carry concealed carry permit holders and the 

crime rates, you know, we don’t have a real crime problem. That 

law enforcement officer’s best friend is concealed carry permit holder. 

Mr. MELSON. And that is the same argument being made in Chicago right now. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
289 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. MELSON. There are several sources of the weapons, and 

there is no single source that we can look to. Assuredly there are 

guns that are sold by dealers that end up in Mexico. That does not 

mean the dealer is doing anything wrong. It could very well, and 

almost in all these instances, it is a lawful sale. The person may 

be a straw purchaser, but unknown to the dealer. I mean there is 

no way you can necessarily tell the intent of the person. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Fair to say though that the gun dealers, the licensed gun dealers, law-abiding gun owners are not the problem? 

Mr. MELSON. Right. Every once in a while we have a misfit, but 

that is true in any profession or business, but it is not them. 

The other areas could be from purchases at gun shows, they 

could be thefts from interstate shipments, it could be thefts from 

individual homes during burglaries, things— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. MELSON [continuing]. And personal—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Criminal activity. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is it also fair to say that in your experience and 

the experience of your officers that concealed carry permit holders 

are not a problem, and that they are, as we believe in Texas and 

have seen and experienced, that a concealed carry permit holder is 

a law enforcement officer’s best friend in your experience? 

Mr. MELSON. Well they certainly have not impacted us negatively or helped gun trafficking going south. There is no impact 

that they have in our law enforcement. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Your paths don’t cross with those guns. 

Mr. MELSON. They don’t cross. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The Southwest Border of course is a continuing 

problem. We in Texas have a wonderful program that is working 

very well in Laredo and Del Rio sectors and in the Yuma sector 

called Operation Streamline where the—in cooperation with you, 

your officers, all the law enforcement agencies are working together 

beautifully to enforce existing law, and one of these days I hope to 

get the Chairman and Mr. Wolf down to see this, because the local 

community supports it, the crime rate has plummeted in Laredo 

and Del Rio and in Yuma as a result of simply enforcing existing 

law and prosecuting people that cross illegally. 

On the flip side however in the Tucson sector they don’t—if you 

are arrested by the Border Patrol you have a 99.6 percent chance 

of never being prosecuted if you are carrying less than 500 pounds 

of dope, which is just unbelievable. So Tucson is like a super highway, it is wide open. 

Are you aware of problems with your officers, ATF? I was told 

by law enforcement officials in the Tucson sector when I visited 

there that it is not just the Border Patrol that is having trouble 

getting prosecutions of people they arrest, but also ATF and DEA. 

Are you aware of problems of getting prosecutions of people you arrest in the Tucson sector? 

Mr. MELSON. Well not so much currently. When I was the director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, those issues 

were—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You talked about that, right? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
290 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. They were abundant in the Arizona area—and 

I worked closely with CBP and others, the Border Patrol on Operation Streamline and so forth—but I believe that the new U.S. Attorney who is in place now is very aggressive. 

When I was the director we gave Arizona a number of new Assistant U.S. Attorneys. There are more Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

positions that are being allocated as we speak now. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Terrific, thank you. 

Mr. MELSON. So I believe that situation will improve in Arizona. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MELSON. We certainly hope it will. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. If I could, one final question, Mr. 

Chairman? The Chairman has been very gracious with his time. 

You served in the Department of Justice, we met, and I thank you 

so much for your work, and I wanted to ask if I could finally, Mr. 

Chairman, and ask Director Melson, I may have a couple of follow 

ups. 

What changes in policies at the ATF have you seen as a result 

of the new Administration? Have there been new directives or 

changes and policy? I know that my constituents in particular, I 

am a very passionate—I am a life member of the NRA and very 

passionate about the Second Amendment. My constituents are very 

concerned about this new Administration’s direction in attempting 

to through administrative order impose gun control or restrictions 

on the ability to purchase and own weapons, and what can you tell 

me about changes in directions you have seen at the AF under the 

new Administration. 

Mr. MELSON. At this point we have not received any new direction from them to change our manner of operation. We are still 

using the laws that are on the books to effectively combat gun trafficking and violent crime to the best of our resources and ability. 

We have done a lot, I think, in this last year to create a good working relationship with the industry. We have made personal visits 

to some of the places of business to actually see what goes on so 

we better understand what the problems and the issues are. 

My personal goal is to make sure that everybody in ATF is accountable for what they are supposed to do both with respect to responsiveness to our constituents who are the gun industry and the 

explosives industry and the citizens who are trying to get licenses 

for an FFL or an FEL or an NFA weapon and so forth. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. So I can tell my fellow Texans the 

ATF, you believe in the Second Amendment, it is written in plain 

English, you are not going after ammunition or going after people’s 

guns. Thank you. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Mr. Wolf? 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Melson, we want 

to welcome you. 

Mr. MELSON. Thank you. 

VIOLENT CRIME IMPACT TEAMS

Mr. WOLF. Thank you for your service and I thank the men and 

women who work for your agency for their service. 

I wanted to ask you a little bit and we talked a little bit about 

it when you came by the office, but ATF plays a lead role in the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
291 

Department’s program to combat gang and gang violence. Your Violent Crime Impact Team concept seems to be very effective. Can 

you give us the thoughts behind it and tell us what you are doing 

if you can with regard to the gang issue? 

And secondly, can you tell us where the biggest problems in the 

country today are with regard to gangs? 

Mr. MELSON. All right. The VCIT Program is very important in 

our gang reduction efforts. The concept behind it is to put our resources where there are the worst gang issues in the cities, and we 

have 31 VCITs now. We’ve placed them around the country, one in 

Richmond as you know, and these are designed to focus resources 

specifically on the gang issues. As a result we have had some tremendous successes with respect to gangs; MS–13 and others. 

In fact if you have read the Washington papers you will know 

that we’ve had a number of very good gang cases in Maryland taking down networks that have spanned all the way from Maryland 

to California. 

So our success with that has been very good. Our desire is to expand the VCIT cities from the 31 we have now to other cities where 

there are gang problems as well. 

The gangs have now spread all over the United States. They are 

no longer limited to one or two cities as perhaps they were in prior 

years, and so I don’t know that I can tell you where the worst is, 

except to the extent that, in the larger cities, there are significant 

gang problems such as in Los Angeles. We have done tremendous 

work there. There is still a lot of work to be done in Los Angeles 

and in Chicago, and in some of the other bigger cities. 

Mr. WOLF. Would the 31 be an indication of the 31 worst areas 

in the country? 

Mr. MELSON. They were at the time that we put them there. 

They were placed strategically to respond to violent gang activity, 

but I think the number of cities that would fall in that category 

now could be expanded if we had the resources to do that, and certainly because of our successes in that area I think we could show 

you that we would be able to make a significant impact on it. 

INTERNATIONAL NEXUS TO GANGS

Mr. WOLF. What percentage of the gang violence that you see 

has an international aspect to it? Like for instance, MS–13 obviously is controlled partially out of El Salvador and you have other 

gangs and Mexican cartels. But of the gang problem in the United 

States if it is 100 percent and you had to do an impact on what 

percentage of that gang violence had as international connection 

versus, you know, a local gang that may be operating somewhere 

where everyone is from Philadelphia, if you will, versus MS–13 or 

some of the others, can you tell us where the international aspect 

is? 

Mr. MELSON. Not with a specific percentage. I think a significant 

number of these gangs have an international connection, if by 

international connection you mean they are ethnically based with 

respect to other countries like MS–13. But there are still a significant number of gangs that are purely home grown local gangs. 

Many of the motorcycle gangs, for example, are solely controlled by 

elements within the U.S. and not outside the U.S. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
292 

Mr. WOLF. I understand, but I am just trying to get a sense. How 

significant is the international aspect of it? 

Mr. MELSON. Well there is a significant international aspect with 

respect to control in some of the gangs. I believe that the more 

these gangs are being dispersed around the United States that the 

control of these gangs, even though they may have begun with 

international gangs, are going to become more domesticated as 

they become more entrenched in our cities, but there is certainly 

a very significant involvement still of an international aspect. And 

of course if you consider gangs to be drug related as well you have 

the cartels that have a tremendous infusion into our economy and 

into our society, as well in our communities. 

[The information follows:] 

INTERNATIONAL NEXUS OF US GANGS

ATF is not aware of specific gang-related data that would allow for the calculation 

of the percentage of gang violence that is attributable to an international influence. 

The most comprehensive assessment of violent gangs is the 2009 National Gang 

Threat Assessment prepared by the National Gang Intelligence Center in collaboration with and based upon data collected and analyzed by the National Drug Intelligence Center. That report conservatively estimates gang membership in the 

United States at more than one million and states that ‘‘local street gangs, or neighborhood-based street gangs, remain a significant threat because they continue to account for the largest number of gangs nationwide.’’ 

It also states that ‘‘Currently, 11 national-level street gangs have been identified 

in the United States, and associates or members have been identified in foreign 

countries, according to analysis of federal, state and local law enforcement information. Established cells in foreign countries assist gangs operating in the United 

States in further developing associations with DTO’s and other criminal organizations in those countries.’’ 

Mr. WOLF. So have you had any indication, and I have seen articles to this effect, that there has been a combination with regard 

to terrorism and gangs? 

For instance, why would a person from an international terrorist 

group, why would they take the risk to fly into Dulles Airport and 

going through customs both wherever they are flying from here, 

versus why wouldn’t they just go down south of the border and connect into MS–13 and for a fee be taken from some place down there 

to come across the border? 

Have you seen any signs of that being the case that there have 

been gang connected to MS–13 or others just to get across the border and to come into the country? 

Mr. MELSON. Or for terrorism related purposes? 

Mr. WOLF. Not that they have committed terrorist activity—— 

Mr. MELSON. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. But certainly if you were the seed, you 

know, the cells to come in, but who would be potentially connected 

to terrorist activity? 

Mr. MELSON. I will have to get back to you on how many, if any, 

that we have found specifically. There have been some that have 

been reported that other agencies have been involved with. 

Our concern as has been reported by others, and is the same concern, is that this certainly provides an opportunity for terrorists to 

come in through the Southwest Border. How many have actually 

done that I don’t know that we have an answer to that, but it is 

certainly an opportunity. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
293 

CONNECTION WITH REGARDS TO TERRORISM AND GANGS

ATF is not aware of information currently linking U.S.-based street gangs to 

international terrorist groups. 

Mr. WOLF. Or the northern border too. 

Mr. MELSON. Or the northern border. That is an excellent point, 

and one that I hope that neither the Committee nor ATF forgets. 

We have a problem with the northern border as well, not only coming into the U.S., but with guns, drugs, and tobacco going across 

our border into Canada. We have focused so heavily on the Southwest Border that I think sometimes we neglect to look at the interior of the country as well as the northern border. 

Mr. WOLF. The report language for the Committee directed you 

to coordinate with the FBI which also received a significant increase in appropriation for anti-gang activity. How are the ATF 

and FBI dividing the responsibilities and working together to maximize? 

Mr. MELSON. Well it depends somewhat on the particular geographic area. For example, in Richmond when I was an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney over there, we divided it up geographically within 

the City of Richmond, where we had VCIT working in one area 

that was high crime and the Safe Streets from the FBI was working in another area. 

So while we may work in different geographic areas, we work 

well together because we share our information and we work together in joint operations when our investigations overlap, or when 

we need additional help and resources from other agencies to take 

on. 

Mr. WOLF. Is there a rivalry too much of the time? I mean frankly, you know, I like the Bureau and I like the ATF. I stipulate, I 

think both of you do a great job. It does seem that the Bureau 

sometimes gets a little more credit or publicity or notoriety than 

ATF. 

Mr. MELSON. They do, but you know our people are out there to 

do the job. 

Mr. WOLF. I know that. 

Mr. MELSON. You know, I had been with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for 25 years, so I have seen a lot of different agencies and personnel, and I can truly tell you before I even came to ATF that 

there was no other agency out there who was there just to do the 

job, to get it done, regardless of whether it was in their job description, and didn’t really care whether they got the credit as long as 

the community was safe. 

Mr. WOLF. That is good. Last question. There are others we will 

just submit for the record. 

Do you still have staff assigned to the National Gang Intelligence 

Center over—— 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, We work closely with the FBI at both the 

Gang Tech and the Intelligence Center. 

Mr. WOLF. Well how do you think that is working? Glenn Fine 

has been critical. Well, I think Glenn Fine is critical. I think somebody ought to investigate Glenn Fine’s office some time to find out 

some of the things that he is critical about. It seems that every 

time they do an investigation they release it to the media before 

they tell the agency what they are doing. We are trying to get 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
294 

Glenn Fine to look at the whole U.S. vs. New Black Panther Parti 

Dismissal issue, and he doesn’t want to kind of get involved in this 

one. 

But on this, how effective is the National Gang Intelligence Center? Are there potential improvements? Is there anything that you 

would change or do different? Is there anybody participating or not 

participating? Did you look at Glenn Fine’s comments about—— 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, we have, and we are satisfied that both the 

FBI and we, and the other participants are making the Intelligence 

Center a success. There is always room for improvements, and I 

think they are working on some of those. But it is an important 

element of our gang strategy. Because as you have pointed out, 

these gangs have fingers all over the place, and without a unified 

Intelligence Center we are not going to be able to work with them 

as much, we are not going to be able to focus on them as well as 

we could without it. 

We also work with DOJ and with respect to their involvement in 

the DEA Fusion Center with gangs as well. So there is a good synergy between everybody. 

I remember when I was in Virginia we were trying to work on 

a gang intelligence database for the State of Virginia and how hard 

that was to put together and how many competing interests there 

were there. 

I think the National Gang Intelligence Center has really overcome some of those issues nationwide and is a very important asset 

to us. 

Mr. WOLF. One last question. Do you think most state and local 

law enforcement people now know the Intelligence Center is there? 

Are they accessing it, I mean, a rural sheriff in an area? And if the 

answer is maybe not as much as they could, is there something 

that should be done to make sure that they are aware? I mean, if 

they pick up somebody that they can come to the center. Is there 

anything more that should be done? 

Mr. MELSON. I would certainly hesitate to say that every sheriff 

in a county in the State of Virginia or other place knows of that 

Intelligence Center. 

I think the way we can get the word out is to work through our 

field divisions and field offices to make sure when we have—in conjunction with the U.S. Attorneys, meetings with the head of law enforcements in the area—that we talk about this center and how important it is and what a resource it is to local sheriffs. This I think 

is a combination of work that can be done with the FBI, ATF, DEA, 

but led by the U.S. Attorneys because they get the law enforcement 

together to talk about these issues, and certainly that should be 

something that is on their radar as well as on ours individually 

when we meet with the local law enforcement. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Melson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

I understand we have three votes starting now, so that probably 

means one 15 minute vote and two 5 minute votes. If we could 

keep it going as much as possible, I would like to during this time. 

So I will certainly be pleased to leave and let you—— 

Mr. WOLF. Do you want me to run down and vote? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
295 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure, that would be great. 

SPANISH ETRACE

I understand the Spanish version of the eTrace system will finally be completed and deployed this month and that it is expected 

to have a big impact on the volume of cases that you could trace 

and requests you have. Can you quantify the expected impact on 

the number and quality of the trace requests you will receive from 

Mexican law enforcement counterparts? 

Mr. MELSON. Well it is hard to quantify because we are not sure 

what the level of their tracing activity will be based upon prior experience, because the prior experience has been somewhat minimal. 

[The information follows:] 

SPANISH VERSION OF ETRACE

ATF projects that we will receive about 354,000 trace requests in FY 2010 and 

about 364,000 trace requests in FY 2011. Spanish eTrace usage will be expanded 

in Mexico, Central America, and likely South America before the end of FY 2011. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what do you mean the prior experience has 

been somewhat minimal? 

Mr. MELSON. There has been some difficulty in getting the coordination on eTrace throughout the Mexican government. While 

we have had a lot of individual eTraces and we have gone in and 

obtained information to submit for traces ourselves with the cooperation of the Mexican government, the network has not been 

sufficiently placed throughout Mexico to have a universal access to 

the tracing firearms. 

However, having said that, both PGR, which is the Attorney 

General’s department, and SSP, which is the federal police, have 

taken a very strong interest in eTrace, and they will be increasing, 

I believe, their activity with respect to eTrace as a result of the 

Spanish version of it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. Well the information we have is that it 

is increasing pretty quickly right now because the firearms traces 

requested by Mexican law enforcement have steadily increased over 

the years. You processed more than 53,000 Mexican trace requests 

in 2009, which is five times as many requests as processed the year 

before. So even without the Spanish augmentation to the program 

you are getting a dramatic increase, if those numbers are correct. 

Mr. MELSON. That is right, but that is a small part of what I 

think can be traced. We got a disk with 60-some thousand trace requests on it that they had not given us, so we are working on that, 

and that is going to cause somewhat of a spike. 

But I think that with respect to the federal police, when they 

start integrating Spanish eTrace into what is in essence their fusion center in Mexico City, that we will see an even greater increase in the number of traces, and that is going to have several 

impacts on ATF. 

First of all it is going to—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is my question, actually. What is the 

impact on the ATF? 

Mr. MELSON. The first impact is it is going to start overwhelming 

our tracing center. Already with the people we have that are actuVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
296 

ally responding to the trace requests we are at capacity, if not overcapacity already. So that is going to burden us. 

Secondly, our tracing system itself, the computers and the software need to be refreshed. We are in the process of doing that, and 

hopefully as we do that we can stay up with the increase in the 

tracing. 

Thirdly, these trace requests give us more leads throughout the 

country. Every time a trace is done and it comes back to an FFL 

in some part of the country or some city our agents have that as 

a lead. 

So as these traces come in we are going to have a tremendous 

number of leads to follow up on. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well I am back at handling the traces in 

the National Tracing Center. 

Mr. MELSON. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right now you are at the maximum capability 

of doing traces. 

Mr. MELSON. Absolutely, if not beyond it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you have had a fivefold increase over the last 

year, then you can expect a dramatic increase when spanish eTrace 

is deployed. Does your statement today anticipate this increase? 

Mr. MELSON. Not currently. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not currently? Do you plan on submitting an 

amended budget request to address this? 

Mr. MELSON. We will have to work with the department on that, 

but we could certainly use additional people in our tracing center. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have estimates of how many additional 

people you would need in your tracing center to adequately handle—— 

Mr. MELSON. I could certainly get back—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Excuse me, let me ask you the question first—— 

Mr. MELSON. Sorry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. The anticipated increase in requests 

based upon the implementation of the Spanish language version of 

eTrace? 

Mr. MELSON. I don’t have a specific number right now only because it is a little bit early to see what that impact is, but I surely 

can get with you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Surely somebody has looked at that at ATF. I 

mean, you are going to have a increase. 

Mr. MELSON. I can go out to the tracing center and get that specific information for you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I wonder if that has already happened 

and somebody sitting behind you might know the answer to that. 

Or, if you are more comfortable submitting it for the record, that 

is fine too. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, they confirmed that. We don’t have an exact 

number yet because of the transition, but we can get back to you 

with a specific number on that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. It is going to be a problem. ETrace is 

going to be implemented, isn’t it? So it is going to be an issue for 

this year, let alone next year. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, it will be an issue this year. We actually released the Spanish eTrace version at the end of December, so it has 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
297 

been out there for a couple of months. It was sort of a beta testing 

period where we are trying to determine whether we were totally 

successful. We are making some changes to that and updating the 

version of it, but yes, it is going to be coming quickly. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, would you please get to the Committee what your needs are going to be for this year, or what the 

deficit is going to be for this year and then the anticipated need 

for additional resources next year. All right? 

Mr. MELSON. Okay. 

[The information follows:] 

IMPACT OF SPANISH ETRACE ON NATIONAL TRACING CENTER CAPABILITIES

ATF projects that the NTC’s workload will exceed its capacity by 27% in FY 2011. 

The NTC is currently staffed with 61 FTE government employees and 272 contractor employees. The NTC requires 17 additional FTE government employees and 

74 additional contractor employees ($3.7 million) which is a total of 91 personnel 

(a 27% staffing increase consistent with the workload increase). The NTC has considered converting a large portion of its contractor employees to FTE, which if properly structured would result in a slight reduction in costs. 

In the long term, ATF requires additional improvements to its tracing workflow 

system to improve the accuracy, efficiency and timeliness of firearms tracing (est. 

$1.2 million). Further, ATF recommends expanding this workflow to include other 

related firearms databases that affect the tracing process. This would benefit the 

public both in terms of improved services related to firearms commerce as well as 

improved services relative to firearms tracing and criminal enforcement matters. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. The eTrace system offers an efficient 

and systematic method for fulfilling trace data requests, but a large 

portion of ATF’s current record holdings are either in paper or 

microfilm. For eTrace to work, it has to work in a digital format. 

Therefore you have to transition to a paper search of paper records. 

Are you dealing with that problem, is there a conversion effort 

going on, and what’s the status of it? 

Mr. MELSON. That is a huge problem that we have. We have like 

14.4 million out of business records coming in per year, and they 

are almost all, if not all, in paper format. We don’t have at this 

point a significant conversion process in place. We are doing some 

electronic scanning of the microfiche images, but they are not being 

indexed. So still if we get a hit from a manufacturer that says the 

gun was shipped to X, Y, and Z FFL, we can go to that FFL, but 

that may pull up hundreds and hundreds of weapons that we will 

have to search through by hand for purposes of identifying the 

weapon. 

That is an area that if we could fix by being able to electronically 

search them through indexing we would become so much more efficient that in the long run, those resources could be put to answering the actual trace request. Our response time on traces has increased 40 percent over the last year from 10 days to 14 days. 

REGULATORY BACKLOG

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, thank you. We have talked about the regulatory backlog for more years than I can remember. I am quite 

sure Mr. Wolf was chairman of this Subcommittee when I raised 

this issue many years ago. Of course, it wasn’t that many years ago 

that he was chairman, but the point is I have been raising this 

issue. Give us a sense of the accumulated regulatory backlog that 

exists at ATF. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
298 

Mr. MELSON. Well we have about 17 now that are really in the 

process which have either gone over to the Department or—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Seventeen what? Rule makings? 

Mr. MELSON. Rule makings, or have been returned to us. We 

were able to complete four of them last year either by determining 

that we would no longer go ahead with them or they have been 

completed and published. I have signed I think two this year. 

This is a problem, and I am embarrassed about it. I haven’t been 

on long enough to fix it and I haven’t been able to examine it well 

enough, but there are I think three things that we need to do. One 

is to make sure we have sufficient resources attributed to the reg 

writing. We’ve added a couple over the last year. We now have four 

reg writers, but the team that writes these regs include not only 

the reg writers; you also have to have the subject matter expert 

and you have to have an attorney on, so we have to look at that. 

Secondly—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Talk a little bit now about the staff. You have 

an inadequate staff. I don’t want you to forget what you were going 

to say next, but I want to know more about the staff aspect of it. 

Mr. MELSON. We have four regulation writers right now that 

work on these regulations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that an improvement? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. From when? 

Mr. MELSON. It is an increase of about 50 percent from a year 

or two ago. So this should help some. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I think we could Xerox so far this testimony on this issue of four years ago, but go ahead, excuse me. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. Well, I understand that, but I am here to fix 

it if I can. One way is for us to focus more resources on that, the 

other is to do better coordination with the Department, because 

they are an integral part of the process of reviewing these regulations. And so I think with those types of improvements we can do 

that. 

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, that we are doing is in some of 

the changes we are making in ATF. I am creating a quality assurance, quality control office within the directorate that has not only 

the regulation writers, but also the national tracing center and the 

licensing centers, so that we have an oversight office that makes 

sure that we are not only responsive to the public and the industry, 

but also responsive with respect to your concerns on regulation 

writing. It is a cumbersome system and it has to go to many different places to get approved. There are regulations that require us 

to publicize these in the federal register. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I understand, and I am sure the committee 

understands the process. It is akin to making legislation, which can 

be extremely cumbersome. 

When you were moved to DOJ, 15 of your regulation writers 

were left at Treasury. Do you need anything near 16 regulation 

writers to keep up with the need? If you do, your request is woefully inadequate. 

Mr. MELSON. Well yes, we need 16. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I want the real answer. I want the real answer. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
299 

Mr. MELSON. But I don’t want to give you just a guess and ask 

for more than we actually need. I would have to talk to our chief 

counsel and EPS to find out how many more we need. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You know, that would really be a good start. 

Mr. MELSON. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. To find out what your needs were. 

Mr. MELSON. And we may have figured that out and have put 

it in our budget request. 

[The information follows:] 

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL REGULATION WRITERS

ATF currently has four regulation writers who are responsible for approximately 

30 open rulemaking proceedings that are under development or review, and an additional 20 concepts for rulemaking projects. The Bureau still does not have sufficient 

resources to process its rulemaking proceedings in a timely manner, particularly in 

the firearms area. As a result of additional petitions received from the industry and 

rulemaking needs identified during industry meetings, we would like to recruit four 

additional regulation writers. These individuals would help reduce the backlog of 

open rulemakings and address the significant number of pending rulemaking 

projects. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I take you at your word. I sense your sincerity, 

and I look forward to working with you on this. 

Industry, you know, needs this clarity that comes from good rule 

making, and I know you want to do that. Mr. Wolf? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to run and vote. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back briefly to the gang 

issue and then I have a couple others. 

ANTI-GANG COORDINATION

Do you think we need a major effort with the FBI and ATF similar to what was done with Cosa Nostra back in the ’60s, a major 

comprehensive government-wide effort to eradicate other gangs? If 

you have living in an area that is infested with gangs, it is a form 

of domestic terrorism for those families, many of them poor, that 

live in an area like that. Does it make sense to have a major effort 

similar to what was done in the ’60s, or do you think the current 

approach, you are doing your thing, FBI does its, DEA does its, and 

I know so much effort has been gone into the counter terrorism. 

What are your thoughts about that? 

Mr. MELSON. I also have a concern, and I hope I am not speaking 

out of school, of duplication of responsibilities, because then you do 

get a clash of personalities and of agencies trying to do the same 

thing in a particular jurisdiction. 

But having said that, I think there could be much more that can 

be done with gangs, and given a unified Department approach to 

it, along with the sufficient resources, I think we could do a lot in 

that regard. 

Mr. WOLF. Well you all do a good job. Should we do a letter to 

the Attorney General asking—or maybe this is already done. Is 

there sort of a coordinating council on this issue whereby the U.S. 

Attorney’s, Marshal Service, DEA, ATF, everyone is kind of touching gloves every other week just sort of coordinated to make sure? 

Is that done? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
300 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, it is done through the Criminal Division, Gang 

TECC and the Fusion Centers. It is also done through the Attorney 

General’s Advisory Committee and other areas. 

Mr. WOLF. Is that advisory committee, is it an advisory committee on gangs or is it—— 

Mr. MELSON. Well it is the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, but they have—— 

Mr. WOLF. On gangs? 

Mr. MELSON. No, it is a full one, but they have subcommittees, 

and they have subcommittees on violent crime and gangs that deal 

with this. 

There is also an anti-gang coordinating group at the Department 

that looks at that. 

Mr. WOLF. And how often do they meet? 

Mr. MELSON. I am not sure how often they meet. 

Mr. WOLF. Well maybe we will do a letter to the Attorney General. I am sure he wants to deal with this issue, and maybe it is 

already being done, but to see if there could be some sort of formal 

structure. Iron sharpens iron. You are all together on a periodic 

basis and making sure, on the issue of gangs, not that gangs happens to be one of the things we talk about today, but on just gangs 

to deal with. Because I think those who live in areas that are gang 

infested that is as much of an act of terrorism on them as it is if 

an international terrorist group is coming in. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, Mr. Hoover pointed out to me that the antigang coordinating group meets once a month at the Department. 

Mr. WOLF. Once a month. Well let us look into that and see. 

ATF ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

One other issue is Congress provided funding and passed supplement bills for ATF to deploy personnel to Iraq. Can you describe 

what presence you have been able to stand up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what training and other activities your people are engaged in? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. We have trained a number of Iraqi police. We 

have been participating in groups like what they call the Combined 

Explosive Exploitation Cell (CEEC) where they are looking at the 

IEDs. We are in preparation of sending people to Afghanistan to 

do the same thing. We work with the FBI on analyzing IEDs when 

they come back to the states, being sent over here to determine 

common sources and so forth. We are very involved in training the 

military with respect to the use of explosive canines for use over 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there was a report back just recently that one of our dogs over there, being used by one of the 

military personnel has already discovered 14 IEDs before they have 

gone off. 

Mr. WOLF. And how many dogs do you have over there? 

Mr. MELSON. I think there is a real shortage of explosives dogs, 

canines both over there as well as in the U.S. We are pushing out 

as many as we can through our canine center, which is in your district I believe, and trying to train more and more of them. 

We have a state of the art process for training them for odor detection of explosive devices. We are also training dogs down in 

Yuma for the military with respect to the same type of capability. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
301 

Mr. WOLF. Roughly how many dogs? 

Mr. MELSON. From ATF? I am not sure I know. 

Mr. HOOVER. We’ve trained over 200 for the U.S. military. 

[The information follows:] 

NUMBER OF BOMB SNIFFING DOGS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

ATF has deployed numerous Special Agent Canine Handlers and their Explosive 

Detection Canines to Iraq to assist with the detection of improvised explosives devices (IEDs). Since 2004, there have been 39 ATF canine handlers deployed to Iraq 

and additional handlers are scheduled for rotation on an as-needed basis. In addition, ATF has entered into another Memorandum of Agreement with JIEDDO to imprint U.S. Marine Corps canines for homemade explosives. This training is conducted at Yuma, AZ, and to date, 206 canines have received the training. It is anticipated by the end of the calendar year, 352 canines will receive the imprinting. 

Mr. MELSON. I don’t know that they have told us how many they 

could use if they had an unlimited number. We can certainly find 

that out for you and get back to you. But just like in the U.S., 

these dogs certainly protect our human capital. 

Mr. WOLF. Well let us talk about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CULBERSON. No further questions, but thank you for your 

service to the country, and we appreciate all that you and your 

agents do, and in particular we really appreciate in Texas the work 

that you do of getting—we are grateful for your service. Thank you, 

sir. 

Mr. MELSON. Thank you very much. 

ATF’S ETRACE SYSTEM

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just a follow-up question on the eTrace system. 

My information is that a manual search can take up to ten times 

longer than an electronic one. Does that sound right? 

Mr. MELSON. Well, I think it is common sense that a manual 

search will take much longer than an electronic one. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But ten times longer? I mean, you must have to 

go to file boxes. 

Mr. MELSON. Well in essence what you are going to are the 

microfiche, and you may have a roll that has 4- or 500 firearms on 

it that you literally have to scroll through and look for a particular 

firearm. 

You should come out there with us. I was out there and I was 

absolutely appalled and depressed at what they are going through 

out there. You literally see pallets of these out of business records 

come in, and they are just absolutely overwhelmed. You see people 

in these cubicles going through the microfiche looking for these 

weapons. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well how does your budget address this problem? 

Mr. MELSON. Right now we would be struggling severely to 

change that. 

ATF/FBI EXPLOSIVES ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I would like to hear you talk about jurisdictional overlap in explosives cases a little bit. 

It seems ATF and FBI have always been at a point where the 

jurisdictional lines have not been clear. I know you have underVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:21 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
302 

taken efforts to address this, and in our 2009 CJS Bill we required 

the Department to review instances of overlap and to begin sorting 

through that. I assume you are not very far in sorting because we 

asked for a report, which is seven months overdue. So can you give 

us an update on that? 

Mr. MELSON. Well as you know the IG came out with a report 

on that. The Deputy Attorney General’s Office has formed several 

working groups between the FBI and ATF to look at various issues 

relating to the overlap of jurisdiction. Very soon the Deputy Attorney General is going to have a meeting with ATF and the FBI in 

his office to discuss these issues and a recommendation will be 

made from the deputy to the Attorney General on clarifying these 

issues of jurisdiction. 

We believe that ATF has the expertise in explosives issues. 99.9- 

some percent of all the explosions by bombs in the United States 

are non-terrorism type of cases which we respond to now and have 

done it very successfully and professionally. We believe we can continue to do that and incorporate with our response individuals and 

representatives from the JTTFS, so if there happens to be a terrorism connection they can identify it quickly and take the case 

over. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. DOG’s IG reviewed, as you point out, these jurisdictional problems last year. They had three areas of concern, the 

control of explosive investigations where it is unclear if there is a 

nexus to terrorism, the consolidation of multiple explosives or related data tracking systems, and the coordination of explosives 

training. 

So I guess we are looking for a time frame, a status report, on 

what steps are going to be taken to address and hopefully eliminate those conflicts. So can we expect a report on that soon as requested? 

Mr. MELSON. I think that the Attorney General will resolve all 

those issues in the near future. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. He is going to resolve all of these conflicts, all 

of these issues? That will be welcomed. That would be historic. 

Mr. MELSON. Well my understanding—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sure when the agents go out there in the 

field after an explosion and start bumping into each other, they 

will be thrilled. 

Mr. MELSON. Well they will be, and hopefully we won’t be bumping into each other; there will be a coordinated response. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That was probably—— 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, I understand that. My understanding is that 

the Deputy Attorney General is going to make a recommendation 

to the Attorney General within the foreseeable future which will 

address these issues that the IG raised. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well we look forward to working with you 

on those. I know it would be in everybody’s best interest— 

Mr. MELSON. It would absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. To try to sort through those difficult 

issues. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
303 

EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTION #13

Your budget request includes a small amount of money to set up 

a dedicated staff in dealing with ATF’s Emergency Support Function 13 responsibilities. What is your ability? You have never had 

a dedicated budget line item for this. Are you requesting a dedicated line item now? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, that is what our request is for. I think it is 

seven positions and some operating funds in order to do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How is your ability to perform your required 

ESF 13 duties constrained by the lack of a dedicated budget? 

Mr. MELSON. We are obviously having to take resources from 

other operational areas to sustain our ESF 13 responsibilities, 

which we take very seriously, because we understand that local 

communities are going to be relying on us to help them provide—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will your request preclude the necessity of your 

going to the other budget line items to support this function? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Really? 

Mr. MELSON. If we get this line item we will have seven personnel that are dedicated. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. At the requested level? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, at the requested level. We should be able to 

fulfill our function of training and preparedness for purposes of establishing the ESF. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So this requested funding level will take care of 

all of your ESF 13 responsibilities? Or will it only establish and 

dedicate funding for a portion of them? 

Mr. MELSON. It is hard to say we will never need anything more, 

because with this program—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you like to answer that for the record? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, I will, thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR ESF–13 

In addition to the $1.22 million budget request, ATF has forwarded another request seeking approximately $9.6 million. This amount will provide: 

• $1.57 million for nine full-time employees to satisfy critical personnel needs 

in the implementation and responsibilities of ESF #13; 

• $500,000 for operational travel expenses of ESF #13 personnel whose travel 

throughout the Nation is critical in the preparation and planning for an effective Federal response; 

• $300,000 for government-wide ESF #13 training, education, and associated 

travel which is essential to the overall success of the initiative; 

• $3.75 million for the purchase of four command and control vehicles to be 

strategically placed throughout the country to provide centralized command 

platforms for responding Federal law enforcement assets; 

• $875,000 for computers and related software to equip the currently nonautomated ESF #13 National Coordination Center with the proper mechanisms 

to effectively communicate with responding personnel and other law enforcement partners; 

• $500,000 for equipment for the currently unequipped ESF #13 Assessment 

Team which affords essential first responders the ability to remain self-sufficient and protected for a period of time while affected areas are initially 

recuperating; 

• $1.95 million for 14 emergency management contractor positions to be located in Washington, DC and within the FEMA Regional cities to provide 

FEMA and State partners with the everyday law enforcement guidance needed 

to prepare meaningful policy; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
304 

• $219,000 for ESF #13 National Coordination Center to be positioned in 

Sterling, Virginia, for continuity of operations assurance should an incident 

occur within the National Capital Region. 

Because ATF has not received resources to support its responsibilities under ESF 

#13, existing staff are necessarily assigned ESF #13 responsibilities in addition to 

existing operational duties. This is limiting ATF’s ability to consistently engage fully 

in required exercises regarding the planning for and the response to a natural disaster and/or act of terrorism. 

The increased request for resources will allow ATF to fill essential vacancies within the existing ESF #13 program and expand critical readiness efforts nationwide. 

These additions will maximize ATF’s ability to immediately provide the American 

people with the caliber of law enforcement preparation expected from the Federal 

government in a time of crisis. 

RECOVERY ACT EXPENDITURES PER PROJECT GUNRUNNER

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me give you an opportunity for the record 

to respond to some of the IG’s concerns about your Recovery Act 

expenditures. 

The IG contended that several of your Recovery Act funded offices are located in areas that have relatively little direct nexus to 

firearms trafficking activities of Mexican drug cartels. How do you 

respond to that criticism? 

Mr. MELSON. We disagreed with the IG in that regard. When we 

placed our resources along the Southwest Border we concluded that 

New Mexico was part of the Southwest Border and that gun trafficking was going to be an issue in the Roswell, Las Cruces area 

itself. 

Since the recovery money has come, and even though we don’t 

have all the people there yet because they are still going through 

the process of being hired, last year we had 38 cases involving illegal gun purchases. Four of them were tied to gun trafficking, and 

that is a funnel for one of the cartels to go through to Mexico. 

We thought that we ought to take a strategic approach. Instead 

of being reactive to where the problems were going to exist, we 

thought we would put individuals in places where we knew there 

was not only an existing problem, but will be a growing problem. 

Roswell and Las Cruces were two of those places where we are trying to be predictive in our efforts. And we have expressed our disagreement to the IG with respect to that. 

As I indicated before, the problem of gun trafficking is no longer 

right along the border, it is going to go into the interior, and we 

can’t be complacent and just put resources there and forget about 

the rest of the country with respect to the source of these guns to 

Mexico. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So with the funds you are requesting to annualize, you intend to continue supporting the plan that you have implemented and you will not be changing it in light of the IG’s—— 

Mr. MELSON. No, sir, we are confident that our analysis is correct. It is beginning to come to fruition as we see the types of cases 

that they are developing there in our strategic analysis of not only 

the gun trafficking patterns, but the cartel trafficking patterns as 

well. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The IG also raised a concern about being able 

to ensure that the GRIT personnel would be tasked solely with 

Mexican firearms trafficking enforcement cases. My first question 

is, is that your intention? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
305 

Mr. MELSON. Are you talking about the Gunrunner? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. MELSON. Okay. Yes, they are focused on the gun trafficking 

to Mexico. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But that is your intention? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. Now, I was going to say, you have got to do 

the investigative ground work for one of these trafficking cases. So 

you may investigate straw purchasers who are collecting guns, but 

it may end up not being a ring or a group that necessarily is going 

to Mexico. We still have to prosecute that case. We can’t tell necessarily at the beginning of an investigation that it is a trafficking 

case to Mexico; we have to investigate it. That type of information 

comes along during the investigation. 

We wouldn’t want the IG or anybody to come back and say hey, 

this Gunrunner team investigated three domestic gun trafficking 

organizations. Well it just didn’t turn out to be one that went to 

Mexico. But that is our intent, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The answer to the question is that it is the intent that the GRIT personnel be solely tasked with Mexican traffic 

cases. The IG’s concern was that there aren’t procedures in place 

to ensure that, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to 

speak to that or the importance of it. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, sir. That is why we have supervisors in each 

of these offices which—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The IG’s contention is that there are no procedures in place, so the supervisors could on their own discretion assign them to other duties. 

Mr. MELSON. Well, I guess that—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not arguing with you, I am just giving you 

an opportunity to—— 

Mr. MELSON. I understand that. I think we—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sure you went back and defended yourself. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. I think that we have sufficient control over our 

supervisors to have them do what we want them to do with respect 

to these resources and what our priorities are. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure. Well, that is the IG, don’t look at me. 

Mr. MELSON. Oh, I know, I know. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am just giving you a chance to respond. 

Mr. MELSON. I understand that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I did get a question too, I am a member of the 

Houston Gun Collectors Association, and that the director of the 

show had—that is why I stepped out to visit with him, because I 

remember there was a controversy in the Austin gun show. The 

Thursday before the show the local ATF agent showed up and 

asked the director of the Austin Gun Club to transfer all—all the 

private sales had to go through license dealers. Is that a new policy 

at the ATF, or is that just something that he did locally for that 

one time? 

Mr. MELSON. No. It is not a policy of ATF, and it has never been 

a policy of ATF to do that. 

As I understand the situation this was a contract dispute between the owner of the premise and the promoter of the gun show. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
306 

The owner of the premise wanted to make sure that the guns were 

lawfully sold on his or her premise, and asked the local police for 

suggestions as how they could ensure that. We were invited to attend that meeting and gave them a list, as I understand it, of different things they could do to make sure that guns were lawfully 

sold. 

One of the suggestions, which is a common sense suggestion, is 

just have licensed FFLs there. And they made the decision as to 

what to do on their own after hearing from us. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Local police? 

Mr. MELSON. No, the owner of the premise. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The owner of the facility. Okay. 

Mr. MELSON. Who then said—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You can image the uproar that caused. 

Mr. MELSON. Oh, I understand, but the owner made his or her 

own decision as to what to do. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. MELSON. And we discussed this very issue with the various 

industry organizations, including the organization that represents 

the gun show promoters at the shot show, and I think they understand that we did not suggest to them that that was the way it was 

going to be. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. But beyond the commonsense restrictions 

that all of us are under, you know, if I wanted to sell a gun to my 

friend Mr. Wolf or Chairman Mollohan, there is no restriction on 

that other than—there is no restriction on private individuals selling guns to each other or at a show if I want to go rent a table 

and sell some guns other than the commonsense ones, don’t sell it 

if you know the guy is a felon, and don’t sell it to an illegal alien. 

Other than those restrictions there are no restrictions on the rights 

of individual Americans to rent a table at a gun show and just go 

sell it if it is a hobby type thing or personal. 

Mr. MELSON. That is right, but having said that, the owner or 

the promoter has the absolute right to impose whatever restrictions 

they want to. 

Mr. CULBERSON. On the facility. 

Mr. MELSON. On the facility. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Got it. 

Mr. MELSON. Right. That is up to them completely. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure, yes, sir. And then the other question I got 

from the Houston Gun Collectors Association is how can a private 

individual—if a private individual is present, would a valid driver’s 

license by somebody that wants to buy a gun, I rent a table at a 

show, a guy shows up, he has got a valid driver’s license. Is that 

sufficient to protect the private seller from the probation against 

selling to an illegal alien? Because if you are presented with a driver’s license, if you are just a private individual—— 

Mr. MELSON. May I have a second? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. 

Mr. MELSON. One of these lifelines. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Because that is a worry, you know, if you are 

just a private guy selling, you probably have individuals, Mr. 

Chairman, in your district that collect guns, have fun with them, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
307 

and they will go rent a table at a show and go sell guns. God bless 

America. 

We are going to go vote here pretty quickly, but—— 

Mr. MELSON. Okay. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is a driver’s license sufficient? 

Mr. MELSON. The test is reasonableness on the part of the seller, 

and if it is reasonable to rely on that driver’s license, then yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That makes sense to me as an attorney. Thank 

you very much for your service and to all of your agents, we appreciate what you do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which can only be answered in the context of 

each individual case. 

Mr. MELSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There’ll be some questions for the record that I 

will certainly submit and perhaps other members of the Committee. I have a series of questions about tobacco diversion, trafficking, and how it pays off for increased enforcement. 

Thank you very much for your testimony here today, Mr. Melson. 

Mr. MELSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And thank you for the excellent job all of your 

agents and other employees do in defense of the country. We appreciate the assistance of your individual employees in every instance. 

They do excellent work. Thank you. 

Mr. MELSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
308 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 503 here 56795A.181
309 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 504 here 56795A.182
310 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 505 here 56795A.183
311 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 506 here 56795A.184
312 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 507 here 56795A.185
313 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 508 here 56795A.186
314 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 509 here 56795A.187
315 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 510 here 56795A.188
316 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 511 here 56795A.189
317 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 512 here 56795A.190
318 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 513 here 56795A.191
319 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 514 here 56795A.192
320 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 515 here 56795A.193
321 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 516 here 56795A.194
322 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 517 here 56795A.195
323 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 518 here 56795A.196
324 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 519 here 56795A.197
325 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 520 here 56795A.198
326 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 521 here 56795A.199
327 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 522 here 56795A.200
328 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 523 here 56795A.201
329 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 524 here 56795A.202
330 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 525 here 56795A.203
331 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 526 here 56795A.204
332 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 527 here 56795A.205
333 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 528 here 56795A.206
334 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 529 here 56795A.207
335 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 530 here 56795A.208
336 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 531 here 56795A.209
337 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 532 here 56795A.210
338 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 533 here 56795A.211
339 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 534 here 56795A.212
340 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 535 here 56795A.213
341 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 536 here 56795A.214
342 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 537 here 56795A.215
343 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 538 here 56795A.216
344 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 539 here 56795A.217
345 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 540 here 56795A.218
346 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 541 here 56795A.219
347 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 542 here 56795A.220
348 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 543 here 56795A.221
349 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 544 here 56795A.222
350 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 545 here 56795A.223
351 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 546 here 56795A.224
352 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 547 here 56795A.225
353 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 548 here 56795A.226
354 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 549 here 56795A.227
355 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 550 here 56795A.228
356 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 551 here 56795A.229
357 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 552 here 56795A.230
358 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 553 here 56795A.231
359 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 554 here 56795A.232
360 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 555/700 here 56795A.233
(361) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS FY2011 BUDGET OVERVIEW 

WITNESS 

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS 

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Good morning. We are pleased to welcome Mr. 

Harley G. Lappin, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

who will be testifying today about the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Federal Prison System. 

Director Lappin, welcome, first of all. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is good to be here. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We appreciate your being here and appreciate 

your service and that of your fine organization. 

We talked quite a bit during our hearing last year about BOP’s 

reentry programming and how that is related to recidivism and the 

growing federal prison population. And we will certainly be asking 

questions again today about your Second Chance Act and reentry 

activities and plans for the coming year. 

It has become very clear, however, that the Bureau of Prisons’ 

ability to implement effective reentry programs has been hindered 

in recent years by a critical shortfall in the number of on-board correctional workers and by the inadequate capacity of the aging federal prison infrastructure. And these problems have in turn been 

the result of inadequate budget requests for the Bureau of Prisons. 

Over the last three years, the Subcommittee has provided significant additional resources above the proposed budget request to 

allow BOP to meet its basic operational requirements and begin addressing its staffing shortfall. 

For fiscal year 2008, we provided supplemental funding and approved a reprogramming when it became clear that BOP would 

otherwise run out of funding before the end of that fiscal year. For fiscal year 2009, the Subcommittee provided $160 million above the budget request. For fiscal year 2010, we provided $106 

million above the request. 

BOP’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 appears to be an improvement over prior years, although I will be asking you about 

how realistic it really is. 

I am pleased to say that the Bureau of Prisons has made some 

important progress on the staffing front since our hearing last 

March, although there is still a lot more work apparently to be 

done. 

And there are still significant challenges ahead when it comes to 

acquiring or constructing new prison facilities and keeping up with 

the growing backlog of modernization and repair projects for BOP’s 

aging facilities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
362 

We will be asking you this morning about these and other important challenges you face, including how you are addressing violence 

in the prisons, particularly assaults directed at prison staff, but 

also assaults by prisoner upon prisoner. 

Mr. Lappin, in a moment, I will ask you to briefly summarize 

your statement. Your written testimony, of course, will be made a 

part of the record. 

First, I am pleased to turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Wolf, 

for any opening comments that he may like to make. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to welcome Mr. Lappin. Thank you and your people 

for the work you do. And with that, I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Lappin. 

OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. LAPPIN. Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Wolf, it is a 

pleasure to be back, and I certainly appreciate all of your support. 

And let me begin by thanking you for your strong support of Bureau of Prisons. I am particularly grateful, as you just mentioned, 

for the assistance with the additional funding included in the 2010 

Consolidation Appropriations Act that allowed the Bureau of Prisons to continue basic operations and allowed us to increase onboard staffing. And I will talk a little bit more in detail about that 

in a moment. 

I assure you we will continue to exercise sound fiscal judgment 

and contain costs while maintaining the highest level of service 

that we possibly can. 

During fiscal year 2009, we achieved a net increase of 775 employees from the beginning of the fiscal year. And through February of this year, we have added a net increase of 325 additional 

staff to the total staff on board. 

We anticipate by the end of this fiscal year, we will add about 

925 staff to the base, and that number is inclusive of the new activations. 

The continued professionalism and dedication of our staff has 

been critical to the Bureau’s ability to operate safe and secure facilities, managing more inmates than our prisons were designed to 

house, and preparing inmates to transition back into their communities. 

Continuing increases in the inmate population pose substantial 

ongoing challenges for our agency, particularly at the medium- and 

high-security levels. 

In 2009, a net growth of 7,091 new inmates was realized and net 

growth with 7,000 inmates per year is projected for 2010 and 2011. 

The continued increases challenge us in providing safe and secure institutions for staff, inmates, and surrounding communities. 

The President’s 2011 budget request for the BOP is $6.534 billion 

for the Salaries and Expense budget. That is nearly $450 million 

more than the 2010 enacted level. 

For the Buildings and Facilities budget, the request of $269.7 

million is nearly $171 million more than the 2010 level. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
363 

Our highest priorities continue to be: ensuring the safety of staff, 

inmates, and surrounding communities; increasing on-board staffing at BOP correctional institutions; adding bed space; reducing the 

use of double and triple bunking, thus leading to lower violence 

and crowding in prisons; increasing the Federal Prison Industries 

work program, and other inmate reentry programs such as drug 

treatment and education, through an inmate skills development 

strategy that is consistent with the Second Chance Act and; finally, 

maintaining the existing institutions in an adequate state of repair 

to ensure safety. 

Resources are requested in the New Construction decision unit to 

acquire and modify the Thomson, Illinois Correctional Center, expanding high-security federal prison capacity, currently at 52 percent overcrowding. The Thomson facility would provide up to 1,600 

new high-security cells. 

The number of Supermax or ADX beds available at Florence has 

not increased since the ADX Florence was activated in 1994, when 

the total inmate population was 95,000 inmates. 

Thus, in addition to housing general population and high-security inmates at Thomson, we will also use this to house a number 

of administrative max-type inmates and other inmates who have 

proven difficult to manage, and inmates who are designated for 

special management units. 

Conditions of confinement of special management inmates are 

more restrictive than general population inmates and the Thomson 

facility provides the physical structures and security to appropriately house special management unit inmates at that location. 

Therefore, we are grateful for the Thomson opportunity but remain concerned as the inmate population far outpaces the bed 

space added. 

In the M&R Program, we continue to address our highest priority needs and work towards improving environmental and energy 

performance, within the constrained funding levels that exist in the 

M&R Program. 

As you know, it is imperative that we reduce crowding and to do 

so, one or more of the following must occur: 

One, reducing the length of time that some inmates spend in 

prison is an option. 

Two, expand inmate housing at existing facilities where it is conducive to do so. Add a housing unit if, in fact, it is not going to 

be overly expensive to expand the support areas, an assessment 

that we would have done. 

Contract with private prisons for additional bed space for low-security criminal aliens. That is number three. 

Four, significantly increase the number of inmates in community 

corrections, including home confinement. 

And, number five, acquire and/or construct and staff additional 

prisons. 

Thus, there are major safety issues as the population grows by 

thousands each year, but the capacity does not. In fact, there are 

no fully funded new construction projects to add any beds beyond 

2013. 

And four or five thousand inmates will be absorbed each of those 

years into existing overcrowded and overutilized infrastructure. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
364 

Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Wolf, again, we appreciate 

your ongoing support. This concludes my formal statement. 

I am encouraged that the 2011 President’s request moves us a 

step further towards adequate staffing and bed space requirements 

to manage the increasing inmate population. 

I look forward to the questions you may have of me on any of 

these issues. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
365 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 56795B.001
366 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 56795B.002
367 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 56795B.003
368 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 56795B.004
369 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 56795B.005
370 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 56795B.006
371 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 56795B.007
372 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 56795B.008
373 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 56795B.009
374 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 56795B.010
375 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 56795B.011
376 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 56795B.012
377 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 56795B.013
378 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 56795B.014
379 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 723 here 56795B.015
380 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 56795B.016
381 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 56795B.017
382 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 56795B.018
383 

INMATE POPULATION INCREASES

Mr. MOLLOHAN. First of all, I would just like to see if I heard 

you right with some of your testimony, some of the facts here. 

In 2009, you took in 7,091 new inmates, is that—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our last year’s increase was 7,091 inmates to the 

base. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Seven thousand ninety-one—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Seven thousand ninety-one to the base. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Inmates to the base? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We released—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that a net increase? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Net increase, yes a net increase. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. A net increase of 7,000, so you took in a lot more 

than that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me explain. We actually released a little over 

60,000 inmates, but we admitted a little over 67,000 inmates. Of 

the 60,000 inmates released, around 20 thousand, maybe a little 

less, were deported and a little more than 40 thousand were transferred or reentered communities in our country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you are going to have the same experience 

in 2010? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We believe we will add another 7,000 to the base 

this year, yes, and in 2011. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And in 2011? So that is 14,000 added to the base 

during the next two years? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And just a little background, one of our two drivers 

right now is immigration. We actually received about fifteen, sixteen hundred more inmates last year than we expected. 

We have seen a 45-percent increase in immigration the last two 

years. That is 8,000 inmates with immigration convictions. Their 

sentences are slightly shorter in nature, so we do not have them 

as long, but it is still 8,000 inmates. 

The other area is a small uptick in drugs and firearms. But even 

a small increase for, say, fifteen hundred to two thousand inmates 

has substantial impact because their average sentence is 80 

months. 

So if you add 1,500 inmates in drugs or firearms, they are staying with you for 80 months. That is one prison full for 80 months. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what does the trend line look like past 

2011? 

Mr. LAPPIN. What we do is monitor indictments. We are continuing to see a dramatic increase in indictments in immigration. 

Again, we are seeing a slight increase of 1,500 to 1,700 indictments 

increase in drugs and firearms. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you extrapolate out of that a certain increase? 

Mr. LAPPIN. A certain percentage of those will end up being convicted—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So what—— 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Based on historical—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. What is the bottom line? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are going to see an increase in both drugs and 

firearms and immigration—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Into the foreseeable future? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
384 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. For the first—in the next couple of 

years, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But I am asking for a number associated 

with—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will have to get you the number rather than me 

guessing. I will give you what our projections are. 

[The information follows:] 

FUTURE POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR FY 2011, FY 2012, AND FY 2013 

The BOP’s inmate population is projected to increase by a net 7,000 inmates per 

year for FY 2010 and FY 2011. For FY 2012 and 2013, the inmate population is 

projected to grow by an additional 4,500 inmates per year. The distribution of current population offenses are as follows: Drugs 52 percent; Weapon offenses 15 percent; Immigration Law violations 11 percent; violent offenses 8 percent; Fraud 5 

percent; Property Crimes 4 percent; Sex offenses 4 percent; and other miscellaneous 

offenses 1 percent. BOP does not project offenses by category for future years; however, the BOP does not anticipate significant changes in the inmate population distribution by offense category for FY 2010 through FY 2013. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Your trend line projection past 

2011. You gave it to 2011. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yeah. I think we go out three years, so we can give 

it to you up to three years. So it will be 2011, 2012, and 2013 when 

our projections—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But just here for this testimony and not holding 

you to the number—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Does the trend line look the same 

as what you have described for 2009, 2010, and 2011? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Out to—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. What we do in the out years, though, this is just our 

conservative approach—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. It is more difficult to predict beyond 

three years, so what we typically do in the out years is reduce that 

projected increase from the prior three years—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You say conservative. Does that mean you are 

conservative to make sure you hit the number and if you are a little above, that is conservative, or are you conservative on the low 

side? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are conservative on the low side, so—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why would you be conservative on the low side? 

Mr. LAPPIN. In lieu of us asking for and building more beds than 

what we might need. We realize—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That seems like a slim prospect—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is true. And it has been. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Given this kind of—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. And it may be that we need to step back, although 

I have to say the GAO report, that study that was done just recently was very complimentary of our population projections, only 

a one-percent difference in what we projected and what we actually 

received. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So we have adhered to that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. But—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
385 

Mr. LAPPIN. For example, we have got 7,000 in 2011, 4,500 in 

2012. 4,500, I am sorry, 4,500 in 2013. So in the out years, 2013, 

2014, we projected about 4,500. 

As we get closer, we would adjust those up or down based on the 

indictment information we are receiving because that is a better 

predictor the closer you get to the three-year window. So right now 

our projections are 7,000 in 2011, 4,500 in 2012, and 4,500 in 2013. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And thereafter about 4,500? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thereafter. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But that is really just a placeholder almost? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is a placeholder. As you get closer, you begin 

to see the indictments coming in. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Then you can make an adjustment—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Up or down based on the number of indictments. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I see. So—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Does that make sense? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, it makes sense. Of course it does. It is your 

testimony. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you. 

CROWDING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I mean, I want to get into these questions, 

but, you know, anybody’s reaction to that would be how in the 

world, where in the world are you going to put these people. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean, Thomson uses 1,600 beds and, you 

know, a prison here and a prison there, and you are going around 

the country buying a lot of prisons. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You want me to respond to that? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sure. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Okay. Obviously we have got four prisons being 

built. McDowell and Mendota are being activated. And, in essence, 

in our opinion, they are filled. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So next up obviously is Berlin and if we were to acquire Thomson. Now, Thomson has 1,600 cells. We would double 

bunk some of that. So if we had the entire prison, we are going to 

get more inmates in there—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I see. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Than we do in our normally constructed 

prisons. So it is a little larger. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. So you might get 3,200? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not going to go that high, but we could be in 

the 2,200, 2,300 range. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That still is far short of the net increase you are 

going to—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. And then beyond that, we have Yazoo City, 

Hazelton, and Aliceville. So that is everything that we are building. 

And without a doubt, each of the years those come on line, it is not 

going to be enough beds to accommodate the number of inmates 

coming in—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
386 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. If we hit the 7,000, 7,000, 4,500. So we 

already started identifying and informing wardens where we are 

going to add more beds at existing locations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which means more crowding? 

Mr. LAPPIN. More triple bunking. I mean, that is where we are 

at. There are very few single celled, single bunked rooms. They are 

reserved for only those inmates that we cannot house someone else 

with. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So we are going to increase triple bunking is what 

is going to happen. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. We will get into that in more detail a little bit later. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Okay. 

GAO REVIEW OF BOP’S BUDGETING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me talk to you about budget formulation 

process. The explanation statement accompanying the fiscal year 

2009 bill directed the Government Accountability Office to review 

BOP’s budgeting methods, including the accuracy of its estimates 

for utility and medical care costs and the accuracy of its estimates 

in the growth of the inmate population. 

GAO provided that report to the Committee late last summer 

and made it publicly available last November. 

I note first that GAO found the Bureau of Prisons’ basic budgeting processes to be sound, which is not quite the same thing as 

saying that the budget requests submitted to Congress have been 

sound or adequate. We understand that there is a give and take 

process that you go through with the Department and with the 

OMB and that BOP has frequently come out on the short end of 

that. 

The Government Accountability Office’s major recommendation 

was that you carry out an uncertainty analysis for each budget request you submit to the Department and to OMB. Such analysis 

would quantify the risk that would be incurred by cutting the 

budget request below the amount requested by BOP’s budget formulation process. And by risk here, I mean the risk that actual operating expenses would exceed the budget request. 

How has BOP responded to the GAO recommendation? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we are very pleased with their evaluation of 

our budget preparation process and the cost estimation. They were 

very complimentary. We appreciate that. And I applaud my staff 

who do a great job at that every year. 

Without a doubt, you are correct. There is ongoing debate between the Department and OMB about what the right number is. 

We appreciate the recommendations to conduct uncertainty analysis. 

We are in the process of working with a company who is helping 

us do that, so it is a statistical analysis that provides a variety of 

scenarios as to the likelihood—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are developing a capability to be—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are doing that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Responsive to that—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
387 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Recommendation? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we are. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So what is the status of that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are talking with a company. We are going to hire 

a company who has experience doing this. So it is a matter of us 

getting them on board and a contract and then working with our 

research staff to develop an approach to doing this. But I am hopeful in the next year we will be—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will you be able to apply that analysis to the 

2011 request post—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Probably 2012. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Post request? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We could certainly go back and look at it—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. And see how it compares. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would certainly be interesting. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yeah, it would be. But I think the actual use of it 

is more likely 2012. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For your budgeting process? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will you do that and will you make the results 

of that available—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. To the Committee? You answered 

yes before I asked the question, see, so then I cannot commit you, 

I cannot hold you to answering the questions. Would you make it 

available to the Committee? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The results of our analysis? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. As applied to the 2011 request? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

FY 2011 BUDGET

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the Administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

proposal for BOP less than BOP’s estimate for its operating needs? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think it—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In other words, where are the—— 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. S&E. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where are the holes? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think without a doubt, construction and M&R 

funding is hard to come by. And so I am not sure that we received 

what we asked for in M&R and New Construction. 

But the S&E side, we are satisfied with. And we can meet our 

basic needs and hire more staff if we receive what has been proposed in the 2011 President’s budget. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. But now let me just make sure I asked 

that question so you understood. Is the Administration’s fiscal year 

2011 budget proposal for the Bureau of Prisons less than the Bureau of Prisons’ estimate for its operating needs? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not believe it is. I do not believe it is less. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. If the answer is different, you will submit 

it for the record? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
388 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And if there are holes in the budget request—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. The two areas that we are—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Where are they and how big are 

they? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yeah. I mean, obviously based on my opening statement, we are requesting additional funding to build or acquire additional bed space. We have been asking for additional funding for 

maintenance and repair. And so those are the two areas that concern us the most, the ability to acquire more beds and the ability 

to repair our existing infrastructure, so those are the two areas 

that continue to be of concern. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The GAO report also recommended that the Bureau of Prisons do a better job of documenting the information that 

supports its budget estimates. 

Have you—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Instituted any new policies in response to that recommendation? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. We are working on some ways of better documenting what our calculations are based on, trying to make the 

whole process more transparent so that more information is understood as to how we go about coming up with the amount of money 

we are requesting. So we agree with that recommendation as well 

and we are putting in place some processes to accomplish it. 

STAFFING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Let us discuss staffing levels here for just 

a moment. During our hearing last year, you estimated that the 

Bureau of Prisons needed at least an additional 3,000 correctional 

workers to meet its staffing needs. 

At the time, you were not sure if you would be able to achieve 

any net staffing increase in fiscal year 2009. So I was pleased to 

see your testimony indicate that BOP actually hired 755—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. 775 new staff by the end of the last 

fiscal year. In the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act, we provided 

$106.4 million above the budget request, including $98.2 million to 

allow you to annualize the cost of those new workers for fiscal year 

2009, and to make significant progress in hiring additional correctional workers in the current year. 

What is the total number of on-board staff you anticipate reaching by the end of the fiscal year? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We anticipate increasing—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where is that chart? 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Between 900 and 1,000 this fiscal year, 

so around 925 this fiscal year added to the base and some activations. So we added 775 last year to the base. We are going to add 

nine, nine-fifty this year to the base and activations. And if we get 

the President’s request, we will add around 2,000 next year. 

But let me help separate those numbers. Our goal was adding 

3,000 to the base excluding new activations. We believe if we get 

the President’s request that by the end of next fiscal year at a minimum, we will have filled 2,600 of the 3,000 positions we intended 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
389 

to, we wanted to fill to the base excluding the new activations. So 

we are doing well. 

Again, as I said last year, I am not sure that the 3,000 ultimately will be enough. Obviously that need grows. If crowding continues to increase, we will have to reassess. But as far as what we 

committed to, adding 3,000 to the base, we are going to be at a 

minimum, we believe, at about 2,600 filled by the end of 2011. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Twenty-six hundred? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Twenty-six hundred of those 3,000. We may get closer to that 3,000, but right now we believe we are going to get pretty close around 2,600 of the 3,000 that we wanted to fill. That excludes the activations. 

So, if you add those activations in there, you are going to be up 

probably close to 4,000 because you have got Thomson, Berlin, and 

then there were some inmate coordinator positions and a few other 

things. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The 3,000 you are talking about is to be added 

to the base—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. The base. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Not including activations? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What percentage would that bring you up to if 

you actually hit that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Between 91 and 92 percent of authorized positions. 

So in 2008, we were at 86 percent. And we if are able to accomplish 

this by the end of 2011, we should be between 91 and 92 percent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What percent of your authorized level would you 

like to be at, a hundred? No. Realistically what would it be—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Realistically. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. 97, 98? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We were performing quite well when we were filling 

95 percent to 96. I mean, you realize we will never get to a hundred because there is just too much turnover, people retiring. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. And that is why I backed off of a hundred. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So years ago, when we were at 95, 96 percent, we 

were functioning quite well. We knew this was a big request to get 

that amount. That is why we suggested we do this incrementally 

and we picked the 3,000 target. That is what we are working towards. 

When we finish that, we will step back and reassess assaults on 

staff and inmates, waiting lists for drug treatment, GED—those indicators we look at to see are we accomplishing the work we want 

to accomplish. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is where you come up with your authorized 

numbers, going through that drill? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, if the 3,000 has had the—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You will make an assessment? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will make an assessment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And if, in fact, we have not reduced those waiting 

lists, if we have not reduced—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then you will go back to—— 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Then we will go back, then we will come 

back and we will make another run of some additional—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
390 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that would impact your authorized level, 

right? I mean, you come up with your—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Authorized level? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. What we would request would impact our 

authorized—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. You would readjust what we need—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And what you need by your own 

judgment becomes your authorized level, so we are measuring 

against—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. What you, in essence, say you need? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Has OMB provided input on that exercise? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, obviously they have a lot of input into—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. My question is, do they provide input on 

your exercise of coming up with the number that you need? We 

know they impact your—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We come up with our number. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You come up with your authorized number? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We come up with our number in our budget development process. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All right. You come up with it. Are they part of 

the process of your coming up with it, OMB? 

Mr. LAPPIN. There is some budget direction given every year. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Before we begin to develop a budget—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When you come up with your authorized number, which is the number you want, does OMB push back on the 

number, because that is a base upon which you work? That is your 

justification for your budget request. And I am just asking, do they 

push back or do they allow you to come up with your authorized 

number and then just let you fund it at 91 percent or 92 percent 

or whatever? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Every year, there is some direction given at the beginning of the budget process by OMB. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. With regard to your authorized number? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that is interesting. Those are two different 

processes, I would think. I think it would be fair for you to come 

up with what you need. You are the professionals. I mean, they are 

great, smart people. And then if they say we just do not have 

enough money, so you are going to have to operate at 92 percent 

of your authorized level, that is one thing. But for them to impact 

your authorized level as you compute it based upon your need— 

and tell me how I am wrong here. 

Mr. LAPPIN. There is obviously—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. There is push and I just want to know 

if they impact the process of your coming up with your authorized 

number of employees? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They do? And so they push back and say, no, 

you do not need that number of employees, is that—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
391 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure exactly what type of—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. The push back you get? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Push back occurs—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Or if there is that much. You know, it 

may be we are in agreement based on our—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, it may be and it may not be. But I just 

want to understand. So they impact it at two levels, number one, 

your authorized level, which we look at that and we say—we assume here in good faith, oh, gee, your authorized level. 

I mean, if I did not know a little bit more about it, I would think 

the authorized level was in the authorizing bill. But you come up 

with that based upon your need. And so if they are impacting that 

number, then that impacts your percentage. 

And so we look at 92 percent and say, gee, you are operating at 

92 percent and, you know, you need to get to 95. But if they push 

down on your authorizing level, then it has less meaning. Anyway, 

okay. 

When discounting staff positions at newly activating prisons, is 

the number of authorized correctional worker positions at your existing institutions going down, going up, or staying level? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Could you say that again? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, sir. When discounting staff positions at 

newly activated prisons, taking that out, and I guess looking at 

your base—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yeah. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Is the number of authorized correctional worker positions at your existing institutions going down, 

going up, or staying level? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The number of staff at those locations is increasing. 

There is no change in positions. There are X number of positions 

that are authorized at a location. 

The issue is how many of those can you afford to fund and fill. 

That number is increasing. It increased last year. It will increase 

this year. It will increase next year if we get the President’s requested budget. So those 3,000 positions are being filled and funded in existing facilities. 

So their base, the number of employees they have on board is increasing to the tune of 3,000, if we fill those 3,000, to the tune of 

3,000 new employees to the base. So we are adding correctional 

staff. That has been our focus up to this point. 

Now we are looking at other support areas that were negatively 

impacted in years past, drug treatment, education. My sense is 

that if we are successful in filling those 3,000 positions that virtually all departments at an institution will reap some benefit, that 

is more staff than they had before, with the exception, we are going 

to be very conservative in filling administrative support areas, like 

financial management. They may get some depending on their situation. 

But our primary focus is on positions that have direct contact 

with inmates. That number is increasing. It did last year. It will 

this year and it will next year if we get the President’s request. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In the process of determining authorized positions based on your need, when you look at that institution by inVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
392 

stitution, these considerations you are now talking about determine 

what your institution develops for the need and for the authorized 

level; is that correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. What we have done is every location has developed 

a staffing plan, here is where we would like to be based on our concerns over areas that are not performing as well, where we just 

need more resources. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. At that institution? 

Mr. LAPPIN. At that location. And so when the money is distributed—. I will be honest with you, in the last year or so, our direction to the wardens has been we want you to fill correctional officer 

positions because we could see that we were, rather what was happening, because we did not have enough correctional officers, is 

that we were taking staff out of other departments to work in correctional services. 

So say here I am a drug treatment specialist or a nurse. We 

would take those people out and make them work in correctional 

services. We do not want to do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. But my—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. So we focused on correctional officers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. My question has to do with developing the authorized level, developing the need level. And so on an 

institution by institution basis when you say how many people do 

you need here—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. They do an assessment of that, you 

know, a particular number of authorized correctional officers at a 

particular institution? You determine at an institution how many 

correctional officers you need? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is done locally. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is done locally. And then that is passed up 

and you add that all up? It is a sum of those estimates—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, it is not really. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For your—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. They get some feedback. So we give them feedback 

asking them why do you think you need this many or why aren’t 

you asking for more. And we can do that, in part because we have 

so many institutions today that are almost virtually exactly alike 

in design—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. And types of—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Older institutions will be a different number, 

but the same number—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct. But a lot of these newer places are 

very similar in design with very similar inmates. So when you get 

this request from one that wants 50 more people than another— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. And they are alike, we go back and say, 

well, how come they can do it with 50 less, so—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How frequently do you go through that exercise 

for correctional officers? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, here recently for correctional officers, we have 

done it much more frequently than we did in the past. So we have 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
393 

been doing it probably annually in the recent past for correctional 

officers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Like in the last two, three years—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. You have gone through that assessment coming up with a current authorized—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Number? Okay. What is the process 

for determining the authorized number of correctional workers associated with inmate programs such as drug abuse treatment or vocational training? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Drug abuse is probably the simplest of all the program areas because we have got a ratio of treatment specialists to 

participants of about one per twenty-five. So that is much simpler 

to determine. The other ones—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. An optimal ratio? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct, of one to twenty-five. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is what you would like to have? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is what we would like to have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Actually, that is what we adhere to. Very seldom do 

we slip. We might slip by a couple, three. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, why do you have waiting lists in that program then? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Because we just have not been able to hire enough 

of them. We did not have enough funding in drug treatment to hire 

more of them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. To get to that one to twenty-five ratio? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And that is why there is a waiting list. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But your authorized number is based upon a one 

to twenty-five ratio in that program? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And that is why you have got a waiting list because 

we will not increase that ratio to absorb those extra inmates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Okay. So we are going to adhere to the one to twenty-five, in that range, not exactly, but pretty close, and that is why 

you have got a waiting list, because you have got X number of 

treatment specialists and more participants than you have to adhere to that one to twenty-five. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For us that like simple ways of understanding 

this, that is a great one. And we will remember that we can ask 

you the ratio on—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Drug treatment. That is an easy one. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Drug treatment programs. It has 

got to be one to twenty-five and if you are not meeting it, it is not 

adequate? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, now, the other program area is a little more 

difficult, education and vocational training, because we provide 

that function in a combination of ways. At some locations, it is Bureau employees and at others, it is contract. And at some, it is a 

combination of both depending on what is available in the community. So it is a little harder to assess. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have gone too long. I am going to pick up on 

that. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
394 

Mr. LAPPIN. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I think the Bureau of Prisons is fortunate to have Mr. Mollohan. 

U.S. BUDGET AND STATE AND LOCAL

With regard to funding, I think your testimony, there were so 

many questions, I was just sitting here, you are going to get to a 

point now, though, that not criticism of this Administration or the 

last, but of both in some respects. 

The nation is fundamentally broke. We are broke. If we could not 

print money, we would be in Bankruptcy Court. And if you look at 

the numbers in 2020, about a trillion dollars goes out every year 

for interest on the debt. And we are borrowing from China and 

Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia funded the process that led to the Afghan issue. 

We are borrowing money so we can build Thomson or we are borrowing money from the—I mean, so we are reaching a point and, 

of course, there is not the lobby, if you will, or the support for prisoners that there is for, you know, something else. I think we are 

coming to a point, and you probably will not be there, but we are 

coming to a point where it is really going to be just very bad in 

the country. 

I want to ask the questions, though, that I have, but if you compare this where you are in the federal level, is it the same problems at the state and local level? 

STATE AND LOCAL PRISON POPULATIONS

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, they are having their own difficulties. But I do 

not know if you saw it yesterday or today, the Pew report is coming 

out. 

Mr. WOLF. I did not see it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And it will be a good report to look at. It is the first 

time in 38 years that the population of state corrections agency has 

declined. 

Mr. WOLF. And that is because like in Michigan, they are facing 

a situation they just let them go. California is fundamentally 

broke, so they are just physically letting them go. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, there are a variety of things that are occurring. But you are right. They have—— 

Mr. WOLF. They have the same problem, but they are treating 

it differently. You are not going to let a guy go. But in Michigan, 

and I am not being critical—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. We have had before the Committee or 

the Chairman had some very good testimony of what they are 

doing. But their solution to the problem is opening the door and 

having fewer people in. 

Mr. LAPPIN. They have diversion programs, increasing good time, 

more reliance on parole, so on and so forth. 

Mr. WOLF. So we are now unfortunately number one in the world 

of percentage per capita of prisoners in the United States. Versus 

these other countries, we are number one. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
395 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. That is not very good. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, it is not. I agree. It is a tragedy. 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

Mr. WOLF. And also because of the lack of support you had from 

the Democratic party and the Republican party, members of both 

sides, you literally have no prison industries program left for all 

practical purpose. It was ready to go. It was almost going to be like 

a historical time. 

But 15 years ago, how many people did you have in the prisons 

working in the prison industries—both numbers and percentagewise and what do you have today and what do you expect it to be 

next year? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well—— 

Mr. WOLF. Show me how—— 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Congressman Wolf, I am not going to 

concede yet that we have lost prison industries. 

Mr. WOLF. No. But I strongly support it. I think the Chairman 

does, but this Congress does not. And the Chamber of Commerce 

does not and you go on and on and on and on. But tell me how 

many are in the program and where is it going? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Eleven percent. 

Mr. WOLF. And what was it 15 years ago? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Probably close to 25 percent. 

Mr. WOLF. Twenty-five percent? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Close to 25 percent. 

Mr. WOLF. Then doesn’t that impact on recidivism? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It does. Yes, it does. There are fewer inmates learning work skills that they lack and then returning to our communities. They continue to struggle too, when they find a job. keeping 

that job. Because they do not get up on time, they do not understand how to develop a relationship with their boss, and work 

through conflict. 

So without a doubt, the fewer inmates that participate in work 

programs, we are going to see an increase, we believe, in recidivism 

because of their inability to either acquire or keep a job once they 

have it. 

So, it is tragic that this is occurring. But we have more support 

than some may think. I think there are a lot of people in the Congress out there who see the other side. I know that there has been 

a lot of—— 

Mr. WOLF. If they do not vote with you—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I think some—— 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Do they send you a little message that 

we really agree with you, but we are not going to do anything 

about it? Is that—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we had a hearing a year or so ago, Congressman, the House Judiciary had a hearing on prison industries. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. WOLF. Bobby Scott supports it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But there were Democrats and Republicans at that 

hearing. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
396 

Mr. WOLF. But nothing has happened. I—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are correct. 

Mr. WOLF. I have had a bill in for years which the previous Administration opposed, this Administration opposes it, and the Congress to have a program whereby we would get products, and I am 

not going to take the time, where they are no longer made in the 

United States, almost a repatriation of the industry, television sets, 

if you will, and manufacturing. Lorton was ready to do something 

and people on both sides of the aisle opposed it, the unions opposed 

it, everyone opposed it. But this would not have been competition 

with any American industry. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We understand. 

Mr. WOLF. It would have been to create new industry and then 

the truck drivers dropping off the wire would have been American 

employees and a person who—I mean, but we could not get that 

passed. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are working on it. We continue to work on it. 

And the Administration is working with us on that. So, I do not 

want you to feel as though there is no hope here. This Administration, as did the prior Administration supported it. Obviously they 

did not think it was the time to move forward, but we continue to 

advocate for legislation that would help us do some of the things 

you had suggested. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you expect it to pass in this Congress? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I have no idea. 

Mr. WOLF. Probably not. 

COUNTERTERRORISM

Let me ask you. Congress identified 14.2 million in fiscal year 

2010 for your counterterrorism unit. This office coordinates procedures and information related to the growing terrorist prisoner 

population. This has been funded out of the supplemental bills in 

the past. 

Is the staff unit operating at full strength this year and does 

your fiscal year 2011 request continue full funding? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The unit is in operation. 

Mr. WOLF. How many people? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will have to get exactly how many people are there, 

but it is staffed and it is funded to be staffed in 2011. My guess 

is we have actually put more resources in there than the 14 million 

provided because we know how important this issue is. So, we have 

gone even beyond the staffing of this unit. We have created communication management units. 

[This information follows:] 

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN BOP’S COUNTERTERRORISM UNIT

The BOP Counterterrorism unit currently has 24 staff members. 

As you recall, you were angry at us because inmates were inappropriately communicating with people in other countries. We have 

put in procedures and processes to stop that, minimize the likelihood that would occur, and we have more staff on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. 

On a day-to-day basis, we are monitoring mail, phones, and visits 

of inmates who fall into this category where we are concerned 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
397 

about what they are going to say to someone outside of the Agency, 

outside of the Bureau of Prisons, that might be detrimental to the 

safety of the United States. 

So, we have more translation services. We have more staff monitoring what they are doing day in and day out. And we, I believe, 

have been quite successful at limiting the ability of those people to 

act out in that manner. 

Now, the Department has helped us with the Special Administrative Measures that are imposed on people, as well as the units that 

we have created to properly manage and control their communications. So, it is up and running and it is staffed, and we will continue to staff it. 

PRISON RADICALIZATION

Mr. WOLF. A significant concern with terrorist inmates is the potential for radicalizing other inmates. Have you seen any evidence 

of this in the federal prisons and what measures do you have at 

your disposal to prevent this from happening? 

And as an afterthought, though, I saw Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee report saying that there are a number of people who 

have been radicalized in American prisons who have left and gone 

to Yemen. And I do not know. It did not say. 

But what are you seeing and what is the status of that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Number one, we are not seeing that happen on a 

wide scale. But without a doubt, every single day, there is a risk 

that could happen between the interaction of two inmates. 

So, what we have done is we have classified these inmates and 

identified those who are, one, a greater risk for advocating for that 

type of behavior, that they would be out to radicalizing, or those 

that are susceptible to being radicalized to some degree. We are 

managing them and controlling them in more restrictive housing, 

in the communication management units, or if need be at ADX 

Florence. 

So, through the classification process, we control communications. If there is someone in our general population that is acting 

out in this manner, we immediately move—we identify them. We 

counsel them. We stop that behavior or we will move them to one 

of these more restrictive units. 

So, our staff know how important this issue is. If they identify 

an inmate radicalizing, to be quite honest with you, there is a lot 

of different types of radicalization, but on different topics, not just 

terrorism, but radicalizing inmates to participate in gang-oriented 

behavior, we want to discourage that as well. 

So, we do our best to pull those leaders out and manage them 

in more controlled environments. That is being accomplished at 

ADX Florence, at SMUs, as well as our communication management units, more restrictive, controlled conditions, more oversight 

of their mail, phone, and visits so that we can better control that 

behavior. 

GANGS

Mr. WOLF. You have indicated that one out of every four inmates 

in high-security institutions are gang affiliated. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
398 

Number one, is this an increase in previous experience? What do 

you think is driving this increasing gang affiliation and what are 

the implications of a prolific gang affiliation for managing your 

high-security institutions? How serious is it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. This is a serious problem. We are seeing an increase 

in the number of inmates with gang associations or that want to 

be part of gangs. The increase is in part because of the type of people that are being indicted and prosecuted and sent to federal prison, more serious drug offenders, more firearms offenses, more cases 

that identify and prosecute and convict people who have those associations. That is one. 

Number two, the influx of non-U.S. citizens, especially from Mexico, so the percentage of Mexican gangs—I mean, this whole issue 

you see occurring in Mexico, well, some of those people are in the 

United States illegally. They get convicted in Federal Court and 

they end up in our prisons. 

So, we have seen an increase in the number of inmates with ties 

to Mexican gangs and organizations who, of course, do not get 

along very well with Mexican American gangs, let alone the white 

gangs and black gangs. So, we have had to put many more resources into identifying and managing the gangs. And we do that 

by trying to distribute them more equitably across our institutions. 

This is a growing concern which is complicated by more crowding 

and more of these inmates in larger groups in individual institutions. 

Mr. WOLF. How is the problem comparable in the state prisons? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Similar problems, especially along the borders and 

the larger systems, you know, California, Texas. Those large systems as well are incarcerating more gang-related offenders. 

Mr. WOLF. So is the prison population generally today compared 

to, say, 1965 or 1975 more violent? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Ours is, yes. 

We have seen a 50-percent increase in the number of offenders 

who have violent backgrounds in our custody, a 50-percent increase. That drives more gang-oriented offenders. So those things 

are driving the increase in these gangs and gang members and the 

associations that they establish in prison. 

NON-RETURNABLE CRIMINAL ALIENS

Mr. WOLF. Whatever happened, and this is not gang, but you 

just triggered a thought, there were a number of prisoners that 

were in federal prisons because the country that they came from 

would not take them back. Cuba—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Does not take back. Vietnam does not 

take back. How many of those today prisoners are people who are 

in prison today because the country of origin will not take them 

back? What countries are the prominent countries who will not 

take back? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not have that number. We can get it for you. 

My guess is the number is smaller than it once was. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
399 

NON-RETURNABLE CRIMINAL ALIENS HOUSED BY BOP 

The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) typically removes detainees upon expiration of their sentence and does not leave them with BOP. The 

exception to this is that there are a total of six Mariel Cuban detaines remaining 

who have been housed in the BOP many years, and they are reviewed annually by 

ICE for releasability. These are the only ‘‘long-term’’ detainees housed by BOP for 

ICE, as a result of the long-term detention issue addressed by the Supreme Court 

in 2005, which effectively eliminated long-term detention. 

Mr. WOLF. Give me a couple you do know. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, obviously we cannot get people back to Cuba. 

There are some east Asian countries. But I will provide you the 

list. 

Mr. WOLF. Plus—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Plus the number of people we have in our custody. 

Mr. WOLF. What happens if you have a violent criminal from 

Cuba or from Vietnam and the prison sentence was 15 years, the 

15 years is up, it is the beginning of the 16th year, what happens 

to them? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, technically they have finished their federal 

sentence, but they have a detainer from BICE precluding them 

from being released in our country. And one of two things happen. 

We either transfer them to Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement and they house them and deport them or—I do not 

know what happens to them once they leave us. Or they ask us to 

house them, and we house them until they get turned over to the 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Mr. WOLF. And can you tell us how many? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will get the number of how many of those that 

we have. I can tell you we have got 55,000 non-U.S. citizens in our 

custody. How many of them fall into this category of not being deportable is what I do not know and we will find that number. 

Mr. WOLF. Somehow the Administration, and, again, the previous Administration did this, but there has to be some candid conversation with some of these countries. Some of these countries we 

help in many different ways. We gave MFN to Vietnam. They are 

persecuting the Catholic Church, persecuting Buddhists and our 

Ambassador never speaks up for that, yet they will not take some 

of these people back. 

I think there is almost a disconnect there. If they are not going 

to take the people back and they are going to put the burden on 

us, there ought to be some repercussions with regard to the country. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not disagree with you, but you are really asking 

a question that I would not have the answer for. We would have 

to go to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement who 

has really a larger role in that responsibility of getting them returned. 

We basically hold detainees for them. We turn detainees over to 

them once they have room for them and they say we want them 

back. 

PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT (PREA)

Mr. WOLF. Okay. As you know, this Subcommittee has led the effort, and it was Senator Kennedy’s bill and Bobby Scott’s bill and 

my bill, for the elimination of prison rape. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
400 

On Tuesday, I spoke to the Attorney General about my belief 

that the Department must act quickly to implement the standards 

recommended by the Commission. 

I know the Bureau of Prisons was not excited about our bill. I 

know a lot of state people are not excited about our bill. The Bureau of Prisons and corrections are responsible for assisting state 

and local systems on prevention, investigation, and punishment. 

Can you describe some of the training and services you are providing and does your request for fiscal year 2011 include additional 

funding to carry out these responsibilities to make sure, and I have 

talked to the people who have been in federal prisons, who have 

been raped, and so what training do you do and how much funding 

do you have for that allocation? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, let me begin by saying that reducing assault 

on inmates of any kind is a high priority for all of us. And when 

I say all of us, I am going to qualify that. 

I meet annually with the other Directors of Corrections and they 

all, virtually all of them agree that reducing assault of any type, 

sexual, physical, verbal, is a high priority for all of us. 

So, I do not necessarily agree with your opinion that we do not 

agree with the Act that was passed. 

Mr. WOLF. I talked to people who have been in prison and I have 

also talked to some of the associations that deal with this issue and 

they tell me there have been cases where prison staff have threatened people to put them into a certain prison with a certain person 

almost as a form of intimidation. 

Secondly, I have talked to prisoners who have told me that they 

went through this terrible thing and there were staff members and 

others that knew what was going on and never really raised it. 

And we have also talked with people, several women who went 

through this in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

You have prisoners who have been assaulted by some of your federal people, correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Without a doubt, we have. And without a doubt, it 

does occur and it should not occur and we want it to end. 

And given that, we agree with legislation to assist us in precluding that from occurring. And we have been working with the 

Commission, the PREA Commission. We are now working with the 

Attorney General in his responsibilities. 

To be honest with you, I applaud the approach the Attorney General is taking to a thoughtful assessment of what should be done 

because at the end of the day, what we want to have happen is we 

want regulations passed that actually can be implemented. Those 

that people not only can afford to implement, but they make sense 

to implement. So, I am confident that ultimately that will happen. 

Mr. WOLF. Most of the Commission members who know a lot 

about this do not agree with you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I am sorry to hear that. There are many of the 

recommendations they have made, however, Congressman, that we 

do agree with. 

Mr. WOLF. But the Attorney General is dragging his heels on 

this and the Attorney General could say if there are different recommendations, some are so you agree and everybody else agrees, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
401 

implement them now. There are some that, you know, you could almost phase this in. 

But to put it off for another year, maybe even a year and a half, 

we have talked to people that are involved in this, they think it 

may be 2012. 

Have you ever read this, No Escape? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I have not. 

Mr. WOLF. I will give you a copy. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, and let me tell you what we are doing. 

That was the last part of your—what are we doing to limit the opportunity for this to occur in our prisons. 

I will send you a copy of our program statement that outlines 

what staff’s responsibility is and what inmates’ responsibility is, 

applicable to an allegation of sexual assault. And it will lay out for 

you exactly what occurs. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
402 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 56795B.019
403 

We train our employees every single year on that specific program statement. We train inmates. We go over the program statement with the inmates. So they know what their obligation is. 

We have increased training for our investigative staff, for our 

leadership staff, so that when they become aware of an allegation, 

that they know what to do and how to go about doing it. 

When an allegation is made, oftentimes it is a crime and we 

treat it as a crime. 

Mr. WOLF. Are allegations up or down? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Allegations coming from anywhere, from outside? 

Mr. WOLF. Are the numbers, the overall numbers up or down? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, our numbers are relatively low. And to be honest with you, look at the research that the Office of Justice Programs has done. Their research, which I think is exceptional research, reflects that the numbers are not very high to begin with. 

Mr. WOLF. They are low, but are they up or down? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our numbers are probably about where they have 

been. You know, it is a very low number. We will get the numbers 

over the last four or five years. 

For example, last year, we had three sustained misconducts of 

inmate on inmate sexual, inappropriate sexual misconduct. And 

that is broad—that is everything from verbal abuse to actually a 

physical assault. So, we had three sustained. 

We will get you the numbers for the last few years, but the numbers are low. We do not see that increasing in the Bureau of Prisons. I cannot say that is true elsewhere. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
404 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 56795B.020
405 

Mr. WOLF. What about at the state level? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will have to rely on OJP’s research and we can 

provide a copy of that to see what is happening there. 

In many states, I think they are similar to us. You are going to 

see this happening on occasion. The number is typically low. Some 

variation in increase and decrease, but overall, the numbers have 

been low with the exception, as you probably read, in juvenile facilities where there was more of an increase in that evaluation. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
406 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 56795B.021
407 

Mr. WOLF. You are aware the report came out? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It did. But, again, this has been—— 

Mr. WOLF. Why do you think there was an increase there? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not familiar enough with the situation. 

Mr. WOLF. The Attorney General ought to read that too. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are on a working committee. We look at all those 

documents and work with the Attorney General’s staff on what is 

available. 

Mr. WOLF. Well do you agree that the longer it takes to implement this the greater the opportunity and the greater chance this 

will continue? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can say that many states have already done some 

of the things we have done. So, I think just the passage of the law 

has resulted in more attention. 

And let me mention, I am going to pat the National Institute of 

Corrections on the back. They have done great work developing 

training programs, CDs, videos, materials that have been sent out 

to all the states, all the jails, to provide them a process by which 

they can better educate staff and inmates about PREA. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, last question. Do you believe that once the regulations come out it will have the impact in decreasing the number 

of prison rapes? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are certainly hopeful. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. So if we are hopeful the earlier they come out 

the better. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are hopeful, absolutely. 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES (FPI)

Mr. WOLF. Your testimony indicates that on the 11 percent of 

your work eligible inmate population is able to participate. How 

does that compare? And you answered that with regard to the previous. Do you compare it to the 25 percent or is that your high 

point? 

Mr. LAPPIN. My guess is if you go back further when the Bureau 

of Prisons was much smaller it was probably even larger, probably 

35 percent, but the Bureau of Prisons at the time may have only 

had 26,000 inmates. 

Mr. WOLF. At that time did everyone that wanted to work could 

work? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can’t say whether or not they had waiting lists or 

not, I don’t know. 

Mr. WOLF. As a result of this you have had to close factories and 

lay off staff the last year. Is that accurate? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct. 

Mr. WOLF. How many factories closed last year? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We closed upwards of eight factories, we eliminated 

105 positions, staff positions, and about 1400 inmate jobs. 

Mr. WOLF. And will there be further closures this year based on 

the budget? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is not really based on the budget, it is non-appropriated. 

Mr. WOLF. Well it is based on the law. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
408 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is actually based on our loss of money in prison 

industries. I think there is a possibility we are going to see more 

closures or more downsizing. 

RE-ENTRY PROGRAMS

Mr. WOLF. Let me ask you this other question before I go back. 

The reentry and faith based. The fiscal year 2010 bill included a 

major investment in prison reentry programs. I know we also included a language in the fiscal year 2010 bill directing you to get 

an independent panel to make recommendations for options for the 

development of prison reentry programs, including the options related to the role of faith based community programs. 

Can you bring us up to date on your actions so far to carry out 

this language and share with us some of your ideas on how this 

might be able to help and contribute to the development of a more 

effective reentry program? And the language as you know called for 

a report within 120 days. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have convened the panel, they met last Monday. 

The panel of experts included Dr. Ed LaTessa out of the University 

of Cincinnati, Dr. Roger Jarjoura out of Indiana University and 

Purdue University, and Steve McFarland, now with World Vision, 

previously with Prison Fellowship, Nancy Merrit out of National 

Institute of Justice was invited, but was unable to attend. 

They met for the day. They met with all of our reentry quote ‘‘inmate skills development, second chance related staff,’’ both prison 

industries and drug treatment, our core staff who are involved in 

the inmate skills development process to look at what we were 

doing, the direction that we were going. They provided a number 

of recommendations, and we will be drafting a report that identifies their recommendations and how we are going to address those 

recommendations on our process. 

I am happy to say that with the funding we have gotten the last 

year we are much further along than I anticipated in the requirements applicable to Second Chance Act, in the implementation of 

the inmate skill development program that was advocated for in 

that Act. So, more inmates are getting into that process. 

Let me just tell you where we are at now. We are now 

inventorying all of the programs in the Bureau of Prisons to identify where we have holes. Where do we have institutions that lack 

programs that address skill needs, and what is it we need to do to 

fill those holes? So, that is a huge initiative at 115 locations, but 

that is where we are at in the process. But I am encouraged by the 

progress that is being made by direct involvement in this program 

not only with the staff who oversee it, but actually applying it to 

the inmates that they have responsibility for managing. 

Mr. WOLF. And do you think faith based is an important part of 

that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure, it is. It is a part of it. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. Would it make sense to you if you could actually find 

a panel not over to the right nor the left just, you know, a panel 

made up of people like Mark Earley and people like that to really 

take an in-depth look at the prison system? Kind of a blue ribbon 

panel. I always am careful about offering this because then you are 

going to get some guy that wants to do this, you are going to get 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
409 

some that go so far off. But I mean, are there five people or ten? 

Would it make sense to give the whole prison system kind of a look 

at, a blue ribbon panel that started out not with any preconceived 

notions, but just would really go with truth and integrity and to 

really look at it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. For the same reason you hesitate, I hesitate as well, 

and am a bit reluctant to say this is what we need to do. We have 

a lot of oversight out there, as you well know, and you are right, 

I am not sure that you can really identify folks who would approach it as you would like them and we would like them to approach it. So, I am hesitant to say yes, this is the right thing to 

do. 

Mr. WOLF. The last question. Who do you think is the most 

knowledgeable person in the country that doesn’t have a political 

agenda, that he or she is not going to be—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Influenced. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me give it some thought. I will come up with a 

name or two and reach out to you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are quite welcome. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

your long service. You have been in this position since 2003? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. 

INMATE PER CAPITA

Mr. FATTAH. So you are not a political appointee of any kind, you 

are just serving the public’s need to administer the prison system. 

I got a few questions. You got over 200,000 inmates. The cost per 

inmate across the system is? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Cost per day per inmate? 

Mr. FATTAH. Per inmate on annual basis. 

Mr. LAPPIN. On annual basis. It is around 25 thousand. Actually 

it is, with everything, I am talking about every single penny, 

$27,000 a year. That is including administrative staff, staff in the 

field, all the training programs, $27,000 per year. 

NON-U.S. CITIZENS

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Now and you said 53,000 are not American 

citizens? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well 54,899 non-U.S. citizens. 

LIFE SENTENCES

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Now can you tell the Committee what percentage of across the board, obviously probably the American citizens, but you know, as best as you can tell in terms of the population, how many of them are lifers? How many of them are going 

to be with you for the duration, absent some of the judicial intervention? 

Mr. LAPPIN. A small percentage. Most inmates are going to ultimately be released. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
410 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t have that with me. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But a small percentage are in our prisons for the 

rest of their life. Now some of them do it on the installment plan. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. They may make multiple—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. That’s correct. But when you look at the entire 

210,000 it’s a small percentage. 

Mr. FATTAH. But would you guess it is one percent or is it—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t really want to guess. It is something we can 

get for you. Two or three percent. 

[The information follows:] 

PERCENTAGE OF INMATE POPULATION IDENTIFIED AS ‘‘LIFERS’’ 

There are a total of 6,058 inmates (about 3 percent) in BOP custody with life sentences. 

Mr. FATTAH. Yeah, two or three percent. So even though you run 

these prisons and the society is safe, you know, and people are put 

away, the real secret here is that the vast majority of them are 

going to come back to our communities. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are absolutely correct. 

FUTURE PRISON CHANGES

Mr. FATTAH. Now, I know you’re responsibility is to incarcerate 

them and you do have a number of programs to try to improve 

their life circumstances, you know, so that when they return or reenter communities that they may not be involved in further antisocial or illegal activity, and you know, we have passed the Second 

Chance Act which I was involved with and cosponsored, and I know 

there are a number of efforts there. 

What I am interested in is given the fact that you have been 

doing this for a while and that the country has been doing it for 

a much longer while, in fact we incarcerate more people in our 

country per capita than any other country in the world, where are 

we headed down the road? 

I mean, in terms of kind of enlightened—I know we have been 

doing a lot of research and evidence based analysis. So if you were 

sitting here in front of this Committee ten years from now is the 

system that we have essentially going to be the system that we 

have now or are we learning things that are going to change the 

way our country deals with people who commit crimes and who 

need to be punished or that society needs to be protected from on 

a temporary basis? Are we going to do anything differently and the 

research and all of the experience we have had informing any great 

changes in our prison system? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I hope there are changes. I will be honest with you, 

I don’t think we are doing a good enough job. One, we think, we 

believe a major part of our responsibility is preparing that offender 

for release. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not just providing a safe environment for them to 

live in and for our staff to work in, and to protect the public, a 

major part of our responsibility is to try to improve the skills and 

abilities of that inmate in making that transition to the community. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
411 

Mr. FATTAH. Uh-huh. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think that there has got to be some strategies to 

reevaluate whether this individual needs to be in prison. Is that 

the most appropriate way to address what they did? I am hopeful 

that we will continue to see a debate on alternative methods to correcting their behavior for some people. 

I believe we have got some people in prison that could be handled differently than going to prison. However, there are many, 

many people in our prisons who belong in prison because they have 

hurt people. 

Mr. FATTAH. Uh-huh. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Once, twice, two or three times. They victimize people, and they obviously need to have time out to protect the public 

in an effort to change that culture, that attitude, that approach. 

Without a doubt we are more successful with some in prison than 

others. 

Right off the bat, speaking as a former warden within a few 

weeks of an inmate being in a prison you know if you have got a 

willing participant or an unwilling participant. That is the key to 

determining how successful we are going to be—his participation. 

I don’t see that changing. 

Here’s our biggest concern. My biggest concern is the day they 

walk out of prison. A society that is resistant and discriminates 

against people who have been incarcerated. Just plain and simple. 

Mr. FATTAH. Uh-huh. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is a shame, I can understand why that occurs. I 

don’t know how we overcome that. And it goes right down to our 

ability—as simple as this—we believe that transition from prison 

to community—that a community-based transition is important 

whether it is home confinement or halfway houses. 

In this past year you can’t imagine the number of locations we 

have tried to place halfway houses. It’s absolutely not working. So, 

what does that mean for that offender? That means on one day we 

are going to give him $50 and a set of clothes, put him on a bus, 

and we are going to drop him off on the street corner. Very, very 

unwise. Unsafe. In lieu of us transferring him to a halfway house 

that is in the community, but has supervision of that person, and 

overseeing some of that during the transition. It is in part because 

of this resistance in our society to accept these people back. Literally people calling me saying, ‘‘we don’t want them back Director, 

don’t send them here.’’ These are Governors, these are Congressmen and Senators, these are other community leaders. That has 

got to change. 

Mr. FATTAH. So if we incarcerate more people per capita than 

any other country and we have a couple hundred thousand in your 

system, and 97 plus percent of them are going to be released to, 

you know, Pennsylvania, which I represent, or West Virginia, or 

California, they are all at some point going to reenter society, and 

some you are going to have some success with, some you are not 

going to have a lot of success with, and we basically as best as I 

can tell, I mean there have been some tweaks here and there, but 

basically our prison system is pretty much the way it has been. 

Mr. LAPPIN. With some changes. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
412 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. You know the question is, you know, as the 

country looks forward, you know, like how we might rethink what 

we are doing. 

So part of it is maybe diverting some people from the system 

whose crimes, even though they are crimes, could be addressed in 

a different way. So we are probably talking non-violent, you know, 

crimes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Some type of intervention, right? 

Mr. FATTAH. Some kind of intervention. And you have some very 

dangerous people that we need to be protected from and you need 

to keep, right? 

CLASSIFICATION/SEGREGATING GROUPS OF INMATES

So I want to ask a couple of other questions on this note. You 

know, there has been some controversy in some of the state prisons 

about maybe segregating groups of people who don’t know how to 

get along with one to another, and you have referenced some of the 

ethnic or racial groupings in the prisons, but I am going to ask you 

a different question, but it is along the same line. 

Is there any utility in trying to separate out or segregate some 

who are going to be with you for the duration or those who are the 

most violent from those? And I co-sponsored the bill that Ranking 

Member Wolf was talking about, but I am not just talking about 

that issue, but just kind of separating the kind of groupings of 

these inmates in ways in which we don’t have youthful, non-violent, going to be released back home soon, incarcerated with people 

who are lifetime criminals who are very violent. 

Because one of the things we have seen in the studies is that the 

more youthful an offender goes in the longer they stay and their 

crimes become more and more violent over time. That is that they 

are kind of almost going away to college, expect they are learning 

all the wrong things, and then you say kind of go in under the installment plan. And the problem is not only are they on an installment plan, the community gets victimized more and more and 

more as they kind of go up this escalator of criminal activity. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Two comments on your previous discussion. So you 

have these facts—over 600,000 inmates a year are released into our 

communities, state and federal, 600,000 people every year being released from state prisons and federal prisons going back into your 

communities. I think it is a huge issue and one that we have got 

to address more adequately than we have. 

Our success rate, we are seeing a 40 percent recidivism rate in 

the federal system. So, six out of ten we are seeing success with, 

we are not seeing them come back to prison. 

You are right, it is better than we are seeing in the states, and 

I am not being critical of the states, there are some very challenging issues out there, but we are seeing success with about six 

out of ten not coming back to prison. 

Your question about the day-to-day management and this concern over the young folks with the more violent people. Years and 

years ago credible correction systems created classification systems. 

That was a key addition to successful prison operations, to begin 

to predict those types of behavior based on their history, based on 

their violence and their background, if any, based on a number of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
413 

factors. Before they even come to prison, we have an idea of what 

type of prisons they should be housed in. Minimum, low, medium, 

or high security with different conditions of confinement at each 

level, driven by the behavior, the characteristics of that individual 

inmate. So, that helps us separate those who prey on other inmates 

from those who tend to be preyed upon. It is not perfect, because 

it is a paper process. 

The key is the administration of that by our staff. And as they 

look at that inmate and look at what the classification suggests, is 

it in fact consistent with what we actually observe and see? And 

that is where the day-to-day work of our staff in the institution begins—observing behavior, seeing compliance or non-compliance, addressing inappropriate behavior. Through a valid discipline program, you begin to separate those who prey on other inmates and 

who are violent to the point that they can’t be housed with others. 

That is why you have got the ADX Florence, that is why we need 

space at Thomson, because that group of inmates, here in the recent past has grown without a doubt. 

In our population of 210,000 at one time the 500 beds at Florence 

handled those inmates, and that is no longer the case today. There 

is a larger group of these more violent people who cannot be out 

in that general population of a facility with you being successful in 

running it safely and securely. 

What are we going to do? We are going to remove them and we 

are going to manage them in those more controlled, more structured environment. So, that is kind of the extreme. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me just ask you one last question. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But let me answer one issue. Your issue of—is there 

people that can’t get along. Let me tell you what our expectation 

is. If you are following the rules and you are able to follow the 

rules to a point that you can stay in a general population. We do 

not want to segregate people by race or gang. We expect you, we 

set the expectation you are going to get along with these people. 

Because they are going to return to our community. What’s our expectation in the community? That you are going to learn to get 

along with others, understanding the differences among cultures 

and ages and beliefs, you are going to get along with those people. 

So, we believe it is our responsibility to teach them; to get them 

to understand this is part of life. 

Without a doubt we have got this group that resists, and that is 

this group you see going to ADX Florence and the special management units, because they don’t get it. They don’t care, they are 

mean nasty people, and we need to manage them that way. 

VETERANS

Mr. FATTAH. Veterans. What percentage of the inmates are U.S. 

veterans? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I wish I could tell you that. I am going to be able 

to give you an estimate. I don’t have it here. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
414 

ESTIMATE OF THE PERCENT OF BOP INMATES THAT ARE U.S. VETERANS

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported in past studies that an estimated 

10 percent of the federal incarcerated population is veterans (please see http:// 

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/vsfp04pr.cfm). 

This information would have been noted in the inmate’s individual Central File. 

However, the BOP is currently implementing a comprehensive system to track inmate skills and reentry needs and once fully implemented this system will also contain veteran status. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Once we get inmate skills completely implemented 

we are going to be able to tell you how many veterans. I can tell 

you this, it is a tragic number, it is a high number unfortunately, 

and it is unfortunate. And just so you know, we have been working 

with the Parole Commission and the Department of Defense and 

the Veterans’ Association, looking at some places that started these 

veteran courts, to try to intervene before the vets get back in our 

communities and get involved in the criminal justice system. No 

different than the mental health courts. I think there is some real 

potential there. 

But it is a tragedy that these people have served our country, 

and now we end up with them incarcerated, and we have not 

reached out quicker. And so I am encouraged that the VA and the 

Department of Defense also see this as a concern and we are working with them on some of those issues. 

Mr. FATTAH. If you could keep the Committee informed. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

Mr. FATTAH. I have a lot of interest. I know the Chairman and 

the Ranking Member would also have interest in that. 

INCARCERATED WOMEN

And the last point, last question. Woman, female. There has been 

a major increase at the state level. In fact, I mean a huge growing 

number of women incarcerated. Is that the case at the federal 

level? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It was for a brief period of time, and I am just looking here for my number. I think we are about 14 percent. I’m sorry, 

13,663, or 6.5 percent of the inmates are female. We had a spike 

here a year or two ago, but that leveled off. So, we have not seen 

a substantial change over the last few years as far as incarcerated 

women. 

PRISON POPULATION INCREASES

Mr. FATTAH. And I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, one other quick question. The state prison numbers have dropped last year, yours went 

up. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. You don’t decide who gets incarcerated or not. But 

I assume in part it is because we have like in Philadelphia, and 

Ranking Member Wolf was chairman when he helped with this, we 

got a lot of federal involvement in some of your drug problems and 

there were a lot of federal prosecutions for gun crimes and so on. 

Is that just because there is more action at the federal level trying 

to intervene on some of these issues? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
415 

Mr. LAPPIN. Significantly more. You have got a combination of 

things going on. And this just didn’t happen this last year. What’s 

happened over the last 30 years is we federalized more crimes that 

had traditionally been state crimes—drugs, firearms, sex offenders. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well speaking for Philadelphia, we were happy with 

the help. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well there are a lot of states very happy with it. 

Mr. FATTAH. Ranking member who was chairman at the time got 

the DEA, the FBI, all of the agencies to sit down and come in and 

provide some help. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Your point is right on target. All these task forces 

out there that as long as they had a federal component—— 

Mr. FATTAH. We want more of them. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That’s correct. So what’s that going to mean? 

Mr. FATTAH. That doesn’t help you though. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It doesn’t help us. That means our BOP populations 

are going to continue to grow because of the federalization of 

crimes, as well as task forces and other initiatives at the local 

level, that drive more people into federal court rather than state 

court. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES (FPI)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. A couple of follow up questions, Mr. 

Lappin. 

Mr. Wolf was asking several questions about Federal Prison Industries, and your response was that you have closed eight factories, eliminating 1,400 inmate jobs. 

Under the law is that absolutely necessary? Is there not another 

strategy to prevent closing these facilities? And if you are closing 

those facilities and there is no option to maintain them for prison 

industries activities, are you converting them for vocational training activities, and have you requested funding to support alternative activities as you close down a prison industries facility? 

Mr. LAPPIN. As you realize, this is a rather recent event. I mean 

for years we didn’t close factories, we created factories. So let us 

put it into perspective. 

Actually, if you look at this last ten years, there were four or five 

years that prison industries was doing extremely well. During the 

war, because over half of our products and services were war driven, and so we were more profitable, we could open factories, sometimes even though we didn’t need the factories. So, why did we 

open it? Because at the end of the day our real product is putting 

inmates to work. 

So what’s happened? One, we are beginning to feel more directly 

the effects of legislation that has been passed that has watered 

down the FPI mandatory source. It is evident—especially in furniture, textiles, and electronics. 

Number two, just a general downturn in the economy. People 

just aren’t ordering and buying as much stuff, not only from us, but 

from private companies as well. 

And thirdly, a downturn in the war effort because we relied so 

heavily on the Department of Defense. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
416 

So, those three issues have driven the loss of profits last year 

and this year in prison industries. Fortunately in those prior three 

years we did well, and we have got some money in the bank that 

we are now using in lieu of going out of business. So we are relying 

on savings that we generated in those prior years to continue the 

operations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What do you mean ‘‘going out of business?’’ 

What does that mean? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I mean technically we must make a profit in 

prison industries. There are no appropriated funds, they must be 

self-supporting. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And so we are using those savings to allow FPI to 

continue to be operational, but we must become more profitable, 

because we don’t know how long this downturn is going to last. So, 

we are making decisions to try to stop the bleeding, just like any 

other private company would, in hopes that eventually a number 

of things could happen. 

One, maybe we will get legislation that would give us more authorities. You are right, it is probably a long shot, but there is always a possibility. 

Two, maybe we will get to see more of our customers buying 

more materials and services, we will see more business and the 

tide will begin to turn. 

So, we are trying to bridge ourselves to when that upturn begins. 

Federal Prison Industries is managed by a board, a Presidentially elected board, so they have input, they give us direction. 

We just met yesterday. These are businessmen and women who get 

greatly concerned when they walk in and we tell them we are going 

to lose $27 million this year. That is what we project we are going 

to lose, $27 million this year. And so obviously they are reacting 

to that. What can we do to reduce the loss, keep as many inmates 

employed as we can? They are working with us, but it is just a 

business that has to be run like a business, even though our product is a bit unique in that the real product is keeping inmates employed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When was the legislation that creates this 

framework passed? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The original? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The one that is operative today? 

Mr. LAPPIN. 1934. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you were operating under the same rules as 

the original legislation passed in 1934? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The original legislation was passed in 1934. Since 

then, especially in the last decade, provisions have been put into 

law that have affected how those statutes are interpreted. And 

what we will do, we will send you a list of those provisions and how 

they changed the original law. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
417 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 56795B.022
418 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 56795B.023
419 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am going to get into this a bit more as time 

goes on here following up this hearing, but if this trend line is defined and dictated by a statutory requirement and it is obviously 

discernible, what strategy are you pursuing to supplement the kind 

of experience that the inmates are having and the training they are 

receiving in place of prison industries? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, very good point. What we have done is where 

we have closed factories we are working directly with the wardens 

there to figure out what can we not only do with that space, but 

what resources do we need to replace that factory with additional 

programs? Whether it is VT, you know, a drug treatment program, 

you know whatever it is we need. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well this is skill training. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This is employment training. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are absolutely correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So if you replace it with drug treatment space, 

you know, that needs to be out some place else and hopefully it is 

already happening at some place else in your prison. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is very difficult for us to recreate a work skill program like prison industries. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why? 

Mr. LAPPIN. There are only so many jobs you have in prison. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, it is not jobs, I am talking about vocational 

training. When young people go through vocational training in high 

school they don’t have a job, they get trained on how to do it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I understand that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So I guess what I am getting at, is your budget 

requesting money to supplement the training experience that prisoners would get in prison industries as the prison industries activity atrophies? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I will make sure I am clear. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is your budget requesting additional funding for 

vocational training? 

Mr. LAPPIN. If you replace what we have lost in prison industries 

to something like that—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no, to replace the training. Let me be clear, 

and I am sorry not to be clear. 

If I am working in Glenville prison learning how to redo these 

big trucks that come from the Army and that job goes down, I can 

still learn to do that if I am participating in a vocational training 

program, the difference being, I suppose, the funding source. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I see one clarification. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We see the provision of vocational training as providing knowledge about how to do something. 

Mr. LAPPIN. What it doesn’t do that prison industries does do is 

teach them work responsibilities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Great. Well let us increase the prison industries 

program. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I wish we could. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And we can’t. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That’s right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is the next best thing. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
420 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we are looking at what funding we need. I am 

not sure it is in the 2011 budget. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does that mean it is not? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We are being assessed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does that mean it is not? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That means it is not, I just was told. It will be in 

our future requests, because we are doing the assessment now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But we are just ramping down those factories. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are saying they closed eight out of how 

many? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Fourteen hundred inmate jobs? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, we have—I am going to tell you how many factories we have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Eight sounds like a lot to me. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have about 100 factories. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And how many closed last year? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Eight. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many closed the year before that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. None. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. None. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, so this—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. So last year was the first year we closed factories. 

There could be another round of closures. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well let us work together to see if there is a 

strategy to be developed, work with Mr. Wolf, and you know, the 

minority and the majority, to see if there are some strategies we 

can pursue legislatively to reverse this trend. If that trend doesn’t 

reverse and you don’t train these folks, what do people do when 

they get out? Your statement to him was that people are shunned 

when they get out. Well if they had a skill they might overcome 

that, but if they don’t have a skill they will not overcome that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And we are very supportive of that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Just realize we are still not going to address the 

work skills issue that many of them lack, because you just don’t 

get that in a vocational course. You learn the skill, but you don’t 

really address the issue of your responsibility of being a good worker. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well maybe you fashion it after that model just 

like you were trying to do it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will do the best we can. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. What we have found is that it is not quite as useful 

as the prison industries program in that regard. But we will work 

with you to identify what resources we need to back fill for some 

of these ideas. 

BUDGET GAPS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sure, and we look forward to working with 

you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
421 

I have a few questions on staffing that I will submit for the 

record, but I think we have plowed that ground. But in order to 

carry out your hiring plan for fiscal year 2011, Congress would 

need to provide an additional $44.1 million above the budget request. Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not familiar with that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In other words, when I was asking you about 

where the holes where, that was the answer I was fishing for. 

Mr. LAPPIN. In essence to establish what part, the hiring process? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This addition funding—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Is required because OMB did not 

allow the Bureau of Prisons to request funding to finish the activations of FCI McDowell and FCI Mendota. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, I know what it is we are addressing now. 

If you go back to the 2010 budget—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is OMB. Who are these people? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You got a line item in there for the activation of 

McDowell and Mendota. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And I think we got $22 million at one and $36 million at the other. That is for the first year of activation. It remains 

silent in 2011 as to the final second year of these activations. So, 

it is not specifically identified. We are going to have to finish those 

activations, and so, one would assume that we are going to take it 

out of our base. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is what we call a hole. So are there any 

holes in your budget? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well we are going to have to identify the funding to 

finish the activations for McDowell and Mendota. 

MODERNIZATION AND REPAIR (M&R)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Facilities modernization and repair. During last year’s hearing we talked about the Bureau of Prisons facility modernization and repair needs and about the Federal Facilities 

Council guidelines, which suggests that the annual M&R cost for 

a facility should be in the range of two to four percent of the aggregated current replacement value of the facility. Even two percent 

of the value of BOP’s facilities would be several hundred million 

dollars annually, and the Department has not proposed M&R budgets approaching anything near that amount in recent history. In 

fact, the M&R proposal for fiscal year 2011 is only $74.2 million, 

roughly equal to the 2010 funding level of 73 million. 

What’s the impact of BOP’s growing backlog of M&R projects on 

the basic operation of facilities? And we go over this every year. I 

mean you would think at this point they are falling down. 

Mr. LAPPIN. They are not falling down because I have great folks 

out there that do a lot of good Band-Aid work, and the reality is 

this is obviously an area of concern. We have got 115 prisons that 

we are maintaining and repairing. You are right, the budget for the 

last few years has been around 74 million. A two percent replacement value is about 500 million. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
422 

So what are we doing? Every single year we prioritize every single request, and those that are the most critical, and by most critical I am saying life safety and security go to the top and those are 

the ones we fund. And we fund as many of these as we can. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well some of them are probably being closed 

down as new facilities come on board and so that takes the worst 

facilities out of your inventory. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We haven’t closed any facilities. We can’t afford to 

close a facility because we would then have more crowding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. So without a doubt, those that aren’t being addressed, the buildings are continuing to deteriorate or the issue 

continues to exist. We just have to prioritize them the next year, 

identifying those most critical, and we will fund whatever we can 

fund. And we do that nationally now. We used to do it regionally, 

so now it is a single group that collects all of the requests and 

prioritizes them. We then get it out to each region and say here 

is what we consider the highest priorities. We ultimately agree, 

and then we distribute what money we have to those highest priorities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You just work with it the best you can. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Do the best we can to keep them—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you are pushing it out there in the future. 

I mean it is real at some point. 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is either pay me now or pay me later, you know, 

like the old oil change commercial. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is where we are at. Pay me now or pay me 

later. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So some time you are going to have to come up 

here and say we need a billion dollars, we have to have a billion 

dollars. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am afraid it is either that or ultimately we will 

have housing units or buildings that we will have to close, in lieu 

of occupying, given some safety and sanitation and environment 

issues. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You know that would be a very useful prospect 

to have substantiated and analyzed for the Committee. Would you 

do that and submit a report? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will do our best. I hate to say that I went to an 

institution about a year ago, when I went to the housing unit it 

was raining, and they gave me an umbrella. An umbrella because 

it was raining into the common area. It didn’t have a decent roof, 

and so obviously it got a new roof after that visit. I came back here 

and said we have to get the money to fix the roof. 

[The information follows:] 

BOP’S MODERNIZATION & REPAIR NEEDS

On January 15, 2010, the Department provided the Congress a complete summary 

of the Modernization and Repair (M&R) backlog of the BOP’s highest priority unfunded M&R projects. This list included projects such as roof replacement, fire 

alarm system replacement, installation of additional high-mast lights, and upgrade 

of electrical systems and generators. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where was that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Memphis. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
423 

NEED FOR NEW PRISON BEDS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Construction and activation of new BOP facilities. The fiscal year 2010 act provided $52 million to begin the activation of FCI McDowell, in West Virginia and FCI Mendota, in 

California. When fully activated, these new facilities will add approximately 2,500 beds to your total capacity, but BOP anticipates 

a gain of 7,000 inmates as you testified before. The 2011 budget proposes $28.5 million to begin the activation 

of FCI Berlin, in New Hampshire, which would add an additional 

1,280 new beds, but you anticipate a net gain of 7,000 in 2011. 

You know, when you do the math, and in your opening statement 

it was the thing that came through most impressively, it is clear 

that the Bureau of Prisons is continuing down an unsustainable 

path. 

What happens here? And does your current request for acquisitions or construction anticipate the numbers that you are providing 

for the Committee today with regard to the growth of the population? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The 2011 budget also, just to make sure it is on the 

record, requests funding for the activation of Thomson, and so its 

got Berlin and Thomson. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It still doesn’t add up. I mean we went through 

those numbers at the beginning of the hearing. So what happens 

here? 

Mr. LAPPIN. And again, my reference that there are a few things 

we are going to have to address, and so we are working with the 

Administration to address these four or five suggestions that I 

made. And I am encouraged, I have to say, by the Attorney General’s efforts, he has created a working group in the Department 

of Justice called the sentencing and corrections working group and 

they are looking at some of these alternative strategies. Like, 

should we be looking at increasing good times for inmates? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, I don’t want you to go into them because 

we don’t have time. Let me ask you. That exercise is ongoing? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That exercise is ongoing. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When do you expect it to be mature enough to 

produce a product that we can look at? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know, but I will get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

STATUS OF AG’S SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS WORKGROUP

The Attorney General created the Sentencing and Corrections Working Group last 

year to conduct a comprehensive review of federal sentencing and corrections policy, 

including a review of possible recommendations to the President and Congress for 

new legislation to improve federal sentencing and corrections policy and practice. 

The mission of the Working Group has been to help develop sentencing and corrections systems that, in an effective and efficient manner as possible, promote public 

safety, provide just punishment to offenders, avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and reduce recidivism by breaking down barriers for exoffenders to successfully 

rejoin society. The group has been examining, among other issues: (1) the disparity 

in federal crack and powder cocaine sentences; (2) prisoner reentry and other programs to reduce recidivism; (3) the Department’s policies on charging and sentencing advocacy; (4) the federal sentencing guidelines, (5) mandatory minimum 

sentencing statutes; (6) the impact of current charging policies, sentencing practices, 

and resource issues on the Bureau of Prisons; (7) alternatives to incarceration; and 

(7) the Department’s protocols for reviewing capital offenses for the possible application of the death penalty. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
424 

The Working Group has been completing aspects of its work on a rolling basis. 

The Department anticipates announcing some changes o several policies in the near 

future and to work with Congress later this year on possible legislative changes affecting federal sentencing and corrections policies. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But, what are we going to do? We are going to continue to work to add beds through private contracts, and try to get 

funding to build prisons. You will see another request to purchase 

prisons. We are looking at existing empty facilities like Thomson. 

Believe me, there are not very many of them, because most of the 

inventory that is empty, is old and inefficient and we don’t want 

it. However, there are a few of them out there that may be available that we could purchase, and we would advocate for the purchase of those facilities to help shore up the limited bed space we 

are acquiring. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES (FPI)

I just have two questions, or one on the prison industries thing. 

You know, I have an amendment I can offer. It really does go a 

long way to solve the problem. There were a couple articles in the 

news yesterday about the repatriation of jobs back to the United 

States. Call centers. I mean you have the opportunity, there are 

call centers in Monterey, Mexico could be in Monterey, California. 

There are call centers that could be—I mean the opportunity is 

wide open. 

And you know, I would challenge the Attorney General and I 

would challenge you, the previous one did not do it because of the 

Chamber of Commerce, you know, to really get behind this. 

I will offer it here and we will see what the authorizers say. But 

that would create more jobs. I mean just that one dignity, you can’t 

put a man or woman in jail for a long period of time without giving 

them work. 

Secondly, and I have talked to prisoners who said they would 

make some money and that would give them some money to come 

by the canteen to buy whatever they wanted to buy, but also they 

had an account whereby when they got out they just didn’t get— 

what do you give them now when you get out? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Fifty dollars. 

Mr. WOLF. Fifty dollars. So they would have had not a lot of money, but maybe $1,800, something to begin with. And so by the 

Congress doing what it has done and by the administration previous failing to, you have almost guaranteed the recidivism rate 

can’t get any better. I mean it is almost biblical. 

So I will be glad to offer the amendment, and I don’t know if the 

Rules Committee will strike it, but it really almost does solve the 

problem. Because for instance, there are no television sets made in 

the United States. If you were to use that as an oversimplification, 

the person who drops the plastic case by would be an American 

worker driving a truck. The person who drops the wire by. The person who sells the gas to the truck. They would have created American jobs, and I think there isn’t any other way. And to just almost 

pretend that something is going to happen is kind of, not to quote 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
425 

Simon and Garfunkel in two straight days, but man hears what he 

wants to hear and disregards the rest. 

There is no way this Congress, particularly now in a declining 

job market, the perception is that every job is in competition. 

So I think you could do it in a way that you are not competing 

with the furniture guys. I understand that. But when you walk 

through prisons, federal and state, the men and women are just 

hanging out, they are just kind of hanging out. You know, you don’t 

even make them walk across like we did in the military to pick up 

cigarette butts anymore. No one is almost working. And so this 

would honestly provide dignity, and yet I think create American 

jobs and not take away one job. And so let us see, maybe we can 

put it in a bill and see what happens. 

Mr. LAPPIN. You are right, inmates in federal prison no longer 

pick up butts because we don’t let them smoke, but I guarantee you 

they are clean prisons, because we make the inmates work. 

But we are more than happy—we would love to come meet with 

you so that we don’t get on different tracks. 

Mr. WOLF. I have met with you guys over and over. I mean send 

the Attorney General over. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But I think these are some new developments that 

you need to be aware of before we move forward too quickly. It 

won’t take long. Let us first give you an update, an update on what 

we are working on, and how you might be able to fold that into 

something that would be helpful. 

But we realize though, Congressman, we have got to rely less on 

furniture, textiles, and electronics. We have got to compete, we 

have got to rely less on that mandatory source to get the critics to 

understand we do not want to take jobs away from American citizen businesses. We don’t want to do that—or at least limit it as 

much as we can. We agree with you, there are some things that 

we can do. 

PRISON INDUSTRIES ENHANCEMENT

PIE authority. We want to work with those businesses. We would 

like to have that influence. We don’t have PIE authority. That is 

an option that we would like to pursue, and that way we are helping American business not replacing them. 

So, we would love just to give you a short briefing on where we 

are at, with some of those things. But we really want to work with 

you on this, because it is critically important. And I know I am optimistic, that the glass is half full. 

Mr. WOLF. It is only a quarter, right? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is half full. I believe we can make something happen, if we think otherwise it won’t happen, and we are going to 

keep going. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Sure, we will be glad to do that. But I asked 

the Department of Commerce to put together some information of 

the 25 largest international companies that are doing business 

aboard, and maybe when we get that information we can share 

that with you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We operate right now eight or ten call centers. We 

would love to take you to one. It is a wonderful assignment that 

not only keeps these—I mean, some of them run 24 hours a day, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
426 

so inmates are learning to work shift work. Before they go into that 

assignment, they have to go to English class and eliminate their 

slang. They have to go to geography class so they know, you know, 

when somebody says I want the phone number in X city they can 

go right to it, because we compete with the private contractors in 

these countries. So, it is a great opportunity. We would like to see 

more of that. But on the other hand, they are automating a lot of 

that work too. You know, when you call in and you get some automated message, so that is replacing some of the traditional call 

service programs, but we have got eight to ten of those factories. 

They are great. 

SEXUAL ABUSE OF INMATES

Mr. WOLF. Okay. A September 2009 OIG report is critical of your 

oversight of the programs to prevent sexual abuse of inmates by 

staff. And the Committee prepared language in the fiscal year 2010 

bill urging you to act as soon as possible on the OIG’s recommendations. Can you tell us what his recommendations were and whether 

they have been implemented? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can’t recall the specific recommendations. We can 

follow up with you on our response back to the IG on those issues. 

I assure you what we have done is increased training and enhanced investigative skills, and we try to hire people that won’t act 

out that way. I mean that is the most frustrating thing. 

I know you all realize that this is a very, very small percentage 

of our entire work force who we find acts this way, and it is unfortunate, it is shameful, and we want to do everything to prevent 

that. 

So, will in writing come back and share with you what the recommendations were, what our response has been, and what we 

have done to comply with those recommendations. 

[The information follows:] 

BOP’S RESPONSE TO OIG’S 2009 REPORT ON PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE

Please see the following link for the information, and see Appendix V and Appendix VI: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/plus/e0904.pdf. 

THOMSON FACILITY

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I have a number of questions on the Thomson 

facility. 

With the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, 

which certainly has a lot of controversy, if that never had come to 

fruition in your view, does it still make sense, and is it financially 

prudent to purchase this facility, Thomson? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, it does. And we understand the controversy, we 

are not a part of that, and to say we support the Administration’s 

effort to solve both these problems. To increase prison space, and 

if in fact you, the Congress, changes the law for detainees to come 

into this country and it is decided they should be housed at Thomson, we are more than willing to work with the Department of Defense. But this request is only addressing the purchase and the operation of Thomson as a federal prison. It doesn’t change that authority of where detainees will be housed. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
427 

Mr. WOLF. Does DoD plan on putting any money in assuming— 

and I think as of now if this comes up in the Congress that Congress will vote it down, but that is any sense—but it should go forward. Does the DoD plan on participating in it? Are they putting 

money into it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The purchase? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, none. This is going to be at first an all Bureau 

of Prisons facility, 100 percent. And again, this request only addresses the purchase of that facility and operation of it. So, at some 

point in the future, if it becomes legal to bring them into this country and we went into this agreement with the Department of Defense, we would permit them to use a small portion of that facility 

to house the detainees, but only after they have the legal authority. 

And, they would pay for any additional infrastructure necessary to 

facilitate that operation. 

We would not be involved with the management of those folks, 

other than the support—food service, laundry, perimeter security, 

those types of things. 

GUANTANAMO BAY

Mr. WOLF. Have you or your people been down to Guantanamo 

Bay and looked at it, and what is your just sense? And the record 

states you are not taking a position one way or the other, I put 

that out there. But what kind of place is it? People that I have 

talked to tell me it is a pretty impressive operation, and I have 

never been there so I don’t know. But what is your—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I have been there, and there is some new construction there, and also, there is some old construction there. So it is 

a mixture of different types of facilities. But you know, the Department of Defense does a great job. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And in fact, if we were to work together at Thomson, 

we would look forward to that. But again, that is really I think a 

separate issue not applicable to this request. 

Mr. WOLF. Oh, I understand. So it is not a torture chamber, it 

is not a horrible place, it is—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. No. 

Mr. WOLF. I think the Guantanamo name has sort of taken on. 

But for people that have been down there, the media people that 

I have talked to they tell me it is a very well run operation. And 

why do the guards in Guantanamo—and I think I know the answer, but I want you to tell me—wear that cover on their name so 

that the people in Guantanamo, the prisoners can’t see their name? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know, you would have to ask the Department 

of Defense. 

Mr. WOLF. What do you suspect it is? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I really don’t know. 

Mr. WOLF. You do know. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t know. 

Mr. WOLF. Could you guess? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Don’t want to guess. 

Mr. WOLF. I know that I am the one that said it. I have been 

told because they certainly don’t want to see any ramifications with 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
428 

regard to them as they come back, and I think that is a whole concern with regard to moving people. Because wasn’t Officer Pepe 

stabbed by one of the—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. By a convicted international terrorist, yes, in MCC 

New York. 

Mr. WOLF. And I think there has also been some concern to prisoners who are known and their families will be subject to, and so 

that when they come back up from Guantanamo they don’t want 

that connection whereby there could be some danger. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I mean, in our institutions, as you well know, we 

house over 200 international terrorists. Those terrorists know the 

names of our employees, but not unlike any other inmates they are 

all risky. You could be assaulted by any of them. And we have not 

seen behavior beyond what is typical of one’s background and characteristics. Some of them are assaultive, some of them are not. So, 

obviously because we have them in ADX Florence, we have some 

in communication management units, we have some in general 

population facilities, even in low security institutions, and they 

have been successfully managed in a variety of different levels of 

security and oversight. 

Mr. WOLF. Any way, thank you, Mr. Chairman, through Mr. 

Lappin. 

INMATE ASSAULTS ON STAFF

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well that is a segue, and I suppose a good segue 

into my next line of questioning with regard to inmate assaults on 

staff. The first thing we want to do is make sure that staff are protected as much as possible, and I know you totally agree with that 

as they perform these very dangerous jobs. 

Looking at the statistics of serious assaults and less serious assaults from 2007 through 2009 and then those that have been reported to date, this is an interesting trend line and it appears to 

all be up as a matter of fact. And I am wondering if you are familiar with those statistics? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am, and maybe you and I have different statistics. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I have, for 2007, a total of 1,306 assaults, 

for 2008, a total of 1,601 assaults, and for 2009 a total of 1,891 assaults. That is all an up trend. Now the serious assaults from 2007 

to 2008 went from 65 to 98. That is my information. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I don’t have that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And from 2008 to 2009, they went to 104. Do 

you have different statistics? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am going tell you what I have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, well thank you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. In 2007 we had 79 serious assaults on staff. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In 2007 you had what? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Seventy-nine on staff. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. These are different numbers than I have. I just 

wanted to know that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We had 91 in 2008, and we had 81 in 2009. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Serious assaults—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Serious assaults on staff. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Inmate assaults on staff at the Bureau of Prisons. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
429 

Mr. LAPPIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well where did we get these numbers? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Now let us back up. We have separated them into 

two categories. Minor assaults, less serious assaults. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I have less serious assaults. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have 1,284 in 2007, 1,547 in 2008, and 1,631 in 

2009. And there is a—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What was 2008? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I’m sorry, 1,547. And 1,631 in 2009. 

So, what we have seen is actually—and I realize that looking at 

the whole number is not an accurate reflection of what’s going on, 

because obviously there are more inmates each year. That is why 

we do this by rate rather than by whole numbers, because you are 

adding 20,000 inmates over the course of those three years. 

So, what the trend of serious assaults on staff is actually a downward trend on the rates of assaults on staff, because we had 81 in 

2009, but we had more inmates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well that makes sense, those just aren’t the 

numbers I had. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Correct. So, here is what we are seeing. We are seeing a slight reduction from 2008 in serious assaults on staff. We 

have seen an up tick in less serious assaults at high security institutions on staff. That concerns us. But also the serious assaults 

concern us. We don’t want any. But my sense is the downward 

trend is related. 

SPECIAL MANAGMENT UNITS (SMUS)

I am not going to go out and say this definitively yet, but we activated the SMUs in 2008, end of 2008, and we now have almost 

1,300 inmates who we have identified and moved to these more restrictive facilities. As a consequence, we are beginning to see not 

only fewer assaults, we are seeing fewer homicides, we are seeing 

lock downs that last much less, a shorter period of time. There is 

about the same number of lock downs lasting for a couple three 

days because the incidents are not nearly as serious or nearly as 

impactful. And so I am encouraged by that, I am not there yet, I 

don’t think we are there yet. We still have inmates out in our penitentiaries who belong in SMUs or some more restrictive environment that we currently have beds for. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the SMU a fairly recent strategy? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is. It is somewhat consistent with the ADX Florence approach, it is just that we didn’t think that those people 

needed to be in a program that takes so long to get through before 

getting back out on the compound. 

If you are in the control unit at Florence it is like a five or six 

year process. We believed that we could correct the behavior of 

some of these inmates in less time. 

So it has some similar conditions, some, not entirely, but the inmates are much more controlled, much more restricted, they don’t 

get as many opportunities for programs and visiting and other 

things, but if they behave they can be out in two years or less. Actually, 18 months to two years. Some will get it, some will not. So, 

some are going to be retreads and go back through the program 

again, or we will send them to Florence. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
430 

But we need more of these beds, that is why I am urgently requesting funds for Thomson so that we can increase the number of 

beds, move more of these inmates who are acting like this into 

those SMU beds. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thomson would be a special management unit? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The whole prison? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not the whole prison, the majority of that prison. A 

part of that prison we are going to make ADX type bed space. 

Those are for folks that are even more serious, that don’t get it in 

the SMU program, we’ve got to put them over there for even longer 

periods of time. So a portion of that would be ADX space. 

What we are having to do right now is take general population 

space off line. So we have taken an entire penitentiary at 

Lewisburg that was general population, and converted it to SMU 

space. We cannot continue to afford to do that. We need new space, 

and more appropriate space. Thomson was built more for this mission than some of our other facilities. 

And again, this is such a small shift. I can be back here next 

year and the rate of assaults may have gone up a little bit or the 

whole number has gone up a little bit. I question the rate is going 

to go up a lot. 

INMATE ASSAULTS ON STAFF

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don’t want to interrupt you because you are 

answering most of the questions that I want answered, and that 

is very efficient. But with the less serious assaults the numbers I 

have for 2010—what are your numbers for your less serious assaults for 2010? 

Mr. LAPPIN. They have gone up in 2009. I don’t have the 2010 

number with me, but they have gone up. The minor assaults on 

staff have increased each of those three years from 1,284 in 2007 

to 1,545 in 2008 to 1,631 in 2009. Now, I can’t say the rate has 

changed that much, again, because we have added inmates each of 

those years. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I understand. Could you do an analysis that 

we have—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will do it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Statistics come from all different directions, this 

isn’t a comment on anybody who supplied this information, but just 

could we reconcile these different numbers? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

ASSAULTS IN BOP & PRIVATE SECURE FACILITIES 

Fiscal year 

Serious assaults on 

staff 

Less serious 

assaults on staff 

Serious 

assaults on 

inmates 

Less serious 

assaults on 

inmates 

2005 ............................................................................................... 132 1,404 413 1,966 

2006 ............................................................................................... 117 1,334 482 2,241 

2007 ............................................................................................... 68 1,242 397 2,566 

2008 ............................................................................................... 99 1,505 466 2,616 

2009 ............................................................................................... 105 1,789 517 2,657 

2010* ............................................................................................. 20 687 135 1,082 

FY 2010 Data through March 27, 2010. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
431 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And then the trend line, the rate increase that 

you would have to factor in the number. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We can do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And in what circumstances. 

We want to support your special management unit program to 

the extent it is your strategy and it is being successful. I hope that 

it does make your correctional officers anticipate an improvement 

in the situation that they are concerned about. It is a very serious 

matter for the Committee and we want to support a resolution of 

it as quickly as possible, and it sounds like the strategies you are 

employing have promise of being successful. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well it is a very important concern of ours as well 

for all of our staff, and we want them to be safe at work, and we 

are going to do everything we can do to reduce that number. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have a number of questions on the Second 

Chance Act that I really want to get to. I am glad to have gotten 

to the security issues on the record. 

We are going to submit a number of questions for the record 

now. I just want to hear you talk about this. 

ANTI-CRAVING MEDICATION

We don’t know how using anti-craving medication in the context 

of a prison environment works or doesn’t work, and that is why we 

have asked the experts to look at that. 

During last year’s hearing, I asked you whether the Bureau of 

Prisons was using any anti-craving medication as a part of its drug 

treatment programs and you responded that the use of such medication was something you would consider based in part on the Bureau of Prisons review of research in this area. 

The fiscal year 2010 explanatory statement encouraged BOP to 

conduct a pilot initiative on the use of anti-craving medications as 

part of the RDAP program and through the period of an inmate’s 

period of supervised release. The statement further encouraged 

BOP to coordinate with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 

which is currently supporting research on the effectiveness of anticraving medication on probationers and parolees. 

So just to capture for the record the status on that from you, has 

the BOP initiated a pilot study on the use of anti-craving medication? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have not initiated the pilot yet, but we intend 

to. We have looked at the drugs that are available, we are working 

with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, some folks out there 

who have expertise in this. We are narrowing the types of drugs 

that we would—or identifying the types of drugs that we would 

use, and we are working on the pilot. 

So, we intend to move in that direction. I am hopeful that we are 

going to get it implemented this year, the pilot, so that we can try 

this as part of our drug treatment protocol, because we want to do 

anything we can to help these individuals resist drug and alcohol 

use, and certainly this research reflects that there is potential this 

could be helpful. 

So, we are working on it, we haven’t implemented the pilot yet, 

but we hope to do so in the not too distant future. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
432 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It 

is a tool in the tool box, so whether it works under these circumstances will be very interesting to see. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We agree. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Director Lappin, thank you for your testimony 

here today and thank you for your good service. It is a tough job. 

Oh my gosh, you are pulled in so many different directions and 

your resources are scarce at best, and so we want to be sensitive 

to that and to the limits of the budget possibilities. We want to be 

responsive to you because we do think you are trying very hard 

and being successful, and you have a tremendous dedicated staff 

from the correctional officers, administration, and correctional 

workers, and anybody else that those categories didn’t cover who 

work for the Bureau of Prisons. 

So thank you very much for your testimony here today. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I appreciate that. I couldn’t agree with you more. We 

have got a great group of 36,000 employees that serve this country 

extremely well each and every day and we appreciate your support 

and the support of Congressman Wolf and the rest of the members. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
433 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 56795B.024
434 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 56795B.025
435 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 56795B.026
436 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 840 here 56795B.027
437 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 841 here 56795B.028
438 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 842 here 56795B.029
439 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 843 here 56795B.030
440 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 844 here 56795B.031
441 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 845 here 56795B.032
442 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 846 here 56795B.033
443 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 847 here 56795B.034
444 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 848 here 56795B.035
445 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 849 here 56795B.036
446 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 850 here 56795B.037
447 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 851 here 56795B.038
448 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 852 here 56795B.039
449 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 853 here 56795B.040
450 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 854 here 56795B.041
451 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 855 here 56795B.042
452 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 856 here 56795B.043
453 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 857 here 56795B.044
454 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 858 here 56795B.045
455 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 859 here 56795B.046
456 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 860 here 56795B.047
457 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 861 here 56795B.048
458 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 862 here 56795B.049
459 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 56795B.050
460 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 864 here 56795B.051
461 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 865 here 56795B.052
462 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 866 here 56795B.053
463 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 867 here 56795B.054
464 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 868 here 56795B.055
465 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 56795B.056
466 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 56795B.057
467 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 871 here 56795B.058
468 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 872 here 56795B.059
469 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 873 here 56795B.060
470 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 874 here 56795B.061
471 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 875 here 56795B.062
472 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 876 here 56795B.063
473 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 877 here 56795B.064
474 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 878 here 56795B.065
475 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 879 here 56795B.066
476 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 880 here 56795B.067
477 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 881 here 56795B.068
478 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 882 here 56795B.069
479 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 883 here 56795B.070
480 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 884 here 56795B.071
481 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 885 here 56795B.072
482 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 886 here 56795B.073
483 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 887 here 56795B.074
484 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 888 here 56795B.075
485 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 889 here 56795B.076
486 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 890 here 56795B.077
487 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 891 here 56795B.078
488 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 892 here 56795B.079
489 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 893 here 56795B.080
490 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 894 here 56795B.081
491 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 56795B.082
492 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 56795B.083
493 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 56795B.084
494 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 56795B.085
495 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 56795B.086
496 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 56795B.087
497 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 56795B.088
498 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 56795B.089
499 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 56795B.090
500 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 56795B.091
501 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 56795B.092
502 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 56795B.093
503 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 56795B.094
504 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 56795B.095
505 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 56795B.096
506 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 56795B.097
507 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 56795B.098
508 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 56795B.099
509 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 56795B.100
510 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 56795B.101
511 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 56795B.102
512 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 56795B.103
513 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 56795B.104
514 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 56795B.105
515 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 56795B.106
516 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 56795B.107
517 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 56795B.108
518 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 56795B.109
519 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 56795B.110
520 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 56795B.111
521 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 56795B.112
522 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 56795B.113
523 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 56795B.114
524 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 56795B.115
525 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 56795B.116
526 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 56795B.117
527 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 56795B.118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(529) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2010. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 

EMPLOYEES—COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 

WITNESSES 

BRYAN LOWRY, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS, AFGE, AFL– 

CIO 

PHIL GLOVER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR, COUNCIL OF 

PRISON LOCALS, AFGE, AFL–CIO 

OPENING STATEMENT—CHAIRMAN MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Well good afternoon. I would like to welcome Mr. Bryan Lowry, the President of 

AFGE’s Council of Prison Locals, and Mr. Phil Glover, the National 

Legislative Director for the Council of Prison Locals, to our hearing 

this afternoon on major challenges facing the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons. 

We have asked you to come back again to testify this year because your perspective from the inside of the federal prisons is critical for us to understand as we make funding decisions about the 

federal prison system. 

The Subcommittee has worked hard over the last few years to 

provide funding increases above the President’s budget request to 

ensure that the Bureau of Prisons would be able to meet its basic 

operating expenses and would be able to significantly increase its 

staffing levels. Although the staffing levels are not yet what they 

need to be, we are committed to keep pushing them higher. 

There are many other challenges facing the Bureau of Prisons, 

including an inmate overcrowding rate that has reached 37 percent, a growing facility maintenance backlog, and an inmate population that by most accounts is becoming more violent and more 

difficult to manage. We will want to discuss these and other issues 

with you this afternoon. In a moment, gentlemen, I will ask you 

each to provide remarks summarizing your joint written statement, 

which will be made a part of the record. But first I would like to 

recognize Mr. Wolf for any opening introductory remarks that he 

would like to make. 

Mr. WOLF. I welcome you to the Committee. I have no comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Gentlemen. 

OPENING STATEMENT—WITNESSES

Mr. LOWRY. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Wolf, and 

members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bryan Lowry. I am the 

President of the Council of Prison Locals, American Federation of 

Government Employees. Here with me today is Phil Glover, who is 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
530 

the Council’s Legislative Coordinator for the Council of Prison 

Locals AFGE. On behalf of the over 38,000 federal correctional 

workers who work at 115 institutions in the Bureau of Prisons nationwide, we want to thank you for the opportunity that you have 

given us today to testify on various Bureau of Prisons issues that 

are critically important to the safety and security of federal correctional workers and the local communities surrounding the federal 

prisons. 

BOP prisons have continued to be increasingly dangerous places 

to work, primarily because of serious correctional understaffing and 

prison inmate overcrowding problems. 340 inmate on staff assaults 

have occurred at various Federal prisons since the brutal murder 

of correctional officer Jose Rivera on June 20, 2008, by two inmates 

at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. These aggressive acts by inmates against staff illustrate a common reality 

facing the staff daily at their workplace. In addition, Bureau of 

Prison correctional workers have become increasingly demoralized 

because of the lack of necessary funding for correctional staff positions, staff training, warranted equipment, and programmatic tools 

that would improve the safety and security of BOP prisons. As well 

as the adoption by BOP management beginning in 2005 of the Mission Critical Post policy, a cost reduction strategy involving substantial cuts in correctional worker positions. This policy resulted 

in decreased staff supervision of inmates, including decreasing staff 

supervision of inmates in housing units, inmate recreation areas, 

inmate work details, as well as unmanning prison towers. 

At the same time, I sincerely hope that you and your staffers 

know how much we appreciate your active efforts on behalf of our 

staff during the past few years. I particularly want to thank you 

for all the work that this Committee has done to help us increase 

the budgets and the salary and expense account for the Bureau of 

Prisons. 

I am willing to answer any questions you may have after that. 

Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
531 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 56795B.119
532 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 56795B.120
533 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 56795B.121
534 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 56795B.122
535 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 56795B.123
536 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 56795B.124
537 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 56795B.125
538 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 56795B.126
539 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 56795B.127
540 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 56795B.128
541 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 56795B.129
542 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 56795B.130
543 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 56795B.131
544 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 56795B.132
545 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 56795B.133
546 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 56795B.134
547 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 953 here 56795B.135
548 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 954 here 56795B.136
549 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 955 here 56795B.137
550 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 56795B.138
551 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Glover. 

Mr. GLOVER. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wolf, again 

thank you for being here and thanks to your staff for working with 

us over the last few years to move staffing back in the right direction. Just a reminder, in 2005 and 2006 the Director cut 2,300 staff 

positions. So the discussion about the funding levels this year are 

only bringing us back to where we were in 2005 and 2006. But it 

certainly is moving us in a better direction. 

The staff to inmate ratio is still 1 to 4.9 and will be at the end 

of fiscal year 2010. The 900 staff that are to be hired through this 

fiscal year will probably not actually be hired until the end of the 

fiscal year, and then annualized into the 2011 budget. So while 

they are bringing staff on, they are really bringing staff on at the 

last quarter. This happened last year, and then they are 

annualizing that amount of money necessary to pay for those staff. We request $219 million above the S and E amount, for a total of 1,826 more correctional worker positions, and $230 million above 

the B and F request for the funding of construction and more M 

and R projects. As was relayed earlier in the testimony from the 

Director, the maintenance and repair accounts are seriously underfunded. 

We hear, or we see, in the Director’s testimony that we are at 

about an 89 percent staffing rate. And our question is, 89 percent 

of what? If you have cut 2,300 positions in ’05 and ’06, and you are 

not adding that back into the mix, then it is 89 percent of what 

amount? 

The Obama budget is $6.5 billion for S and E, and $269 million 

for B and F. We certainly appreciated that there was a substantial 

increase. But obviously, as this Committee has said over the years, 

and even when Ranking Member Wolf was the Chairman he repeatedly put into report language, that the administration really 

needed to look at funding the prison system appropriately. 

We do want to bring up the private prison issue. We have seen 

an increase from three private facilities in the year 2001 to fourteen now. The latest contract award, January 2010, was an award 

of $553 million for a four-year base period, with possible two-year 

option periods, which I am sure will be renegotiated at that point. 

The thing that is getting to us with these private prison contracts 

is if you break that down over a four-year period, that $553 million, 

I do not think we have a single facility at this point that per year 

would run on that amount of money. We would be far less. And 

they really only have to provide four departments: corrections, 

medical, receiving and discharge, food service, and some administrative positions. The private sector with the criminal alien population is not providing programming at all. 

The other issue for us is the revolving door. The SES pay scale 

for BOP management is $119,000 to $179,000 per year. That is top 

rate for SESs. CCA’s average salary to their top three officers is 

$279,000, and total compensation is $1.2 million over a year period. 

GEO Group is $651,000 on average for the top three officers of the 

company, $2.3 million in total compensation. And we have those 

documents. 

The stun fences, we brought this up last year and we are going 

to bring it up this year. We do have specific dates and times when 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
552 

fences have gone down at specific facilities. We do not feel we can 

give that to you in an open hearing, but we will provide it to the 

Committee staff after the hearing so that that information is not 

out in the public. These security fences only protect from escape 

and they do not protect for activities occurring on a recreation 

yard. It does not protect the safety of staff or inmates who are out 

on a recreation yard and have issues such as a disturbance out on 

that yard. Staff are taught to run underneath the towers for protection in the event of a riot. If the towers are not manned, those stun 

fences will do nothing to help the staff and that is one of our main 

concerns with the stun fences. 

The Second Chance Act has been brought up repeatedly. We believe it needs to be fully funded. The issue that we are hearing 

back from our case management employees who are union employees is that there are not enough halfway houses. They are referring 

by management’s directive all of the inmates that they can, but 

many of these inmates are being kicked back because of lack of bed 

space in the halfway houses. In addition, they are being told to 

submit inmates that normally would not be appropriate for halfway 

houses. Inmates who are child pedophiles, or have a history of assaults, violence. They are being told to send all of them forward for 

halfway houses to increase the numbers. And we think that is a 

waste of our staff’s time. They should have more discretion to look 

at whether an inmate should be placed in a halfway house at a 

year or not, and at the six-month rate, which is our normal rate. 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act, we talked about that last year 

as well. And until all the housing units are staffed, and the recreation areas are staffed, we cannot monitor what is going on in 

those housing units 24/7. We want to do it. Our staff want to do 

it. But it is just not possible. 

The other issue is training. I heard the Director talk about training this morning. I can tell you that last year I received a half hour 

of training on the Prison Rape Elimination Act at my facility. I am 

an active correctional officer, and I can tell you that that was not 

a top priority. 

FPI, their issues are well documented. We are concerned with 

the situation, with more inmates being laid off. It is not helpful to 

anyone. And it is certainly not helpful to the inmate population. 

How it affects the inmates is that they do not make very much 

money. You do not have them using the commissary as much. Now 

we are starting to see theft out of food service. We are seeing them 

bring food service items up to the housing units. It is just a bad 

situation the whole way around. So anything we can do to get inmates working again would be helpful. Thank you very much. 

STAFFING LEVELS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well thank you both for your testimony. With regard to staffing levels, are you seeing that new staffing in the prisons? And is it being targeted in the right way? 

Mr. LOWRY. I know there are increases that have occurred in 

some positions outside of correction, and I know that the correctional staffing levels have gone up some. But it has not added any 

new posts. In other words, assignments in certain areas that we 

had prior to this Mission Critical staffing, such as additional recreVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00552 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
553 

ation yard officers in the evening when the majority of your inmates would be out there. You could have at least half, a third to 

half of your population on the rec yard during the spring and summer months. And now what you basically have are one or two people, recreation specialists, and maybe an officer watching where, 

you know, ten years ago you would have four or five people out 

there, especially in the higher security level prisons. And they have 

not added these posts back on. 

It is a matter of what do you do with the resources when you get 

them is our concern. We get the additional funding. But the initiatives that are put into place, in our opinions, are not sound. Where 

inmates are likely to congregate in large numbers, having those positions that we once had, we called them different things, compound officers that would be in open areas where inmates would 

be, having additional officers in some of these higher security prisons to partner up with one another, since the violence has increased in our prisons. More staffing in the evening time, although, 

you know, an institution may have on average 300 staff, those staff 

are all over the place. 

Some of these prisons inside the fence are fifty-plus acres. And 

so you have people working in different areas. They are not supervising or watching the inmates. They are doing their functions that 

are assigned to them. But we are looking for staff to be put in 

these general areas. Because our main concern, to try to answer 

your question, is if you cannot properly supervise inmates to, number one, stop the manufacture of weapons; number two, stop the 

manufacture of contraband such as alcohol or moving drugs around 

in different ways, or them being able to hide it, you cannot stop the 

violence inside the prisons. And since our staffing has declined you 

can look at the numbers that have been put together by the agency 

or even the union. And our numbers would be less because we rely 

on the local unions from each institution to report directly to us. 

Now, whoever determines what is serious and what is less serious, 

we beg to differ if a correctional officer or a correctional worker is 

attacked by an inmate. But if you cannot stop the manufacture of 

weapons and that sort of thing, and then you are overcrowded to 

the point to where if it is an outright serious act that they deem 

serious, you have no place to lock these inmates up. 

Our special housing unit, which is our jail inside the prison, is 

full. All these places are full. And our numbers in the high security 

prisons are something, unless you really know how the system operates. We have decreased the number of available beds for high 

security offenders. As the Director testified, the number of inmates 

being involved in gangs is probably higher than it has ever been 

before. And when you have that many inmates as part of gangs, 

you are going to have a little more violence. It may not always be 

directed towards the staff, but staff get injured when they respond, 

trying to break it up. Then the aggression turns towards the staff. 

The numbers are high, and they have increased every year the way 

we have calculated our numbers of assaults on staff. 

But you have got to be able to supervise these inmates. And we 

do not have the overall supervision we once had to maintain real 

secure environments. Although we do the best we can, and we 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
554 

think our staff are very professional, it has still gotten overwhelming. 

If I can make one more point on that question? I visited two high 

security prisons this week before I came to D.C. One, United States 

Penitentiary in McCreary, Kentucky, and another, United States 

Penitentiary in Lee, Virginia. And when I went to the prison in 

Lee, Virginia there was an incident that I was not even aware of 

that occurred on January 25th where they had a disturbance on 

their recreation yard. 

It was actually during the day watch hours, and because their 

staffing level is not at a great extent they were doing what is called 

annual refresher training. Which means in a three-week period you 

try to get all your staff in that institution trained, so you break it 

down by a third. The disturbance occurred, when most of the staff 

were down at the training and not up there at the general institution. And there was live round fire shot from the towers to quell 

the disturbance and to get the inmates on the ground. They resisted the warning shots, dispersionary rounds first, and then live 

fire rounds after that. They continued to riot out there. So an officer went out there. The last thing he remembered is an inmate had 

a weapon and he tried to tackle him. And the next thing he knew 

he was in the hospital, carried out in the ambulance. 

Well, the union insisted I talk to this guy. So I went and talked 

to him yesterday. And when I went into the office what he said to 

me was, ‘‘I’m okay.’’ And then he broke down and said, ‘‘But you 

know what? People don’t understand my family suffers as much as 

I did through this whole thing.’’ It’s the stress everyday of not 

knowing what is going to occur, and not having the staff there to 

respond that is affecting the mental health of our staff as well. And 

that is something we wanted to make sure that we got across to 

you, the Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, thank you. What do you think is the appropriate baseline measurement for adequate staffing? We talked 

about that with the Director this morning a bit. What do you think 

ought to be the baseline off of which we work? And as I understand 

it, the Bureau goes through an exercise of determining need and 

then they generate an authorized number based on that. And it is 

off that authorized number that we measure percentages, and the 

adequacy of the personnel, the number of correctional officers and 

correctional staff otherwise. What is the right base? What is the 

right process to go through? 

Mr. GLOVER. Mr. Chairman, we really believe that the ratio is 

the way to go. When we had a low ratio, 1 to 3.5 inmates in the 

late nineties, early two thousands, you did not have us up here 

screaming for staff, and you did not have us up here telling you 

about these horrific assaults and those kind of things. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would the ratio be different today than it was 

back then? 

Mr. GLOVER. It actually probably should be lower. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They say that with the modern prisons, the way 

they are designed, they should take less staff. 

Mr. GLOVER. Our problem with that model is this. Yes, we have 

new, triangular-shaped units. And so what their theory was is you 

could put one person in the middle of that unit at a desk and he 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
555 

or she could see the entire unit. And that’s their theory on observation. That one person is dealing with inmates that are more violent 

than they were ten to fifteen years ago. I started in 1990, when 

there were a lot of white collar criminals, there were some RICO, 

those types of offenses. And now there are hard core drug dealers, 

gang inmates. It’s a much different profile. 

Our theory is is that the penitentiaries back then, if you walked 

through Lewisburg, or Atlanta, or Leavenworth back twenty years 

ago, or fifteen years ago, and you walked down into the units, they 

had the high range tiers. There was a tier, sometimes six deep, or 

six high. There was an officer on every tier, not on the unit. And 

now you have one person, or two, for that same unit and that tier 

system. And when they went to these triangle units where you can 

see everything their theory was, ‘‘Well, we will put one person in 

there and they can watch.’’ And in some cases, I have to tell you, 

they vacate one side. They have a triangle unit here, they have a 

connector hallway, and they have a triangle unit here. And at night 

they will vacate one of those units. And so the officer goes from 

here, through there, through the hallway, and down into the other 

side. And they are supposed to monitor both sides all night long to 

make sure nobody gets hurt. 

It’s not working. Anybody can sit here and say, ‘‘Well, there’s just 

a blip in assaults.’’ Every time there’s a blip in assaults that is one 

of us getting carried out the door. So when there is this little up 

tick, as they like to call it, an up tick in assaults, that means one 

of our guys just got carried out. And we do not appreciate it. 

Last year we testified at the Judiciary Committee and we testified here that they really should at least go back to a model of having two officers per unit. And work as a team. Just like you do with 

Capitol Hill Police. Just like you do with other law enforcement. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That kind of feeds into the need for modeling, 

a need based—— 

Mr. GLOVER. Right, but they are not looking at it that way. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what I am saying is, you can say, ‘‘Okay, 

you need actually during the night a correctional officer on both 

sides.’’ So there would be disagreement about that need. But that 

is not a ratio guide to what your staffing needs are, your requirements are. That is a, ‘‘We need this, and we need that,’’ and then 

you build up from that how many officers you need for a particular 

institution. That is the way I understand they get their authorized 

number, that ‘‘this is what we need’’ process, and then they make 

their request for funding based off that as it is impacted by OMB. 

And so that is how we get up to an on-board versus authorized 

staffing level of 92 percent. 

Mr. GLOVER. Our issue with the ratios—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you are saying that that is not—— 

Mr. GLOVER. Well it is not working. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You disagree with that? 

Mr. GLOVER. We disagree with that. We believe that the ratio is 

the first step in bringing some sanity back to the process. Because 

like they told you today, and like you are hearing from us, you are 

going to add 14,000 inmates over the next two years. We told you 

that in 2005 and 2006 we cut 2,300 positions. This past year we 

added 700 at the end of the year, and we are going to add 900 at 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
556 

the end of this year, and we did not add any the year before. So 

you are basically talking about 21,000 inmates that have been put 

into the system with about 1,600 staff added. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know, that is an impressive comparison when 

you get that on a chart. 

Mr. GLOVER. That is the problem. I mean, the big states all look 

at the ratios. They are 1 to 3, 1 to 5 in California, Texas, Florida, 

Pennsylvania, the larger systems. So that is why we are staying 

with that model. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Were you here today when Mr. Lappin testified? 

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, sir. 

WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR INMATES

Mr. WOLF. What do you see is the impact on the reduction with 

regard to the work opportunities? 

Mr. GLOVER. Well I can tell you at our facility, FCI Loretto, we 

used to have a UNICOR factory that ran electronic cable. We had 

about 500 inmates that worked in that factory. We ran two full 

shifts. And now we are down to less than 300, 235 inmates working 

in that factory on one shift. Inmates have gotten in fistfights on 

who should have been laid off. So that causes a problem when 

you—— 

Mr. WOLF. They wanted to work? 

Mr. GLOVER. Right. One inmate got laid off, the other inmate did 

not. And one inmate took, offense as to why he was laid off and 

the other inmate was not, so they got in a fight. So both of them 

end up in our segregation unit, which does not help anybody. I 

think part of the assault issue is when the Defense Authorization 

Bill passed with that language. We told Chairman Levin at the 

time that this was going to cause a big problem in the system. He 

said, ‘‘Take it up with the Judiciary Committee.’’ 

Mr. WOLF. And I know Levin was a bit supporter of that. 

Mr. GLOVER. And between him and Congressman Hoekstra at 

the time, there was no getting around it. And so we have eaten it 

ever since, frankly. Our staff, there is nothing that I know of that 

keeps the place humming like 300 or 400 inmates getting up in the 

morning, going to main line, eating, and heading to work. And then 

when they come back up at lunch, they head back down, they work 

some more. They come back. They all kind of program themselves. 

They do not want to lose their jobs. You do not see as many incident reports from those inmates. You do not see violence. 

We had a riot at Bastrop, Texas one year where the inmates in 

UNICOR actually locked the doors and would not come out. The 

other inmates were egging them on to come out, and they would 

not cross, basically, out of the factory because they did not want 

to lose their factory jobs. 

A lot of those inmates send money home. As I started to say before, what we are seeing is a big drop in commissary sales, the inmate trust funds. So there are not a lot of inmate programs that 

can be paid for out of the trust funds because the inmates do not 

have the funds to buy out of the commissaries. And so then you 

deal with theft out of main line, you know, stealing whatever they 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
557 

can take out of there to go cook upstairs. And so you are dealing 

with that issue in the evenings. 

Mr. WOLF. How much would a prisoner have been able to save, 

to take out? Let us say they were in for six or seven years. To take 

out when they left? 

Mr. GLOVER. I can remember at least a couple of inmates releas- ing with up to probably $500 or $600 in the bank. Or they send 

it home ahead of time. 

Mr. WOLF. And now in order to purchase at the canteen their 

family has to send money to them? 

Mr. GLOVER. They would get basically $5 a month, or $5 a week. 

You could make a lot of money in UNICOR. But now what happens, they are put on base pay, or maintenance pay. 

Mr. WOLF. And in UNICOR, what would a prisoner leave with, 

if he worked with UNICOR for five years? 

Mr. LOWRY. An inmate can actually make somewhere between $400 and $500 a month. A lot of that money, if they are not paying 

restitution or something such as that, a lot of them send that 

money home monthly, almost like child support if they have children. I mean, that is a fact. And, let us say they spend $30 to $50 

a month in the commissary just to buy some cokes and some chips 

or whatever else to have back at their cell. The rest of it is going 

to sit in that account, unless they spend some money, because they 

have to pay for their phone calls. And there is a new true link system for inmates to be able to email, and they have to pay some on 

that. But the rest of it is going to be savings. So if they worked 

in there five, six years, or however long, they are going to be able 

to take all that money with them, other than what they probably 

sent out to their family or spent in the commissary. 

REENTRY AND RESTITUTION

Mr. WOLF. So Mr. Chairman, on the whole reentry issue and restitution, they were giving money to the individuals that they would 

give money to, their families, the email. It’s pretty pathetic. I spoke 

to Senator Levin, too. I spoke to Mr. Hoekstra, too. I was not able 

to convince either of them. 

The last issue, we discussed prisoner radicalization, the need to 

know the number of inmates with gang affiliations. As representative of the workforce, what do you see with regard to the gang 

issue in general? And what do you see with regard to the problems 

with radicalization? 

GANGS

Mr. GLOVER. We have far more gangs than we had five or ten 

years ago, I can tell you that. 

Mr. WOLF. Is it actually getting to the point, I have had people 

tell me that in some prisons, now this may be state prisons, but 

in some prisons they actually almost join the gang as sort of a form 

of self-defense before things get too far along? 

Mr. GLOVER. Well they congregate, essentially together. If you 

watch the dining hall, the dining hall is your best example of who 

is in what. We have at our facility a number of sexual offenders. 

They all hang out together for self-protection, basically. They eat 

together. They move together. They recreate together. And you see 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
558 

the same thing with the gangs. You see the different groups. D.C. 

sentenced offenders that we get will come in and congregate together. That is how the system works. Some of them are wannabes, 

they try to, they want to be something. We have some white pride 

guys that show up and they want to be an Aryan Brother, in the 

Aryan Brotherhood. So they will act tough, and they will want to 

go out and fight with somebody right away to prove that that is 

what group they should be with. 

So, I mean, you see a lot of these gang groupings now a lot more 

than we used to see, I think, with the federalization of a lot of the 

state crimes. We have ended up with that mix. And as the Director 

mentioned, with the criminal alien portion, I think last year you 

had asked us about the MS–13s. And yes, we have groups of them 

that have formed inside. Now, the Bureau tries to ship them out 

to different places and keep them separated if possible. But it is 

a challenge. The gang issue is a challenge. 

RADICALIZATION OF INMATES

Mr. WOLF. What about the issue of radicalization with terrorism 

recruitment? There was a Foreign Relations Committee report saying that a number of people who were radicalized in prisons, blond 

haired, blue eyed types, went to Yemen. And now they are living 

in Yemen and they are concerned. 

Mr. GLOVER. Well I know we went through a process when, several years ago, there was a very lengthy process of looking at the 

imams and I know the Director took a lot of heat and so did the 

Bureau overall for some religious items that they wanted to take 

out of the libraries and the chapels. They tried to get a handle on 

that. I think they lost in the end and they had to put a lot of things 

back. But I think they are screening a lot of the religious leaders 

that come in to do volunteer work. They are screened, I think, a 

lot more than they used to be. But the one thing you cannot stop 

is inmate on inmate. I mean, inmates talking to inmates in the 

housing units, or going around together. That one is tough thing 

to stop. I do not know if we see that it is prevalent. I mean, it does 

not seem to be, we do not seem to be having sit downs of those inmates, or specific inmates from those types of inmates. I do not 

think we are seeing that. We see more of the gang activity, I think, 

than we do that part of it. 

RAPE IN PRISONS

Mr. WOLF. Last issue, on the prison rape issue, the regulations 

were to go in effect with fed, state, and local, everybody else. But 

it has been delayed. How bad of a problem do you see the issue of 

prison rape? And you had mentioned you were only given a half an 

hour of training? 

Mr. GLOVER. Last year we got I think a half hour of training on 

the Act last year. And so—— 

Mr. WOLF. And how bad of a problem do you see it in the feds 

but also overall knowing what you know about state and local? 

Mr. GLOVER. I know this. When I was Council President at Dublin there were six or eight staff prosecuted for abusing female inmates. 

Mr. WOLF. And that’s prisoner on prisoner, too. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
559 

Mr. GLOVER. Well that is the problem, I think that is the harder 

nut to crack. The staff seem to get caught. The inmate on inmate 

part is difficult because inmates do not want to come forward on 

other inmates. 

Mr. WOLF. How prevalent do you think it is? 

Mr. GLOVER. I do not think in our system that it is huge. I do 

not think it is a large number in our system. I think the people 

that go down that road, Tallahassee, Florida we had some issues, 

there were at least four or five officers that went to jail over that. 

Mr. WOLF. There was one that was involved in a shooting down 

there? 

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Had he been—— 

Mr. GLOVER. He was part of that indictment. 

Mr. WOLF. And did the shooting have a bearing on that? Was 

that one of the reasons? 

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Did you follow this? Why do you not explain what 

that was. 

Mr. GLOVER. Well, essentially what happened was they had 

sealed indictments on five staff. They allowed them to keep working, which we found out about after the fact and got pretty upset 

about. There was a disagreement, from our understanding, and I 

will just say our understanding because I was not in the room and 

Bryan was not either. There was a disagreement about when to 

pick these people up from work, or when to actually go get them. 

And it was decided, either by OIG, the FBI, or the Bureau, that 

they would wait until they were at work, and then they would 

come and get them. And we feel that it was part of a parade, that 

this was a show arrest. ‘‘Well, we are going to come in and we are 

going to take them off their posts in handcuffs, and show you not 

to do that.’’ Well, unfortunately one of those staff had a firearm in 

a backpack. 

Mr. WOLF. And he shot an OIG guy? 

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. Yes, he fatally shot an OIG agent, and he was 

shot and fatally killed as well. It was a terrible incident. As a result of it, we now search our staff. We have metal detectors that 

we have to go through to go to work in the mornings that we in 

the Bureau of Prisons never had to have. 

Mr. WOLF. And they were all involved in basically—— 

Mr. GLOVER. They were running some sort of ring with the female inmates at Tallahassee. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

VIOLENCE IN PRISONS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Just one follow up question to Mr. Wolf’s coverage of prison violence. Does the BOP solicit 

input from the AFGE on policies related to protecting staff from assaults by inmates? 

Mr. LOWRY. Our contract allows us to negotiate with the agency 

on any change in any policy, practice, or procedure. Whenever they 

are going to make a change to a policy or they are going to propose 

a new policy, it gets issued out to the field and then we do generally look at it. If we see concerns with it we invoke our rights 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
560 

to negotiate. And at that point there is a time frame set up for us 

to get together. There was a lot of, I would say, back and forth on 

some of these over the last few years. But since there has been a 

change to the Chair of the FLRA, things have gotten a little better. 

But we do have a right to negotiate, to provide input and suggest 

changes, and to bargain in good faith. You know it works between 

both parties. 

Mr. GLOVER. Can I add in just on that? The one thing that, well 

there are several things. The problem we have is that some things 

are considered internal security matters by law. And that is what 

they will rely on when they do not want to listen to us, is, ‘‘Well, 

that is internal security.’’ If they like what we are saying, then that 

is fine. 

The other issue for instance is, after the murder in Atwater, we 

had asked for pepper spray for the officers. Actually, we put pepper 

spray, batons, or tasers. Whatever the three that they wanted to 

work with. We were not hung up on any given one, but pepper 

spray seems to be about the easiest to train on and operate with. 

Many states and many local county jails carry it daily and there 

is not a huge issue with it. They have been completely resistant to 

add that to our ability to simply keep an inmate off of you. And 

I know you have heard from your folks at Hazelton. Over and over 

we have nothing to fight these guys off with. And in a perfect world 

they would not attack us. But that is not how it works. And so, all 

we have asked for is something simple that will keep an inmate off 

of you for a few more minutes to where you can get help there. We 

have brought that up to them repeatedly. 

We had brought up the issue of stab vests. They bought stab 

vests for the people that wanted them. But then what they did is 

they created a policy that said if you request a stab vest you have 

to wear it everywhere. Even our officers who are on duty working 

at a training center being trained, and not inside the secure facility, are technically required by their policy to wear the vest. They 

made it so unworkable that the staff just turned them back in. I 

have no idea how much money was spent on that. But I bet you 

it is a lot, when you consider those vests are $300 or $400 apiece. 

So there are things that we wanted, or that we have asked for 

for safety measures. The two officers per unit, we asked them to 

start at the high securities. There’s only eighteen to twenty high 

security prisons in the system out of the 115, with an average of 

six to eight housing units per. So let us say for the 2 to 10 shift, 

one shift you wanted to have two people in there. You are adding 

about, you are adding six positions. Now in the whole scheme of 

the Bureau of Prisons, twenty institutions, six to eight positions 

plus a relief, two more days of relief. There has got to be a way 

to sort that number out. And we just have not gotten there, over 

all this time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you can talk but you do not necessarily get 

satisfactory results. Let me ask you, the Bureau of Prisons seems 

to be developing this strategy of special management units to try 

to get out the most difficult inmates to handle. How is that working? And how do you think it might work when fully implemented 

with additional special management unit space? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
561 

Mr. LOWRY. I think we testified about some of that last year, and 

I have talked with you recently with the group from Hazelton 

about this. What the Bureau of Prisons did is over the course of 

probably the last five years, starting with United States Penitentiary Atlanta, and then United States Penitentiary Leavenworth, 

and then United States Penitentiary Marion, Illinois, United States 

Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, they changed their missions. All 

of those prisons now, even though the older ones for National Archive purposes were still called United States Penitentiary, they 

are medium security level prisons. We have only brought probably 

two to three brand new United States Penitentiaries on board but 

lost the mission of six or seven, probably, in the same time span. 

The high-security type of population has not decreased in the Bureau. Now, Marion, Illinois was kind of like ADX Florence, the 

Supermax. Its mission was to house probably the most dangerous, 

most incorrigible inmate who could not be on an open compound at 

any security level, and they are locked down twenty-three hours a 

day. Marion had the same mission. When they changed Marion’s 

mission, that was about 500-and something beds of those type of 

inmates. And they had no plan or initiative in place to replace it. 

What happened is, is the violence during that period of time, and 

you could see the spike even through the Director’s testimony, that 

it greatly increased from 2006 probably on up to about 2009. Even 

last year when he testified, it was pretty much to the fact that the 

only security level he would say that really increased was the high 

security level. And their reaction was to take Lewisburg and get rid 

of the open compound high security inmates. 

Now, we had not brought any more on recently. So those inmates, the probably 1,200, had to go get put in some security level, 

or their security level was decreased to medium to fit them into the 

system if probably over a number of years they had not been violent. And then they created two units, one in Oakdale, Louisiana 

and one in Talladega at medium security prisons, to just take units 

and turn them in to these special management units. 

To me, the inmates that are in a special management unit, they 

want to call it programming. The officers that work in there, or the 

staff that work in there, will tell you there is really no programming. They themselves just judge the good time these inmates, and 

I am not talking about giving them good time. The good time they 

may have for the next two years in what they would call phase one, 

and then give them a little more time out of their cell in phase two 

over the next year, and then phase three a little more time. And 

then see if they could possibly put them back in an open compound. 

But they are the same inmates that because of the violence, or because of the riots they have been part of, or because of the type 

of assault with weapons on other inmates, or the types of assaults 

on staff, they belong in ADX Florence, Colorado. But there is no 

bed space available. So they started out with units, and when that 

was not enough they took one whole institution and then—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, have we had experience with this long 

enough to know whether this strategy is beginning to work or not? 

Is it reducing violence in the other prisons? 

Mr. LOWRY. I think the number is over probably 2008 and 2009, 

when you asked the question earlier, probably are about the same 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
562 

numbers that have occurred. The only thing we do not know is 

when you determine how serious the violence is, you know, the disturbance on the yard, did they have to fire live round ammunition 

on the yard? And we would only do that, according to policy, to prevent the loss of life. Now, some of the things that occur with the 

weapons and that sort of thing, I do not think the violence has 

been deterred. I think what we did was at that period of time we 

took some of the most violent inmates that were already sitting in 

some of the special housing units, they were not even out in the 

open compound, they were locked down in our jail inside the prison 

and they moved them out. Well, now these places have filled back 

up. 

It may have deterred it for a short period of time. But that type 

of inmate—— 

OVERCROWDING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There are two different things here. Number 

one, is the space available in the special housing units and special 

management units, to be able to implement the program? And 

number two is, if you cannot implement the program, is it a sound 

strategy for reducing violence on officers in the prison system? And 

I guess what I am getting out of your testimony is that there is 

really not enough space. It is still too crowded, too overcrowded, 

and there are not enough management units in order to tell. Is 

that right? 

Mr. LOWRY. That is exactly what I am saying. But as you see the 

population expand, anywhere from 5,000 to 7,000 inmates in the 

numbers we are giving to you, that means that type of offender is 

increasing in our system as well. And we had not made any adjustments for them, and now we are having to react to it. Before these 

special management units were put on line, and then Phil wants 

to say something, is that they created these modified, alternate 

lock down units to try to deal with them first. And there were 

many institutions, including Hazelton, that had one of them, and 

they were staffing them with one officer. And then they started 

putting in regular SMU inmates, and it just turned into a mess. 

That is when the SMUs were created because officers were getting 

assaulted in there when they would open a door up for an inmate. 

They did not want to call it a special housing unit, where you had 

all these restrictions about policies that you were mandated to follow. So it was a free for all, and none of the policies mirrored each 

other from one another, and that is how they dealt with it. 

I think it is working at Lewisburg, but I think they are going to 

continue in another year to build another one, just like Thomson 

was testified to. We were thinking that would be open compound 

and alleviate some of maybe the overcrowding for the population at 

the highest security level. But if it is going to turn into an SMU, 

that does nothing for our really open compound United States penitentiaries. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, except that it takes a lot of the most difficult inmates out of those populations and into another population. 

So it should have some benefits? 

Mr. GLOVER. 1,600 beds. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
563 

Mr. LOWRY. One more thing about these SMUs is when you have 

more violent inmates like that locked down by themselves, they do 

not want a cell mate. In an open compound, where you say that 

you are going to have two in a cell or three, they are so violent you 

can not even house anybody so—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They are going to use Thomson for that purpose. 

It actually is only 1,600. 

Mr. GLOVER. There is not a real chance there to double bunk if 

you are going to go to an ADX environment at that facility. The 

only other thing I just wanted to add quickly, and I know our time 

is about up, Lewisburg was made an SMU. They had at least two 

stabbings in November, one with a spear out of a housing unit 

door. The officer was starting the feed and as he put the food slot 

down to put the food trays up, the inmate had crafted out of paper, 

rolled and rolled and rolled tight, and then he put a piece of the 

bedspring in the one end. And he actually stabbed an officer 

through that slot, it is on camera, into his thigh, and almost got 

his artery. So whether you are in an SMU, or whether you are in 

a regular SEG unit, at this point the way the population is going 

it is just not a good situation. 

Are they working? They might make it a little better at one facility. But Lewisburg is not as good as it was. And again, like Bryan 

was saying, they are not staffing them up. The Supermax at one 

time had five officers per range. If you went down range you had 

five officers with batons before you moved an inmate and brought 

him out of a cell. They are trying to get away at these SMUs with 

maybe two, sometimes three. They will put a three-man hold on an 

inmate, where three have to go down. But it is still a staffing problem. It goes back to that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, do you all have anything else that you 

want to speak to before we bring the hearing to a close? This is 

your opportunity. 

Mr. LOWRY. Sure. Our issues are not going to change much. 

Until the funding increases here, and then sound initiatives are 

put into place, there is going to be violence in prison. There has 

been a lot of issues talked about, whether it is on staff or our mission is to make sure that these inmates are safe and we treat them 

humanely and protect the public, and keep them incarcerated inside. Our staffing ratios have to improve. It is detrimental to our 

ability to manage the populations, as well as to keep ourselves as 

safe as possible. The numbers are responders. At any given time 

anything can happen in a prison setting. And just in my opinion, 

the higher security level the more dangerous the individuals are incarcerated there, and the more violent they probably could become. 

Not that incidents cannot occur at any level, because they most certainly have and they still do. But your numbers and your ratios are 

going to be at the higher levels. But the staffing ratios at every 

level right now, they have at camps almost got down to where you 

just have cameras watching inmates, which is very unsound to the 

communities they are in. At low security basically cameras and 

sometimes you have one correctional officer that used to work one 

unit, with 150 inmates to one on the off shifts. You may have some 

additional correctional workers there in the daytime, but that correctional officer is running the unit. And now you have this correcVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00563 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
564 

tional officer working two units. And in some places they have 

worked three by themselves. And you are talking 450, 500 inmates. 

When you bring up things like the Prison Rape Elimination Act 

and other things about our concern to do that, I can as an officer 

only be in one place at one time. You have gotten me taking on 

more than anything I have ever done before as an officer moving 

around the unit. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It sounds like a lot of territory to cover. 

Mr. LOWRY. How do you expect me to watch it all? The inmates 

know where I am at any time, if they want to move contraband or 

even go further with more acts of violence against other inmates. 

They have got the ability to do it. We have lost our supervision. 

And I really believe we have lost our way inside the Bureau. 

Now, I do not believe anybody, from the Director to anybody else, 

wants to see anybody get injured or hurt, especially staff. But if we 

can not supervise our population, we cannot stop them from manufacturing weapons, because they are doing it. From all kinds of 

means, as Mr. Glover said, but they have access to all kinds of 

plastic, all kinds of other things. Drugs, other contraband such as 

making homemade alcohol. I mean, this stuff is prevalent at almost 

every institution because we are not out where we are viewing everything like we did before when we had more staff. 

But these staff are also, given us the ability in case an inmate 

aggressively attacks the staff or a disturbance occurs, our response 

time is quicker. Our response time is slower now with less staff. 

And there are some shifts where you just have a skeleton crew. 

Where in the daytime they will say, ‘‘Oh, our ratios are great.’’ Because you have 200 staff on day watch. But you get to a low security prison, and you might have thirteen staff now at that institution with 1,700 inmates. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lowry. Mr. 

Glover, do you have anything you would like to add? 

DRUG TREATMENT

Mr. GLOVER. Just a couple of things. I know what came up in 

the hearing this morning, there was a little bit about drug treatment. And I heard a ratio of 1 to 25. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. GLOVER. We have 1,400 inmates at Loretto, and we have one 

drug treatment specialist. So I do not know if that is how many 

are supposed to be sitting in group together, or that is certainly not 

the ratio of drug treatment specialists to the inmate population, I 

do not think. I am not sure how it came out this morning. But I 

wrote that down because I know we—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is the way it came out in my mind. 

Mr. GLOVER. Well, you know, like I said, it may be one and they 

run a group of twenty-five inmates at a time, maybe. I do not 

know. But that is certainly not the ratio. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would be a lot of groups. 

Mr. GLOVER. I am trying to be kind. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you do not want to confuse the record. It 

is—— 

Mr. GLOVER. No, I am trying not to do that. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
565 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think you made it clear to begin with. 

Mr. GLOVER. But that is a real question for us because I understood that originally to be funded out of a separate—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But I think what he was saying, and this would 

be an extreme example. If he had 1,400 inmates and I do not know 

how many of those, what percent would need drug treatment. But 

what percent? Fifty percent? 

Mr. GLOVER. I am going to say probably a majority with the population that we have with drugs and alcohol. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, his point was that there would be a waiting list, but they would maintain that 1 to 25 ratio in the treatment environment. So they would not have anymore, so there 

would be—— 

Mr. GLOVER. I just think that is—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. 1,375 people waiting for—— 

Mr. GLOVER. Yeah, there are a lot of people waiting—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. The next class. 

MONITORING OF INMATE COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. GLOVER [continuing]. For a little help. And the only other 

issue that I thought might need to be clarified, there was a discussion about communication issues and monitoring mail, telephone, 

and visits. Well I do not think we are doing that great on telephone 

monitoring. We have a telephone monitor at certain facilities. 

Sometimes that person is pulled to work housing units, other areas 

of the prison. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is it random monitoring? Is it random? 

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, it is. Now there are some alert lists where you 

will get certain inmates that 100 percent of their calls have to be 

monitored. But that is not all the inmates. And so the rest of it is 

all scattered, scatter shot. 

EMAILS OF INMATES

The other thing is, they just created here in the last year this 

true link system that is allowing inmates to use email. And we 

have heard, not in all cases, but we have heard from some of our 

locals that they have a concern over the security of the system. 

BOP is saying that it is a locked in, secured system where the inmates send the email, it sits for twenty-four hours, the computer, 

I guess, has words that will key, supposedly, although—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Screen it? 

Mr. GLOVER. I guess screen the mail, and then it will be sent. 

And then the message will come in. I have been told by at least 

three or four institutions that they are into the thousands on these 

emails. And so—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Backlogged? 

Mr. GLOVER. Well just not monitored. I mean, just, that are 

going to go out and who knows? Our only issue with bringing it up 

to the Committee is we just want it on the record because, as with 

the letters that came out of ADX and went to Spain, as with the 

phone calls that have occurred that Mr. Ruppersberger and others 

were very concerned about last year with setting up hits on staff 

and other things that occur, you know, running criminal enterprises—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
566 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, we will follow up. 

Mr. GLOVER [continuing]. Well, now we have this on top. And 

again, we have been telling you about the staffing levels for three 

years and we created a new system to give more communications. 

And I, you know, I understand what they are trying to do. You 

know? An inmate that communicates with their family members is 

supposed to be better at progressing back into society and all that, 

and that is great. But it does create at some level a management 

nightmare. So we thought we should at least bring that to the 

Committee’s attention. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you all very much 

for your appearance here. Thank you for the good work you do. I 

can tell you, it gives us an insightful perspective on the Bureau of 

Prisons and very much complements our oversight of the Bureau. 

And it also lets us know where we can be helpful to those who are 

really on the front line doing this job. And it is a tough job, you 

do a great job at it, and we appreciate your letting us know what 

your special needs are. So thank you very much for your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. GLOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(567) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010. 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS (OJP) FY 2011 BUDGET 

WITNESS 

HON. LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order, and we will all 

come together. Good morning. We are pleased to welcome the Honorable Laurie O. Robinson, the Assistant Attorney General for the 

Office of Justice Programs. Ms. Robinson, this is your first appearance here since your confirmation in November. But it is not your 

first time testifying before Congress on the Department of Justice 

grant programs. And you bring with you a wealth of experience 

from many years in the same position during the Clinton administration as well as other substantive positions related to the field of 

criminal justice. And the Department is lucky to have you back. 

Welcome, and we appreciate having you back. 

The Subcommittee has made increasing investments in the Office 

of Justice Programs over the last few years, including $2.77 billion 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and $3.35 

billion in the fiscal year 2010 CJS bill, an increase of $200 million, 

or 6.4 percent, above the prior year level. And we look forward to 

working with you to achieve significant progress in the areas that 

these increases represent. 

Last year we held a series of hearings focused on prisoner reentry and justice reinvestment with a focus on evidence-based practices that are helping to reduce incarceration and recidivism and 

that are giving people a second chance at a productive life. Two of 

the major lessons we learned from those hearings is first there is 

good evidence about what works and we should be doing more to 

disseminate that information to practitioners around the country 

and use federal funding to help leverage evidence-based approaches. And second, we need to keep investing in research that 

will help us further refine what works and help us discover new, 

even better strategies and approaches. 

There are a number of new initiatives proposed in your budget 

that seem to be informed by these lessons and we will want to hear 

from you in more detail about how they would work. There are also 

proposed cuts to some existing programs and we will want to ask 

you about the rationale for that. 

I now call on Mr. Wolf and your testimony will proceed after Mr. 

Wolf has an opportunity to make a statement. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Robinson, we want to 

welcome you and appreciate you being here today. We support a lot 

of your programs at DOJ that assist the state and local government. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
568 

I am concerned about the decision to divert funding away from 

some of the critical improvement programs. Prescription drug monitoring, this problem is growing unbelievably around the country. 

The prison rape prevention, I think Eric Holder when he leaves office will go away feeling great disappointment in himself in the fact 

that the failure for the administration to deal with the prison rape 

thing. Every day this issue is growing and growing, and yet the administration is just kind of almost walking away from it. The methamphetamine enforcement. So some of those concern me. 

Finally, your budget actually reduces funding for victims of trafficking. I do not understand; this area, the Washington, D.C. area 

now is becoming actually a center for trafficking of victims. We 

think in terms of Thailand or Albania. But it’s now Virginia and 

the District of Columbia. And so we will have a lot of questions 

that will get into that area. But I do not know why the administration would want to reduce the funding for victims of trafficking. 

So, but anyway we look forward to your testimony and we will 

ask some questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

Ms. ROBINSON. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Wolf, and 

certainly distinguished members of the Subcommittee as they arrive, I am very pleased to be here today to talk about the President’s budget request for the Office of Justice Programs. I had the 

privilege of coming before this Subcommittee many times when I 

served as Assistant Attorney General in the nineties. And again as 

a private citizen, as you may recall, three years ago at your invitation. I am very pleased to be back at OJP and very honored, Mr. 

Chairman, to appear before you today. 

OJP’s mission is to help reduce crime and improve the administration of justice at the state and local level through innovation, research, and programs. The President’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2011 includes almost $3.1 billion to support OJP’s activities. 

The request reflects four themes that I view as central: strengthening partnerships with state, local, and tribal stakeholders; restoring the role of research in criminal and juvenile justice policy 

and practice; promoting evidence-based approaches to crime and violence; and ensuring fairness, transparency, and effectiveness in 

grant administration. 

To take the first of these, one of the reasons I was willing to return to OJP was to help the Department reestablish strong relationships with its state, local, and tribal partners. I view outreach 

by OJP to the field as crucial. And very early in my tenure last 

year I held a series of listening sessions with our constituents to 

hear from them what the agency was doing well and what we needed to be doing better. The centerpiece of our commitment to states 

and communities on the funding front in my view is the Byrne JAG 

program, a vital source of funding for state and local law enforcement. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes 

$519 million for this critical program, the same amount Congress 

appropriated in the current fiscal year. 

A second of my goals in returning to OJP was to help restore the 

role of science in our work in criminal and juvenile justice. In an 

era of limited financial resources it seems to me we have got to emVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00568 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
569 

ploy smart on crime approaches. This means learning as much as 

we can about what factors contribute to criminal behavior and 

what programs work in reducing crime. In short, we need a robust 

research program, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. And that is 

uniquely a federal role. To support that, the President’s budget 

calls for a 3 percent set aside of all OJP grant and reimbursement 

funds. That is in addition to amounts requested for OJP’s research 

evaluation and demonstration program and the criminal justice 

statistics program. All told, $189 million is requested for research, 

evaluation, and statistical activities in fiscal year 2011. 

Third, a corollary to OJP’s role in providing basic social science 

research is helping states and localities put into place crime fighting strategies that work, that are based on evidence of effectiveness. That, in my view, is critical. The President’s budget request 

thus dedicates funding to an evidence integration initiative that 

would assess our understanding about what works in reducing and 

preventing crime. It would also help us determine how to use that 

information to fight crime more effectively. Two important elements of that would be an online ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse, that 

you may remember, Mr. Chairman, I suggested when I testified 

back in 2007, and a diagnostic center or help desk, as I call it, to 

assist jurisdictions in accessing OJP resources, technical assistance, training, and how to implement evidence-based approaches. 

The President’s budget also proposes a number of programs that 

would promote evidence-based practices. These include funds for 

smart policing and smart probation initiatives that link research to 

practice. $37 million would go toward a comprehensive initiative to 

address children exposed to violence. $12 million is also proposed 

for a gang and youth violence initiative. 

Finally, as we work to support our state, local, and tribal partners we have a crucial responsibility to be good stewards of federal 

funds. Last year OJP made almost 3,000 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Later corrected to ‘‘3,900.’’] awards under the 

Recovery Act. I am proud that the Justice Department was the cabinet agency with the fastest rate of Recovery Act awards. We got 

99 percent of our funds out the door in seven months. In spite of 

that significant increase in grant activity, OJP has improved its 

processes for ensuring open and fair competition. And I want to tell 

you I take that very, very seriously. In addition, I have insisted 

that we post information about all our grant awards on the Web. 

FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with this budget OJP looks forward 

to working with Congress and this Subcommittee to ensure that 

public funds are used effectively and transparently to promote 

smart on crime policing. Tough choices needed to be made in this 

process in this tight budget year. I know there is not agreement on 

all the offsets proposed in this budget, but I am very pleased to 

have the chance to be here today to talk with you about it. 

And I am now happy, of course, to answer your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
570 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1003 here 56795B.139
571 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1004 here 56795B.140
572 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1005 here 56795B.141
573 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1006 here 56795B.142
574 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1007 here 56795B.143
575 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1008 here 56795B.144
576 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1009 here 56795B.145
577 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1010 here 56795B.146
578 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1011 here 56795B.147
579 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1012 here 56795B.148
580 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1013 here 56795B.149
581 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1014 here 56795B.150
582 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1015 here 56795B.151
583 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1016 here 56795B.152
584 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1017 here 56795B.153
585 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1018 here 56795B.154
586 

THE PURPOSE OF JUSTICE GRANTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Ms. Robinson. Just to help frame the 

questions that we will have about various existing and proposed 

grant programs, I would like first to ask you to elaborate on a more 

philosophical question about the basic purpose of the Justice grant 

programs. And I noticed you have implemented an OJP-wide evidence integration initiative. Let me ask you, other than to supplement the criminal justice budgets of state and local and tribal law 

enforcement, and the related budgets of nonprofit organizations, 

why do we need Department of Justice grants? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, that is a very good question. And I think, 

stepping back, one needs to reflect on what the federal role is vis– 

a–vis state and local criminal justice. Because as a student of this 

area over many years, I think we can look back at the President’s 

Crime Commission report in 1967 which talked about the federal 

role in leadership in this area. What it talked about and it is recognized that more than 90 percent of the criminal cases in this country, of course, are handled at the state and local level, not at the 

federal level. So what, it asked, is the federal role here? And what 

that Commission’s report talked about more than thirty-five years 

ago is still true today. And that is that the federal role is really 

about promoting innovation. It is something that no one state or 

locality can do, but the federal government is uniquely capable of 

doing. And OJP’s predecessor agency, LEAA, and OJP have done, 

I think, a tremendous job over the years in doing that. 

Let me give you a couple of examples. The bullet proof vest came 

out of LEAA’s research. The victim witness units that are now 

prevalent across the country came out of work from LEAA. So that 

would be one example. Developing knowledge about what causes 

crime and what interventions can help stop crime. That is something, again, no one locality can do, but funding research in other 

words. Diffusion of that research, the ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse 

idea of spreading knowledge would be another area. Collecting and 

disseminating statistics about crime. No one city or state can do 

that on a national level, the federal government can. Another area 

is training and technical assistance. This is the best spent federal 

money, in my view, of anything we do at OJP, is that training and 

technical assistance. And it is a very tiny percentage of the overall 

budget, but it is some of the best spent federal funding. So these 

are unique federal roles. 

EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Obviously you feel that we could better target 

funding to evidence-based approaches, and rely on that. I mean, 

your creation of the evidence integration initiative. Why do you not 

talk about that a little bit for the Committee and elaborate? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I was pleased in your opening statement 

that you talked about the importance of building knowledge, and 

the research in the reentry area in particular. And I think in the 

last decade the criminal justice field has become far more sophisticated about understanding not just the academic side but that the 

practitioners in the field are enormously more sophisticated about 

understanding the need to know what works. And part of it is drivVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00586 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
587 

en by the tightening of resources, and part of it is driven by the 

much greater sophistication of practitioners many of whom, you see 

police chiefs for example across the country, including my colleague 

here who is the Director of the COPS office, who have advanced degrees. Who are here and bring tremendous knowledge to their 

work. And they know that data-driven approaches, research-based 

approaches can make the difference between being effective in addressing crime and not. 

When I returned to OJP one of the reasons I was willing to do 

this is because I think it is so important to cross the divide between academia and practice and policy. And I thought there was 

much more that we could be doing in government and in OJP, in 

particular. What we are doing with the evidence integration initiative, or E2I as we call it, everything in government having an acronym, is to encourage greater research, yes. But also application of 

research into the programs that are funded at OJP and greater 

generation of knowledge. We also want to be distilling information 

from research and translating that better for the field. There is a 

lot of information that we have learned from research that is sitting in academic journal articles. Busy police chiefs and busy practitioners do not have time to read those journal articles. We have 

got to distill that information and get it out to the field, and that 

was my idea behind this ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would like for you to apply that in the real 

world, with this example. I have funded, or earmarked, I notice 

that was among your cuts, these earmarks. A program in 

Monongalia County, West Virginia which has migrated to some of 

the surrounding counties just because the law enforcement community has done it. But to achieve better interoperability of communication and therefore better policing. We have talked about communication and interoperability here for years. And it seems to be 

an elusive, and perhaps because it is very expensive, but an elusive 

goal. 

But I visited with them over the district work period and it is 

clear that they are really moving forward. It is clear that they are 

really trying to reach out for all of the information, and through 

resources at their fingertips. But it is also clear that it is very difficult and it certainly falls short of being totally successful. And in 

sitting there talking with them, and this was a group, the principal 

fundee, the beneficiary of the grant which was the police chief of 

the City of Morgantown. And the sheriff and all the surrounding 

counties were there and even, I mean all the surrounding communities within Monongalia County were there. And then there was 

even a representative from, I had a meeting the next day and there 

were representatives from other communities. 

But they had gone really far without someone who really had 

this technical capability and be able to pull it together. And some 

of the issues they were dealing with were incompatibility of systems, the failure of different systems to overcome that incompatibility with patching or whatever. And I was sitting here listening 

and I was thinking, ‘‘Well, there is some proprietary issues that are 

at play, here.’’ There is, you know, some competitiveness at play, 

and our system is better than that system. And, you know, you 

cannot change the system, or you cannot patch the system without, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
588 

you know, all this. There just seemed to be a whole lot. And I was 

sitting there thinking, ‘‘Wow, these people technical assistance. 

They need somebody to define how to do this.’’ 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So how would what you are talking about here 

translate into the real world? And where do these kinds of folks 

plug into that kind of information? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, that is a really good question. One of the 

things besides the ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse that we have proposed is what we have called a diagnostic center, or help desk. So 

those folks could call the help desk, in which we would have a live 

person or set of persons, or they could come in via the web, via 

email, and ask, put their questions to them. And these individuals 

would not be, probably, skilled enough in those technical questions. 

But they would serve as an effective traffic cop to send them to the 

folks in NIJ, probably, in the part dealing with technology, who 

could either answer those questions or hook them up with the real 

experts—who probably would not be on staff but part of our technical assistance teams on contract or with a grantee who could either help them via telephone, or via email, or even go onsite to 

help. So it would really be that kind of handoff. 

But it is exactly the kind of thing that the federal government, 

through the federal criminal justice assistance program, should be 

providing. If grant funds are going out there, but they cannot actually make it work, what is the point? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is this what you are talking about—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. When you are talking about evidence-based approaches, and the help desk—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, to—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. To transfer this information based 

on some determination of best practices and modeling and prototyping? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. It may not be research-based per se, but 

more actually kind of technical assistance and best practices, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well this communication area is really important and I am incredibly impressed with how far they have come 

on their own. The town of Grandview can go online and immediately access the sheriff’s department records and determine if 

there is a history there with regard to an individual, for example, 

and is it a recent history, is it an old history? What kind of history 

is it? And it is really a powerful system. And they have connected 

with an adjoining county. It happens to be my home county, Marion County, with the sheriff’s department. But visiting my county 

the next day, the sheriff’s department was connected with a proprietary communications system. But the chief of police had another 

system and they could not communicate. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And they talked about how difficult it would be 

to communicate. That is not a good thing. 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, no, and—— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
589 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is a good thing to have a lot of providers, I 

think, out there. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But it is not a good thing for them not to be able 

to communicate. 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, absolutely not. And these interoperability 

issues have been such an obstacle in the criminal justice system. 

With new technology, and I am not the best person to describe that 

new technology. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, but you are the best person to talk about 

the processes to get at these issues. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, exactly. Right. I think you have to be under 

thirty to understand this stuff. But I do know on the process that 

we have ways of overcoming that. And I think some of these new 

proposals can help us get a long way there. 

WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well elaborate on the clearinghouse—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And the help desk. Elaborate on 

that. 

Ms. ROBINSON. The ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse, as I said before, 

as I looked back on what we did with OJP in the 1990’s, after I 

left OJP I felt, and I think it is often easiest to be critical of oneself 

and what you did or did not do in a certain setting, I felt that one 

thing that I had not done sufficiently was work in this area to convey information from research. And in subsequent years, as you 

may recall, I went on and worked at the University of Pennsylvania in this area of evidence and best practices, and trying to 

translate for practitioners and policy makers. And I thought a 

great deal about what more the government could be doing here. 

And as I said during my testimony in 2007 I felt that one thing 

could be something like this clearinghouse. 

So we have been thinking a great deal about this at OJP in our 

evidence integration initiative. And the way that it would work is 

to look for what scientifically rigorous evidence has been found in 

different topical areas. People could access this via the Web and we 

would have that information available. Then the diagnostic center 

would be a separate operation that would be staffed by individuals. 

And as I said before, it could be accessed either by telephone or by 

email. 

And let us take a specific example. If I were the mayor of Des 

Moines and I had a problem with youth violence, I might first go 

to the clearinghouse, to the ‘‘what works’’ clearinghouse, to get 

some information more generally about what information I might 

access about programs. Once I had read that, though, I might say, 

‘‘Well, I really want some help on how I would actually go about 

pursuing this.’’ I could then call the help desk and say, ‘‘Well, I 

would like to pursue some of these gang programs,’’ as an example. 

‘‘How would I go about this?’’ The help desk, then, might give me 

advice on pulling together a strategic planning team within my jurisdiction, within my city, and suggest that I call some business 

leaders, criminal justice leaders, the head of probation, my police 

chief, maybe the faith based community, other folks to the table for 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
590 

some planning sessions. They might also have somebody from 

OJJDP go out and sit down with that group. We might have a consultant go out. That consultant might be a peer kind of mentor 

help. Maybe Denver has undertaken something like this, and we 

would have somebody from Denver go in and say, ‘‘Here is how we 

did it out in Denver.’’ So that would be more involvement than just 

a phone call. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the scope of the topics that people could 

call in on? Would it be from how you deal with reentry issues and 

recidivism issues to the interoperability questions that I referenced? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, it could be a broad scope. And I also envision, I know people have asked how many inquiries could you handle? I think it could be a whole scope of things because I envision 

somebody might also call up and say, ‘‘When is your Second Chance 

solicitation coming out?’’ We will say it is coming out Tuesday. So 

some of these will be very simple questions and some of them will 

be very complex. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Well surely the Department is getting these 

inquiries today? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How are they handled today differently than 

what you are proposing? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, the simple questions are handled all the 

time. We get calls, in fact dozens of calls everyday, ‘‘When is the 

Second Chance solicitation coming out?’’ Those calls are handled all 

the time. The other kinds of calls are handled in a variety of different ways. And many of them, for example, will call about, ‘‘Can 

you help on youth violence?’’ We will more readily say, ‘‘Here is a 

solicitation coming out.’’ Or, ‘‘Here are applications that you could 

pursue.’’ But we probably will not be able to get into it to this degree in an organized fashion of assistance in this way. 

I also am hoping that the Help Desk can serve in a better way 

as a road map for that mayor about accessing the variety of different programs in the entire Justice Department. I think it is unfair to your constituents to have to know where the School Resource Officers programs are in the COPS office, where programs 

are in the Office on Violence Against Women, in OJJDP, in this 

part of the Office on Victims of Crime. It is a very complex set of 

programs. 

EVIDENCE-BASED SOLUTIONS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well when you talk about evidence-based and 

developing programs, researching programs on the basis of evidence, does that imply that you are going to have evidence-based 

solutions to these inquiries? I have this community, we have a particular gang problem, or we have a particularly high volume of returning incarcerated people, we have a recidivism problem, we 

have a reentry problem. What are best practices? Is the person at 

your help desk going to turn around to the file cabinet and pull 

out, ‘‘Okay, in this situation well here is the best practices for 

that.’’ Or if someone calls on the interoperability question and says, 

‘‘How do we link this XYZ Company’s communication and data program that the sheriff really likes with the ABC Program. How do 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
591 

we link those together? Both of them are in love respectively with 

their own program, but their programs cannot communicate. Are 

you going to be able to turn around and say, ‘‘Well, we have researched that and here is where you get the patch.’’ Or—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. That is definitely the goal. I would make this caveat. There are a number of areas where we do not yet have research. And so in some areas, I will give you an example: For truancy, we do not have a lot of evidence yet. So we will be very clear. 

‘‘Here is what we know. We do not have a great deal yet in X area.’’ 

But yes, that is definitely our goal. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And your request is $6 million—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. For this? And what is the $6 million 

for? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, the $6 million would be for, part of it for 

the personnel to be staffing it and part of it would be for assembling the information. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Personnel, it is the personnel costs? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Mr. Wolf. 

PROGRAM CUTS AND ELIMINATIONS

Mr. WOLF. I am a little suspicious when you talk about the evidence-based issue. When I, one of the questions here is your budget 

request includes an emphasis on evidence-based approach to fighting crime. Evidence-based? How has your evidence-based approach 

affected your decisions to eliminate or significantly reduce funding 

for these programs? The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program? 

My sense is the evidence that Congress was interested and the administration was not. You thought maybe Congress would put it 

back so you took it out. The next program, the same thing would 

hold true. The RISS Program, we have had a lot of law enforcement people, evidence-based, write us about this and yet you have 

reduced that. The Prison Rape Prevention and Prosecution Program, which was my bill with Bobby Scott and Senator Kennedy 

and Senator Sessions in the Senate. The evidence is so evidencebased it is unbelievable that prison rape is bad. And yet the administration, and I am going to have a question, is reducing that. So 

the evidence proves that it is bad, the evidence proves that it is a 

problem, and yet the evidence-based program means that you are 

reducing the problem. The National White Collar Crime Center, I 

guess the evidence-based is that Congress is interested in it but the 

administration is not and you think it might be put back in so we 

have reduced it. And you can just kind of go on. 

PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION PROGRAM

Congress affirmed its duty to protect incarcerated individuals 

from sexual abuse when it enacted a prison rape program. Since 

then National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has studied 

and studied and studied and studied it. The cause of sexual abuse 

in confinement, the development of standards for reduction in sexual crimes. And set in motion a process once considered impossible, 

the elimination of prison rape. And now the Justice Department is 

cutting it. Why are you cutting the money for prison rape? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
592 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Wolf, I actually share your concern about the 

sexual assault issue in our prisons. I served on the Vera Prisons 

Commission in 2005 and 2006. Pat Nolan was a member of our 

Commission. 

Mr. WOLF. I work closely with Pat. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, and I know he served at that time on the 

PREA Commission. He and I have had many conversations about 

this. I actually admire your leadership on this issue and I wanted 

to fill you in on the work that OJP is doing in this area. 

Mr. WOLF. But the reduction and the fact that the Attorney General is kicking this can down the road for another year, it is almost 

every time I heard a report, there is another rape somewhere in 

a prison—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mm-hmm, right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Which happens more than a lot of people 

know. And I say, ‘‘What does the Attorney General think when 

somebody gives him a memo that says in Prison X in X state this 

took place to a young man or a young women.’’ What does Justice 

think? Justice, Justice, Justice. It is called the Justice Department. 

That is not justice. And the fact is you ought to go back today and 

just say, ‘‘Hey, Mr. Holder, I think we made a mistake. Let us plus 

this thing up, get the regs out, and move this thing.’’ Because the 

prison wardens will never want to do this. They will give you reasons over and over. And the Bureau of Prisons will give you the 

fifteen reasons why it is a problem. And the prison director in X 

state will give it to you, and the locality will give it to you. But 

during all that time, and there has even been stories of people that 

have been told if they do not cooperate they are going to be put in 

a cell with this big guy or something. And I just do not understand 

it. So I think the best thing you can do is just to go back and say, 

‘‘We made a mistake. We had a hearing today and Mr. Wolf raised 

it again. And I think we have got to put those regs out, get them 

implemented. We do not care what the prisons say, the wardens 

say anymore. We are going to deal with this issue.’’ And I just do 

not understand it. 

The Attorney General docked it the last time. But is that evidence-based? And you do not have to answer this, because it is not 

evidence-based. Because the evidence-based is that prison rape is 

a growing problem, a bigger problem, and yet this administration 

is doing nothing about it. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Can I just share with you that today we are putting out from OJP a solicitation for a prison rape resource center, 

with our current year money. We are very committed to putting out 

resource guides and toolkits to provide the states with information 

about how to deal with this problem. We are very committed to 

working on this. 

Mr. WOLF. Somebody once said if you really want to know a person’s priorities, look at the checkbook. Not at their language, but 

look at the checkbook. And if you look at the checkbook, your 

checkbook is showing you are putting resources in money and other 

areas and not in this. Spin and good words and things like that 

and press releases, but you are reducing this. And your reduction, 

I forget what it was. It was fairly significant. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
593 

This administration will never live this one down. Never, ever 

will it ever live it down. And I tell you, every time it takes place, 

and Holder hears a story, and I assume you have got reports going 

into the Attorney General, he should know because of his inaction 

this is continuing to take place. Now these are defenseless and 

helpless people. I mean, they have no advocacy. Other than Pat 

Nolan, and Prison Fellowship, and a handful of other people, they 

do not have any advocacy. You should be their advocate. Holder 

should be their advocate. And frankly, I think the Justice Department and Holder is not. So every time I get a report and see, I 

think automatically I go to the fact, ‘‘Holder, Attorney General does 

nothing, it is his fault.’’ 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

The second issue that I want to get to, this sort of is along the 

same lines with regard to the whole victim issue. Human trafficking, are you reducing funding for human sexual trafficking? 

Ms. ROBINSON. There is a $2.5 million reduction. 

Mr. WOLF. Reduction? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, there is. 

Mr. WOLF. People tell me that sometimes when you pick up the 

newspapers around the country and see some of the ads, they are 

basically brothels whereby people are sexually trafficked. Sexually 

trafficked by MS–13, by violent gangs. And probably in this area 

the reports that we get, and we just had a group come in the other 

day, in some of the embassies and some of the world banks and 

international groups, why would an administration reduce funding 

for human sexual trafficking? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, Mr. Wolf, I will tell you that this does remain a strong priority. There was an increase last year and this 

does remain a very strong priority not only for the Justice Department, but for the State Department, and for the Department of 

Homeland Security. We are holding a major conference on this 

issue for front line prosecutors, law enforcement, and victim services just in two weeks. One of my chief aides, Marlene Beckman, 

is the chief planner for that conference. We have the Secretary of 

Labor, Eric Holder speaking at that conference, 600 people coming 

to that. 

Mr. WOLF. But if Eric Holder is speaking, will the conferees be 

told that at the same time he is speaking he is also reducing the 

funding? Again, back to the checkbook issue. People can say what 

they want to say and give great speeches. But you really look to 

see where people put their money. Money is explaining something. 

And I read the report, Project Hope, we have 150,000 or more domestic women and young children the problem, and we are going 

to do something with regard to what I am getting, two groups came 

in last week, in this very, very region that is taking place that 

many people, you and others in the City, are going by, are passing 

by places whereby it has taken place. And the administration reduces the funding for it. 

I mean, in the stimulus there was funding for green technology 

to build solar panels and they gave the money to China. Whereas 

American citizens that are being sexually trafficked, and I had a 

report of a young person out in Northern Virginia the other day. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
594 

And I do not know that when I talked to the FBI, I do not know 

it is a priority with the FBI because I do not think they have ever 

heard the Attorney General ever speak about it. I do not think it 

is a priority with U.S. attorneys around the country, because U.S. 

attorneys literally take their marching orders from the Attorney 

General. And when I chat with them I am not getting any message 

that coming out of Washington they are saying, ‘‘Sexual trafficking 

is a priority of the Justice Department, and we want you to prosecute and aggressively go after it.’’ If you know these facilities are 

here, and here, and here, and young women are being trafficked in 

it, and if you know maybe that some World Bank people, and the 

administration does not do anything in its own region. And so they 

cut their money for that. 

I mean so I do think, and I think there is a truth as people can 

say how interested they are in something. But I think you really 

want to see where the dollars go. Because without the dollars I do 

not think you really you really, what can be done immediately to 

institute a greater cooperation between state and local governments, the FBI, and U.S. attorneys to close down sites where trafficking is taking place, remove the victims of trafficking, and prosecute the offenders? What can be done? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I actually do think that this is a strong priority. 

There is a great deal of attention that is being given to this issue 

in the Department. The Civil Rights Division has the lead on this 

but the Criminal Division is very involved. There are regular meetings. I see the coordination going on. There are regular sessions on 

this—— 

Mr. WOLF. But I have these groups come in to tell me the problem is flourishing unbelievably in this region. They said it is out 

of control. 

Ms. ROBINSON. It is a very big problem and it requires—— 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Mr. WOLF. Well who is the one person responsible in the Justice 

Department for it? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well ultimately the Attorney General, of course. 

Mr. WOLF. Well he is not doing much. So who is his person that 

he is saying, ‘‘I want you Mister or Misses to deal with this issue 

of sexual trafficking. I want to clean up the Washington, D.C. area, 

the Northern Virginia area, the Maryland area, the metropolitan 

area, so that we demonstrate here. And then I want it to be a priority for the FBI, the SACs all around that are involved, and I 

want it to be a priority with the U.S. attorneys.’’ Who is the person 

to do that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I will get back to you because I do not know who 

that one person would be. But we will certainly get back to you 

about that. 

[The information follows:] 

WHO IS THE ONE PERSON TO HANDLE THE SEXUAL TRAFFICKING ISSUE IN THE DC 

AREA? 

The Department has appointed a National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction who is situated in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and who is tasked with overseeing all the Department’s efforts with respect 

to the sexual exploitation of children. The Department has many resources directed 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
595 

to attacking the problem of the forced domestic prostitution, or commercial sexual 

exploitation, of children, and the sex trafficking of adults, both foreign and domestic. 

With respect to the commercial sexual exploitation of children within the United 

States, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

in the Criminal Division take the lead on prosecuting these cases. They are investigated primarily by the FBI through the Innocence Lost Task Initiative. Cases of 

the sexual trafficking of adults, on the other hand, are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and its specialized Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit. These cases are investigated by FBI and/ 

or ICE, although ICE frequently takes the lead on these cases involving foreign victims. There is a Task Force funded by the Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and chaired by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia to combat human trafficking in the D.C. metropolitan area. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I am going to hold you all accountable here. Because we are going to do something in this area. And even if we 

have to write the landlords who are running these businesses and 

begin to sort of, and put the pressure. But frankly, with the lack 

of funding that I see I find it hard to believe. Where is this conference going to be? 

Ms. ROBINSON. It is going to be right here in Northern Virginia. 

Mr. WOLF. Well you know, that is interesting, I am interested in 

the issue and nobody ever told me until just now. How long has 

it been planned? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I think it has been in planning for a couple of 

months. We will be delighted to have you come. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I will have a staff person go if I cannot go. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course, of course. 

Mr. WOLF. But we did not know about it. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, that is not good. I apologize. 

Mr. WOLF. It could not be because I am a Republican member 

on the other side? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course not, of course not. 

Mr. WOLF. I did not think so, and I know—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. I can assure that is not the reason. 

Mr. WOLF. Interestingly enough you know when I was Chairman 

of this Committee we funded two conferences, an international conference and a domestic conference. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. I do apologize. That is bad 

that we did not invite you. 

Mr. WOLF. I will have someone go. 

Ms. ROBINSON. I would love to have you come. Would you come? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I may or may not, I do not know what my 

schedule is. But I will have someone there. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Okay, great. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions but I will just 

kind of yield back for now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Good morning. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate your work and your testimony. And at 

the outset I want to say you have a superb Director of the COPS 

Office in Chief Melekian. And I say that not just because we had 

a chance to work together in his previous capacity, but he is enormously well thought of and just a superb choice for that job. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
596 

DNA RAPE KIT BACKLOG IN LOS ANGELES

I wanted to raise a couple of issues with you. One of the areas 

of my particular interest is in the use of DNA evidence. And as 

you, I am sure, are familiar we have a tremendous backlog problem 

in L.A. County and L.A. City. Thousands of rape kits that are still 

in the process of being analyzed, many of them bumping up or exceeding the statue of limitations. L.A. City and the County are 

struggling with their resources to get through that backlog. The 

Chairman has been very supportive in helping to provide funding 

to that region as well as the rest of the country in terms of DNA. 

In L.A. City now there is a second backlog, and that is what the 

City has done, what the County is doing to some degree, is sending 

these rape kits out to private labs because they do not have the capacity necessarily to hire the people internally to do the work on 

short order. The labs have done their analysis. But before they can 

be uploaded into CODIS they have to have 100 percent technical 

review. So there is a second backlog as the second review is waited 

to be undertaken. 

NIJ a couple of years ago, I think, recommended analyzing 

whether in some cases, or subcategory of cases, or all cases, to do 

away with the necessity of that second technical review. This is 

something I raised with the Attorney General as well as the Director of the FBI. I understand they are taking another look at this. 

But I would urge the DOJ to strongly consider doing away with 

the necessity of this second technical review by the government lab 

of the work of the private lab. And here is how I think it ought 

to work. There has never yet been a case, that I am aware of, 

where the government review of the private lab has turned out a 

problem with the DNA analysis of the private lab. What I would 

suggest is therefore rather than require the expense and the continuing backlog of this second review, is allow these certified private labs that have been checked out by the government to, once 

they conclude their results, to have those samples uploaded into 

CODIS. When there is a match, then require the second review. So 

when there is a match and you are actually going to utilize the results for something, then require the second review. That in and 

of itself would do a lot, at no cost, to get rid of the backlog. 

Now one of my colleagues in the Senate, I have seen from a hearing recently, has raised an issue with this as some effort by the private labs to, I do not know, if it is to get more work, or what the 

concern is. But this is not coming from the private labs. This is 

something that, in L.A. for example, is of great interest. With the 

L.A. Police Chief, with the Sheriff of L.A. County, this is something 

that will help law enforcement to get through their backlogs and 

also deal with their budgetary problems. So I would urge you to follow up on now a couple of year old, if not more, recommendation 

of NIJ, but also what we are hearing from law enforcement. And 

I wanted to begin by urging you to work with the FBI and see if 

we can do away with this unnecessary and expensive second review. 

I do not know if you want to comment on that. I have some other 

topics I want to raise to you also. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
597 

Ms. ROBINSON. Okay. Well, first of all it is good to see you, Congressman. Actually, I do not think NIJ had ever made a formal recommendation on that. But we have been asked to work with the 

FBI as it is looking at this question and we are happy to do that. 

I know this is an issue that is under review and it is a question 

on the table. So we are happy to participate in that and I know 

it is an issue that is now being looked at. So we are very happy 

to participate in that review. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And I just want to add a sense urgency to it, and 

I do not know how strong the language was at NIJ a couple of 

years ago. It may have been a suggestion rather than a formal recommendation. But, you know, as some of these cases are bumping 

up on the statute of limitations and the cities and counties are in 

no financial position right now, there is a real sense of urgency. 

The quicker those samples can be uploaded into CODIS the quicker 

we can take some dangerous people off the street. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, absolutely. 

HOPE PROGRAM

Mr. SCHIFF. So if I could just encourage you to move expeditiously on that I would appreciate it. 

The other issue I wanted to raise with you is a program that you 

are probably familiar with. It is the HOPE Program out of Hawaii, 

Steven Alm, Judge Alm out there, has done some great work in 

this program of graduated sanctions. I have introduced legislation 

to promote and expand this model to give a number of jurisdictions 

the opportunity to create this with a dedicated grant program. I introduced the legislation with one of my Republican colleagues, Ted 

Poe. And we would like to work with our Chairman and Ranking 

Member to see if we can address the issue in this CJS bill. Namely 

to create a dedicated pot of funding for grants for state and local 

courts to establish these kind of probation programs to reduce drug 

use, recidivism by requiring swift, predictable, and graduated sanctions. Would your office support such an effort? And will you take 

a look at this legislation and provide us with your feedback and the 

feedback of the Department? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, first of all, let me say I am a great, great 

fan of the Hawaii HOPE program, so I am delighted to hear that 

you have introduced this. Of course the Administration has not 

taken a formal position but I will tell you we are very strong supporters of that program. And it is an evidence-based program, as 

you know. NIJ has evaluated that program and found that it has 

terrific results in reducing future arrests. And so we would be very 

supportive of that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. You have testified here 

that your Byrne JAG program is your kind of flagship program to 

help state, local, and tribal communities. And you are looking for 

planning, more planning. What are you looking for differently from 

local, state, tribal communities in your budget requests that is not 

happening now? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
598 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, thinking back again on history, in 

the original LEAA program there was a requirement for comprehensive planning from the states under LEAA. And we think 

there is a lot of virtue in that, particularly in tighter fiscal times, 

to bringing all of the players to the table as states are thinking 

through how that money is spent. That there is a virtue in that, 

to have everyone sit down and think through kind of strategic planning with a comprehensive look at what the needs are. So there is 

just a virtue in that. And of course to think about, as they can, research-based approaches. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you know, we do not deal with this every 

day like you deal with it. So was that a success? Was the LEAA 

approach a success? And what are some examples of it being successful? And what are we doing differently today? Did we lose that? 

And is your recommendation, or your testimony here, reemphasizing it? Or reintroducing this comprehensive planning, fact-based 

approach? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, it was a success back in the seventies and 

eighties. And I think one reason for that, for those of us old enough 

to remember back that far, at that time there really was not a 

strong sense that there was a criminal justice system. So it was actually kind of an unusual concept at the time. I think we did lose 

some of that moving forward, when LEAA was abolished, and when 

there was less funding going to the states. So I think, that as budgets have become tighter, there is a more general recognition that 

there is a usefulness to doing this. 

Our partner organization, the National Criminal Justice Association, which is the association of the state administering agencies, 

which has a representative here in the room, actually feels as we 

do, that this is a step in the right direction, to encourage the states 

to do this. Many of them already do it. So I think there is an opportunity here for peer-to-peer encouragement and learning. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What federal assistance is available to state, 

local, and tribal communities to assist in this comprehensive planning process? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, we actually have given, late last year, at the 

end of the last fiscal year, a grant to the National Criminal Justice 

Association to provide technical assistance to the state agencies in 

this. And they are doing now regional training on a quarterly basis 

with those agencies along this line. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does that include every state in the nation? And 

to what extent are they assisting, and how comprehensively, tribal 

communities? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, they are assisting tribal communities, as 

well, in this. Some of this is done through webinars. So it is pretty 

cost effective. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And is every state participating in this process? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I know every state has been offered it. I do not 

know for sure if every state has taken advantage of it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What kind of information does OJP collect from 

grantees on how they actually use grant funding? And at what 

level of detail? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We collect a lot of information from them, obviously some of it is financial. But we collect programmatic informaVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00598 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
599 

tion, as well. For example, BJA collects through a system information on performance measures in addition to more narrative information. So that we can see on a quarterly basis, for example with 

drug courts, how many offenders went through, what kind of drug 

tests came back, so that we have success measures from that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just on that topic? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

RECIDIVISM AND PRISONER REENTRY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. As I mentioned in opening comments, we have 

spent a good bit of time on this Committee with hearings, informational hearings on recidivism, reentry issues, and how to do that 

well. What progress are we making with regard to devising different models, and proofing those models, and testing the success 

of different approaches to the issue of recidivism and successful reentry in different geographical and demographic areas? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I think we have a ways to go on it, to be candid. 

As I came back to OJP I asked for and was given briefings on what 

we now know about reentry. And I have to say, candidly, I was a 

little disappointed. I do not think that we have learned as much 

as I would have hoped we would have learned from the research 

today. I think from the generosity of what Congress has appropriated in the current fiscal year, with the $10 million that you 

gave us under the Second Chance Act, we have the opportunity to 

learn a great deal more. And we now have four solicitations on the 

street under that $10 million which will allow us to do some randomized controlled trials, which is the gold standard for research. 

This will help us to really learn much more definitively what really 

can make a difference in reintegrating offenders back into the community. Because I think, to date, we do not have the most definitive knowledge. 

And one of the reasons for this is because, to be honest, this is 

a very messy business, to state it somewhat in the vernacular. We 

have offenders moving back in very, very different circumstances, 

with very, very different backgrounds, with very, very different 

kinds of problems. So you do not have one type of offender moving 

back into one setting with only one type of issue. And some of the 

research to date is very unclear about what kind of interventions 

make a difference. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This solicitation, is it out? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, there are four of them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just briefly describe what they are requesting? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. Well, one of them is an evaluation of 

the demonstration programs that went out this past year under the 

2009 solicitation. One of them is an evaluation of the reentry courts 

solicitation. One of them is an evaluation of the National Institute 

of Corrections work that is now out there about reentry, which is 

a very good program. And then one is a field experiment, this randomized controlled trial, which is the most rigorous part of this. 

And that is the one that will be longer and yield the most information. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How long will that be? Five years? Ten years? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, no, I think it is probably three to four years. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
600 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we would be interested in looking at that. 

I will look forward to following up with you on that. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Excellent. 

[The information follows:] 

WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION PREPARED TO DO WITH REGARD TO THE PRISON

INDUSTRIES PROGRAM? 

The Administration regards Federal Prisons Industries (FPI) as one of the Bureau 

of Prisons’ (BOP) most important correctional programs, both because it reduces recidivism and because it assists in managing crowded federal prisons. The Administration is aware that FPI has suffered significant reductions in earnings over the 

past few years and, as a result has substantially reduced the number of inmate participants. To guard against future losses, the FPI began reorganizing operations in 

FY 2009 to further reduce overhead expenses, including: reducing inmate employment; delaying factory activations at new federal prison facilities; consolidating operations; and closing a few existing factories. Despite these efforts to create additional savings and efficiencies, it is possible that there may be additional measures 

taken. Currently, the FPI is assessing whether additional closures. reorganizations, 

or other measures are necessary. To ensure that FPI remains a viable and self-sustaining corrections program in the long-term that employs substantial numbers of 

federal inmates, FPI and BOP will be working with the Department of Justice to 

develop legislative proposals that would allow FPI to expand its market opportunities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

WORK PROGRAMS IN PRISONS

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the administration should be aggressive, and again it has not, on the issue of 

work in prisons. The failure to push aggressively the Congress to 

give prisoners work and dignity. Fewer than one in ten are now 

working. And, you know, we have had prisons for 234 years in the 

country. And I would urge you to be working with the Pew Foundation, too. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. WOLF. And Mr. Schiff mentioned the HOPE Project. I think 

it is a great project. We had the judge in, and he was part of that 

conference that we had. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mm-hmm, right. 

Mr. WOLF. But work. I have a proposal we are going to try to 

put on this bill, if we can. I talked to Mr. Conyers, he led me to 

believe that he was in support of it, that reinstitutes a significant 

work program in the prisons whereby prisoners are allowed to 

work on products that are no longer made in the United States. It 

is kind of a repatriation, if you will. If we no longer make televisions, and I am not sure television is the place to go. But if we 

no longer make televisions we would start making televisions in 

prisons. But I would urge you, and if you could get back to us, 

what is the administration prepared to do with regard to the prison 

industries program? 

Because you can study the reentries, and the problems, but everyone will tell you if a man or a woman is not given work, both 

dignity, skill, money that they earn whereby they can send some 

money to their family while they are in prison to maintain that 

continuity. And lastly, when they get out. I talked to a young prisoner who was released from a federal halfway house in Southeast 

Washington at 10 on a Saturday night with almost no money in his 

pocket. Now to be released in that neighborhood at 10 at night 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
601 

with almost no money and no skills, having never worked a day, 

and he was in two different federal prisons. So I think if you really 

want to do something dramatic it would be to use the political influence of the administration to push a work program, and work 

with the Chairman and others, to sort of get it in this bill. Because 

I do not think you are going to be able to solve the reentry problem. You cannot put a man or a woman in jail for ten years and 

not give him any skills, work, money, and then release him or her 

and have, and the continuity of the family, and everything else. 

So I would hope if you could give us some sense of what the administration would do, and if they would support. I was surprised, 

you know, you told Mr. Schiff you support Project HOPE, the 

HOPE Project. In the previous administration people were told 

never to tell what the administration’s position was. And you were 

very open. That was very courageous, I commend that. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yeah, no, remember I said the Administration—— 

Mr. WOLF. No, I thought you endorsed it and I thought that was 

very commendable. I was very impressed. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well I said the Administration did not support it 

but I liked it. 

Mr. WOLF. Well you are very courageous, so I would hope that 

you would tell me the same thing. That while you do not know if 

the administration supports it you do support—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, well I will tell you on the prison work thing 

I have visited a lot of prisons and I can, I, Laurie Robinson, completely agree with you. I do not know what the Administration’s position is on this. But I completely agree with you because it absolutely restores an individual’s sense of their own self-worth. And it 

also gives them a sense that they are going to contribute to their 

own family, which builds that family tie. Which, as you know from 

the work that you personally have done I know, can build their 

own tie with their own roots. And that is so critical. 

Mr. WOLF. Well we will get you the language, then, if you could 

take a look at it and see. And we will see where the Chairman is. 

And I did have a conversation with Mr. Conyers on the floor about 

a month ago, and he seemed to be supportive of the idea. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Now you may have to help me when I go back 

to the Department. They may not like me after I am sitting up 

here endorsing these things! 

Mr. WOLF. No I think the Bureau of Prisons, though, really 

would like this. I think the problem has been with the chamber of 

commerce and organized labor. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. And where they have been. But yet everyone is concerned with the recidivism issue. And I do not think this would be 

a threat, I mean I can understand how a company or a union 

would be concerned that you have prisoners competing with people 

outside. But if you are not competing with any current company, 

or any workers here in the United States, you are actually creating 

the jobs. For instance, the teamsters would drop the wire off at the 

factory so you would be creating a job for a labor union member 

or you would be creating a job for the private sector. Because who 

is going to manufacture that wire, would have to give it to the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
602 

teamster to drop by, or whatever the equipment. So you are really 

not completing with the furniture manufacturers or anybody else 

because you would only be working on a product that is no longer 

made in the U.S. And that would almost be the defining thing. If 

there was competition in the U.S. you would not do it. But if it was 

something that was not being made, and then a wiring skill, we 

had once asked Emerson to look at coming in the D.C. prison, 

Lorton, and then there was opposition and they pushed back. They 

were interested. Now there are not American television manufacturers now. Emerson went south of the border and everybody else 

is gone. 

DRUG, MENTAL HEALTH AND PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS

Following up on that, you propose combining funding for drug 

courts, mental health courts, and other problem solving courts. The 

problem with that is that it could dilute the funding. Former Congressman Jim Ramstad was by yesterday to explain, and I think 

the Chairman has been a great supporter of the drug courts, and 

I think everybody on the Committee is. But are you concerned, and 

I remember the Attorney General, I guess she was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court? Yeah. She had, she had been 

at the Pew conference, too. She had expressed concern that the language would dilute and take away from the drug courts. And Congressman Ramstad really made a compelling case on you may have 

need for these other courts, but if you dilute the funding and the 

funding stays about the same, does it? Does it stay the same? So 

if it stays about the same, and there is not enough for drug courts 

now, I think he said something like 20 percent of the population 

is in areas whereby they are, that you could just toss this thing up 

dramatically. And our governor, who is a good strong, strong supporter of it. 

You may, as commendable as it may be for the mental health 

courts and other courts, I think there is a legitimate concern that 

if you have the same funding and you are adding in you are going 

to be in essence taking away from the drug courts. And I do not 

know if you want to comment about that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, well first of all let me just say from my own 

background I am an incredibly strong supporter, as is the Department of Justice, of drug courts. I was the person who set up the 

initial Drug Court Program Office at the Department of Justice in 

1994 when the Crime Bill passed Congress back then and was instrumental in helping fund the initial National Association of Drug 

Court Professionals. So I go way back with that group and have 

visited more than a dozen drug courts around the country, probably 

many more than that. So the last thing that I or we at OJP want 

to do in any way is harm drug courts. 

I think the effort here, or the thought, was simply to provide 

more flexibility to jurisdictions if they wanted to do a community 

court, a mental health court, or something else. And that was our 

only thought. We do not in any way want to undercut drug courts. 

Mr. WOLF. But you can see their concern is if the level of funding 

is about the same and you add in that they were concerned that 

they would be taken away. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I can understand their concern. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
603 

Mr. WOLF. And you might take a look at the testimony of the 

Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. And she was also on 

the program at, where the Chairman spoke at the Pew conference. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right, I remember meeting her there. She is very 

impressive. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING

Mr. WOLF. The last question is according to the National Drug 

Threat Assessment for 2010, it says, ‘‘an increasing number of law 

enforcement agencies are reporting that pharmaceutical diversion 

and abuse pose the greatest drug threat to their areas, in part because of increases in associated crime and gang involvement.’’ Because this puts an additional strain on agency budgets and assets 

it is critical that we help increase the capacity of law enforcement 

agencies to collect and analyze controlled substance prescription 

data. Thirty-four states have prescription drug monitoring programs and ten more are in the process of establishing them. Yet 

the administration’s budget proposes to eliminate funding that assists these efforts. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Shall I comment? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, well Mr. Wolf, as you see the budget includes a number of offsets. And it was a tight budget year. There 

are a number of things in here that have been proposed I know 

people are, many of you, unhappy about. And all I can say is that 

these were very tough decisions to make. They are not areas that 

any of us were particularly happy about the Administration having 

to make. And it does not mean that they were not priorities, because obviously they have been funded and supported for a number 

of years. But they were areas that were proposed by the Administration for cuts. 

Mr. WOLF. Well that, that does create a problem, as you know. 

And now you are finding down in Broward County and places like 

that that people are just chartering airplanes and flying down 

there, and going to all these pain clinics, and getting all of this. 

And we are hearing these stories. And I think the federal government is really the only one that can be the solution here because 

each state, it is kind of fragmented. And I think the program, I 

think it began, I was not on the Committee then I think, but I 

think it began in this Committee. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, that is correct, with Harold Rogers. Because 

I remember it was a couple of years after I left. He had talked 

about it, actually, when he was Chair of the Committee. 

Mr. WOLF. And so, okay. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Schiff. 

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT PROGRAM

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A recent Pew study 

shows that one in thirty-one adults is currently under correctional 

control, up from one in seventy-seven back in 1982. Over the last 

two decades corrections have been the second fastest growing area 

of state expenditure, second only to Medicaid. State corrections now 

cost over $50 billion, consuming one in every fifteen discretionary 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
604 

dollars. Budget cuts and prison overcrowding are creating a crisis 

in many states. In my home State of California prisons house over 

170,000 inmates, nearly twice their operating capacity. State 

spending on corrections accounts for over $10 billion annually, almost 10 percent of the general fund, greater than average for the 

nation. And we are now faced with a judicial order to release about 

a quarter of our prison population and recidivism numbers are 

going to go up dramatically because they are being effectively released without supervision. 

Despite these increasing corrections expenditures recidivism 

rates remain very high. We are not making much progress on it. 

I have also introduced legislation on this subject, justice reinvestment legislation. We found that policy makers often have insufficient access to detailed, data-driven explanations for changes in 

crime, arrest, conviction, and prison and jail population trends. 

These reinvestment strategies recognize that in every state there 

are a handful of high stakes communities into which most people 

released from prisons and jails return. State community agencies, 

however, often lack the, or provide uncoordinated, often costly services to these same neighborhoods and families without successful 

outcomes. Justice reinvestment experts work closely with state policy makers to advance fiscally sound, data-driven criminal justice 

policies to break the cycle of recidivism, avert prison expenditures, 

and make communities safer. We have seen promising results from 

these kind of strategies in Texas, Kansas, and other jurisdictions 

where they have been implemented. 

Our Chairman, Mr. Mollohan, and Ranking Member Mr. Wolf 

have been really ahead of the game on this issue. It was the focus 

of Subcommittee hearings, as Mr. Wolf pointed out, and I hope to 

work with them to promote and expand this work. Mr. Mollohan’s 

and Mr. Wolf’s leadership on the issue culminated in provided $10 

million in fiscal year 2010 for activities related to criminal justice 

reform and recidivism reduction by states. 

The administration’s budget for this year, though, requests no 

funding for this program for the upcoming year. I just wanted to 

find out, are you familiar with the reinvestment efforts? What are 

your thoughts on them? What is your current plan with regard to 

the fiscal year 2010 funds that were provided? And can you shed 

some thoughts on why the administration has not asked for funds 

in fiscal year 2011? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. Of course, Mr. Schiff. First of all, let me congratulate you and the Chairman and Mr. Wolf for your leadership 

on this. I think it is tremendous. The Attorney General and I are 

very familiar with justice reinvestment, very strong support of your 

leadership on this, and are very supportive of the efforts going forward on this. 

BJA, as you probably know, has been supportive of this work and 

I congratulate the Council of State Governments, and the Pew 

Trust, and others for the work that has gone forward in the states. 

It is tremendously promising. I think we will look back in ten years 

and see this as one of the breakthrough movements in criminal justice in this country. 

I think to zero in on your question as to why this was not in the 

budget, speaking very candidly it is a question of the cycle of how 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
605 

budgets are put together. Right now we are putting together the 

2012 budget at the OJP level. This was added fairly late in the 

budget cycle. And so at the time that this was put into your budget 

for fiscal year 2010 our budget had long since left the OJP/DOJ 

level and was already at OMB. That is the candid answer. So if we 

could have put it in we would have, but it had long since left our 

hands. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Can you share with us a little bit about how you are 

using the 2010 funds? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. Our plan is to follow the model that 

you all have set here. And so we have been consulting with the 

groups that are already working in this area and we are putting 

together a solicitation that we will be issuing that will follow that 

model of the data-driven assessment, and then the implementation, 

and the way that the states are already moving forward on this. 

We are looking to have a solicitation that would look for an organization to do overall coordination, and then to have funding for state 

participation, implementation work, and then also for localities and 

tribes. So it will be a three-part solicitation. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. And I take it from your comments that 

it will receive at least a favorable recommendation from Justice to 

OMB for the 2012 budget? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, of course, I cannot comment on the 2012 

budget. But let us just say the Attorney General and I are very favorably disposed toward working on justice reinvestment. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT

Mr. SCHIFF. One other issue I just wanted to mention quickly is, 

I just wanted to express appreciation for the work that you have 

been doing with the funds we provided on intellectual property enforcement. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, wonderful. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So we look forward to continuing our work together 

on that. I am very pleased that $4 million was made available for 

the program in 2010, and I want to work with you to ensure that 

the program is funded, and administered effectively. This is a key 

issue to many of the people I represent in California. 

REAUTHORIZATION OF COPS AND OJJDP

And finally, you know, I just want to put on your radar screen 

something that I have been working on regarding the reauthorization of OJJDP and related programs, as well as the COPS program. 

This may be a long term project. But I would love to see us at the 

federal level do what we did in California, which I would love to 

see us do a joint reauthorization of OJJDP as well as COPS, and 

try to provide equivalent funding in both programs. So that we 

make an equal investment in prevention as we do in suppression. 

And so I am working with the Chairs of Education and Labor, as 

well as the Judiciary Committee, to investigate this concept. I have 

introduced it in legislative form, but I think it will take a while to 

congeal. But I wanted to put that on your radar screen. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Wonderful. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
606 

TRIBAL GRANTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would like to ask you some questions with regard to tribal grants. This Subcommittee doubled OJP’s Tribal Assistance Grant Program from $25 million to $50 million in 2010. 

And so I am very happy to see the attention that the Department 

has been giving to Indian country in the last several months, including the establishment of the Tribal Nations Leadership Council 

and the release of the Coordinated Travel Assistance solicitation in 

March. I know the Attorney General was personally interested and 

involved in this and I think that is tremendous. And he knows and 

I want to reaffirm here today that we are very supportive of paying 

attention to this in specific ways, which I want to get to in a second. 

But how does the coordinated grant solicitation work? And how 

are you collaborating with the COPS program and the Office of Violence Against Women to ensure that the most important needs, the 

most focused needs, of the tribes are being addressed? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. Well Mr. Chairman, as you alluded to, 

this is very high priority for the Attorney General, and also for the 

Associate Attorney General to whom I directly report. And for this 

coordinated solicitation, the Associate Attorney General has one of 

his deputies working directly with the Director of the COPS Office, 

with me, and with the Director of the Office on Violence Against 

Women. So our staff have worked hand in hand in putting together 

this coordinated solicitation. With that we have ten separate programs, all of the tribal programs, combined underneath that. That 

will allow the tribes, and the solicitation is, as I think your staff 

knows, is now on the street, due in May. It will allow the tribes 

to have one application rather than ten separate applications. They 

can file one problem statement, one description of their tribal 

needs, and then, in essence, just make a check mark for the areas 

where they need funding. They can then have one budget submission. And it greatly streamlines their application process. 

We have had very favorable response to this. And we did a great 

deal of outreach to the tribes, both to let them know about this and 

also to answer questions. Because there were a lot of questions. It 

is a very different process for them. There were some concerns 

about it at first, because any time you start doing something in a 

different way, you know, they wanted to know whether this was 

going to disadvantage them in some way, whether there were going 

to be some issues or problems. So we answered those questions, we 

did a lot of consultation, and it seems to be going smoothly. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Were they consulted in fashioning the structure 

of this, and the changes, and making recommendations—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. At the front end of it? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, they were. The idea came from Tom Perrelli, 

the Associate Attorney General—the overall idea. And then we consulted with the tribal representatives about exactly how we might 

do it. The technical sides of it we had to come up with. But then 

we bounced those ideas off of them. So it seems to be going pretty 

well. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
607 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well we want to work with you and work together on making this as effective as possible. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And I know from the Attorney General on down 

you are really leaning forward on this and that is tremendous. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides money in a lot of these 

areas. To what extent are they involved or not involved in the process that you just described? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, especially BJA works very closely with 

them on a number of these areas. For example, anything relating 

to the correctional detention facilities, those kinds of things. So we 

have kept in close touch with them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But in this process you are talking about, the 

grants process, the needs process? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would not think you could actually, and maybe 

you cannot, I do not know. Maybe there are two separate processes 

and they achieved two separate goals. I will learn more about that 

and understand that better in the future. But were they consulted 

in this solicitation work that you are doing, and setting up the 

Tribal Nations Leadership Council, for example? 

TRIBAL GRANTS

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will they be participating—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, they have certainly been consulted about 

that. I thought you meant more specifically about the process of the 

solicitation. That I do not know. But certainly on the substantive 

side—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In coordinating needs and resource applications—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Is more of what I am talking about, 

I think. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Correct. Yes, indeed. Yes, they have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, we will learn more about that. What 

kind of feedback are you getting from the tribes on the solicitation 

so far? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, very good. Very good feedback. We had some 

questions early on about, you know, I would say some questions, 

a little wariness because it was different, and it was new. But we 

scheduled a number of conference calls with tribal leaders. We 

scheduled separate individual conference calls, and—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Any unresolved concerns coming from any direction? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, not at this point. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When do you anticipate awards being made? 

Ms. ROBINSON. By the end of the fiscal year. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In your request, you have proposed a carve out 

from OJP programs across the board rather than funding tribal 

programs separately. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
608 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I want to give you an opportunity to talk about 

that, to justify your request and the approach, and tell us how you 

think it is better. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Our thinking there, Mr. Chairman, was as follows: That first of all, that this, as I have said before, was such a 

high priority for the Attorney General from the standpoint that 

this is an area that has long been neglected by the federal government, and where it is clear that crime is such a serious problem 

in Indian country, and a long neglected problem. And that some 

areas such as sexual assault and crime against Indian women are 

just incredibly severe. And that the way to do this would be to look 

across OJP programs broadly rather than to look at them individually. To look broadly across OJP programs and in a tight fiscal 

year to do it as a set aside. So that was our thinking. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Have you done the math as to what would be 

the—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. The bottom line? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, the bottom line outcome? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. $139 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean what is the comparison to what we funded in 2010? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I do not remember that figure offhand. I think it 

was around $50 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. $50 million in additional resources for Indian 

country? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I am just thinking that that was the amount that 

we had funded last year. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I am asking you does this result in more resources going for Indian programs? Or less resources and how 

much? Have you done that math? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Oh, well I think it is about $80 million. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. I have no questions. 

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION NOTIFICATION ACT

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I do. Let me talk a little bit about the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act. OJP’s Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, 

SMART, is responsible for administering the national standards for 

sex offender registration and notification under the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA. SMART also provides 

assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions in implementing those standards. The original deadline for jurisdictions 

to comply with the standards, July 27, 2009, was extended by the 

Attorney General to July 27, 2010. Congress provided $11 million 

for sex offender management assistance in 2010 along with $1 million for the National Sex Offender Website. For fiscal year 2011, 

OJP has proposed $25 million for SMART office activities, along 

with one million for continued operation of the National Sex Offender Website. How are all these jurisdictions progressing in their 

compliance with the requirements of SORNA? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know to date only three jurisdictions have complied. One is Ohio and two are Indian tribes, 

the Umatilla and the Yakama Confederated Tribes. Approximately 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
609 

five more are close to compliance. But we are not certain that any 

additional jurisdictions will be in full compliance by this summer. 

However, the Department is offering an additional extension, 

which by law we can, to any jurisdictions that are requesting it beyond this July. And that is available by law. So they have until 

July of 2011 to comply. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is causing the delays? 

Ms. ROBINSON. There are really two reasons. One is implementation costs, because it takes time and effort and money to set up 

registration and notification systems. And the second are a variety 

of policy issues, which include the juvenile registration and notification issues, issues about substantial implementation and what 

that really means, retroactivity questions, and the issue about risk 

assessment versus offense tier issues. So it is a variety of pretty 

technical questions about what is required under SORNA. 

When I came to OJP, Mr. Chairman, I had worked on the Obama 

transition in the fall of 2008 and I heard a great deal during the 

outreach that we did to the groups during the transition about the 

difficulties in complying with Adam Walsh and SORNA. So when 

I came to OJP I met right away with our SMART Office staff. And 

I said to them, ‘‘Let us do everything that we can to make the 

Adam Walsh Act a success. Let us work with the states in every 

way that we can to be as flexible as we can within the four corners 

of the SORNA statute to work and see where we can help the 

states in complying.’’ The SORNA staff have been terrific in that. 

And they have issued better, I think, and more clarity in their 

guidance now. 

We are also working on some additional guidelines that are going 

through clearance at OMB now. And I am optimistic that we will 

get there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, jurisdictions that are unable to meet the 

extended deadline, will they have the opportunity to have additional extensions? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Tribes by law will be able to have an additional 

extension. But under the statute states will not so they will be penalized. However, they can use that money, it can go back to the 

state to work on implementing the SORNA guidelines. 

ICACS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Committee last year provided $70 million 

for the Missing and Exploited Children Program and $30 million 

was culled out for the ICACs. You do not do that in your request? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, we did not. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not asking you why, exactly. But what I 

would like for you to do is really just talk about the ICACs, what 

you think about them, how they are working. Give us some sense 

of the resources we would need if we were to address this problem 

adequately. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I think actually that the ICACs are tremendously important. And the funding last year under the Recovery 

Act, the $50 million, was tremendously helpful to them. We met recently in something called the Executive Working Group with representatives from the state attorneys general and they talked to us 

extensively about the important work of the ICACs. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
610 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And successful. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Successful, absolutely. For the Deputy Attorney 

General, for Gary Grindler, the Acting Deputy, we are meeting 

next week on child exploitation issues. The ICAC work is, if we 

could with—again, this is the question of the limited budget. If we 

could quadruple that money, I am speaking only in the hypothetical here, but it is extremely well spent funding. Because there 

is tremendous need here. And the work that they do is heroic. It 

is tremendously important. And the state AGs just underscored 

that tremendously. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is so easy to get into all these issues that the 

Subcommittee funds and that your Department deals with, and 

want to have all the resources in the world to get out there and 

fix all these problems. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, and that is why I say only hypothetically. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, it is true. You know, and we work against 

a countervailing effort here. You know, as Mr. Wolf raises questions about the benefit of incarcerated persons having work experiences, not only just to have a useful experience while incarcerated 

but also to develop skills and capabilities necessary to be successful 

when they get out. We all recognize that works on recidivism. But 

at the same time we all say that, well we do not all say that is 

a good, is the truth about it. There are a lot of people that say just 

lock them up and forget about them. Throw the key away and forget about them. But at the same time we have elements within the 

Congress that really work against that. And I think that we need 

to work within the Congress, Frank. And I certainly would be 

pleased to work together on that within the Congress on our colleagues, and to achieve some progress because I think that is extremely important. Equally with Missing and Exploited Children. 

But I think there is some real promise on the technology horizons with regard to ICAC. I do not know if, you are probably very 

familiar with that. But to what extent are you looking at that? The 

computer capability of identifying and apprehending perpetrators 

of these kinds of horrible crimes? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, again I am not the technology person at all. 

But we have some very, very capable staff and people within the 

investigative parts of the Department that are extremely expert at 

that and looking at those very questions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, it would seem like almost by definition that 

would be an area where resources would have a real payoff. 

Well we are extremely supportive of that. And perhaps when you 

work in your 2012 budget you will cull it out. There is a lot of support in the Congress—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Excellent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. For that program and we would certainly be receptive to that. 

I have a number of other questions that I will submit for the 

record in a number of other important areas. Mr. Wolf has no additional questions. I think the majority of the Committee recognizes 

the excellent work you are doing and the attitude that you are 

bringing to the job, not to mention the experience. And we are especially pleased to work with you. I appreciate your testimony here 

today. And we will, as this process moves forward, get down to the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
611 

detail and see how we can support your work the best we can. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Ms. Robinson. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
612 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 56795B.155
613 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 56795B.156
614 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 56795B.157
615 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1081 here 56795B.158
616 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1082 here 56795B.159
617 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1083 here 56795B.160
618 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1084 here 56795B.161
619 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1085 here 56795B.162
620 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1086 here 56795B.163
621 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 56795B.164
622 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 56795B.165
623 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1089 here 56795B.166
624 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1090 here 56795B.167
625 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1091 here 56795B.168
626 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1092 here 56795B.169
627 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1093 here 56795B.170
628 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1094 here 56795B.171
629 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1095 here 56795B.172
630 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1096 here 56795B.173
631 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1097 here 56795B.174
632 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1098 here 56795B.175
633 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1099 here 56795B.176
634 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1100 here 56795B.177
635 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1101 here 56795B.178
636 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1102 here 56795B.179
637 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1103 here 56795B.180
638 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1104 here 56795B.181
639 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1105 here 56795B.182
640 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1106 here 56795B.183
641 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1107 here 56795B.184
642 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1108 here 56795B.185
643 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1109 here 56795B.186
644 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1110 here 56795B.187
645 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1111 here 56795B.188
646 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1112 here 56795B.189
647 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1113 here 56795B.190
648 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1114 here 56795B.191
649 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1115 here 56795B.192
650 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1116 here 56795B.193
651 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1117 here 56795B.194
652 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1118 here 56795B.195
(653) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

WITNESSES 

VICTOR M. FORTUN ̃ O, LSC INTERIM PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL 

FRANK B. STRICKLAND, CHAIRMAN, LSC BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. 

The Subcommittee would like to welcome Victor Fortuno, Interim 

President of the Legal Services Corporation, and Frank Strickland, 

the current Chairman of the LSC Board of Directors, to discuss 

LSC’s 2011 budget request and other issues relating to civil legal 

aid. 

We are pleased to have you both. Thank you for your appearance 

here today and your good work for this cause. 

LSC is now in its 35th year of existence and in many ways, this 

will be one of your most challenging years. More than 53 million 

Americans, including more than 18 million children, are now eligible for LSC’s services. 

That is an increase of three million over previous estimates, and 

the number of eligible clients will only increase as we continue to 

receive data on 2009, when the impacts of the recession were being 

felt by many. 

I think it is important that we not forget what it means to be 

eligible for LSC’s services. It means that you are living at or below 

125 percent of the poverty rate, which was $27,563 for a family of 

four in 2009. 

The idea of trying to support a family of four on less than $28,000 is challenging enough. When you throw in the burden of 

dealing with an unexpected and significant legal crisis, it is easy 

to see what a crucial life line LSC extends by providing high-quality, free legal assistance. 

Unfortunately, the availability of that life line to many has been 

challenged by budget problems at all levels. Federal and state support for legal services have not kept pace with the demand, and the 

recession and its related effects have severely reduced charitable 

donations and other sources of legal aid funds. 

The inadequacy of funding has led to a situation in which one 

out of every two people seeking assistance from an LSC-funded program is turned away and left to deal with their divorce or their 

foreclosure-related eviction or their appeal for disability benefits on 

their own. 

With this as context, I would like to use this hearing to discuss 

your proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 and to hear your 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
654 

thoughts on how that budget will help to alleviate the severe shortage of legal services available to LSC clients. 

I also hope to use this hearing to address some criticisms of LSC 

that have become perennial favorites of the small group of members who do not support your program. 

I firmly and enthusiastically support any efforts that will improve your program management and reduce instances of waste or 

abuse, and I will continue to hold you to a high standard in both 

of these areas. However, I want to make sure that our consideration of those issues is fair, accurate, and, most importantly, productive. 

Before we invite you to begin with your prepared remarks, I 

would like to turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Wolf, for his opening statement. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, welcome to the hearing. I want to join the Chairman 

in welcoming both of you today testifying before the Subcommittee 

regarding your 2011 budget. 

The Act that created the Legal Services Corporation provided you 

with a pass-through budget authority and, therefore, you can provide the Appropriations Committee with an independent assessment of your funding needs without OMB approval. 

You are requesting $516.6 million, which is $96.6 million or 23 

percent above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. However, the 

President’s budget requested a lower amount of $435 million, 

which is $15 million above the fiscal year 2010. I think you can see 

the potential problem. 

With that, I will just yield back. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Gentlemen, your written statements will be 

made a part of the record. If you would summarize them for us, 

we will proceed. 

Mr. Strickland, please. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LSC BOARD CHAIRMAN FRANK STRICKLAND

Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Wolf, and other members of 

the Subcommittee, I want to begin by thanking you for holding this 

important hearing today. 

The Legal Services Corporation is on the front lines of ensuring 

equal justice under law in this country. And I consider it an honor 

to have served as the Board’s Chairman since being confirmed in 

2003. 

I also want to thank you for providing our programs with a $30 

million increase this year. At a time when there is a substantial 

increase in the demand for services and a crisis in non-federal 

sources of funding, this increase will go a long way in keeping our 

programs afloat. 

We expect this crisis to continue and more funding is required 

to support the critical work of LSC programs. For fiscal year 2011, 

we are requesting a total of $5161⁄2 million. 

I am joined today by Victor Fortun ̃ o, the long-time General Counsel at LSC, who is now also serving as the corporation’s interim 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
655 

President. Mr. Fortun ̃ o has been with the Corporation in various 

capacities for 27 years. 

The Board greatly appreciates the counsel and support he provides to the Board and LSC management. He will speak directly 

on our 2011 budget request. 

2009 was an eventful year for the corporation and LSC programs 

across the nation that strived to meet the challenge of providing 

civil legal assistance to the poor. 

In July, LSC celebrated its 35th anniversary and was honored 

with commemorative statements from Congress and the President. 

In September, LSC released a new report on the justice gap 

showing that LSC programs, because of insufficient resources, continue to turn away about one million low-income Americans each 

year. 

2009 also marked the beginning of a leadership transition for the 

corporation. President Helaine Barnett stepped down after serving 

six years, leading to the appointment of Mr. Fortun ̃ o as our interim 

President. 

We are awaiting the completion of the appointment and confirmation process of a new Board and it will be their responsibility 

to select a new LSC President. 

Ensuring a smooth Board transition has been one of my priorities as the outgoing Board Chairman. So far, we have held two orientation sessions, the last on January 28, for the White House 

nominees. To use a time-honored phrase, I believe these nominees 

will hit the ground running. 

One of the core responsibilities of the Board is good stewardship 

of the funds that you provide each year. Prompted by two reports 

from the Government Accountability Office, we have taken steps to 

more sharply focus Board oversight on LSC’s financial and compliance responsibilities and to focus the corporation’s attention on improved internal cooperation and better management practices. 

We are making great progress. All 17 of the recommendations 

made in those two reports were accepted by the Board and LSC 

management. 

Last year, the Board’s Vice Chairman testified about our 

progress. And since then, the GAO has asked for additional information in five areas and the LSC staff is at work responding to 

these more recent requests. I am fully confident that LSC will 

carry through on the completion of the GAO recommendations. 

I believe strongly in the obligation of attorneys to volunteer their 

services to legal aid programs. I have done that as a lawyer in Atlanta. 

Three years ago, the Board adopted a resolution in support of increasing pro bono services. And today 109 of our 136 programs 

have adopted similar resolutions. 

Private lawyers who volunteer their time are an invaluable resource for LSC programs and an important part of the overall effort to provide equal access to justice for the nation’s poor. 

LSC also is reaching out to judges, the private bar, law schools, 

businesses, state access to justice commissions, other funders and 

other supporters of legal aid, but pro bono efforts alone cannot 

meet the legal needs of the poor. Government has a vital role to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
656 

provide the funding, the leadership, and the oversight to fulfill our 

national pledge of equal justice for all. 

I know that LSC can count on this Subcommittee as we strive 

to close the justice gap in our nation. I am happy to answer any 

questions you have at the appropriate time. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
657 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1127 here 56795B.196
658 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1128 here 56795B.197
659 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1129 here 56795B.198
660 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1130 here 56795B.199
661 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1131 here 56795B.200
662 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Strickland. 

Mr. Fortun ̃ o. 

STATEMENT OF LSC INTERIM PRESIDENT VICTOR FORTUN ̃ O

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Chairman Mollohan, Mr. Wolf, thank you for holding this hearing and giving us an opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

First I want to convey my deep appreciation to the Subcommittee 

for the bipartisan support provided to the corporation and its mission of ensuring that our nation’s poor are provided equal access 

to justice. 

The Corporation is most grateful for the $30-million funding increase in fiscal year 2010 and for the increased funding provided 

over the last four years. 

It is my privilege to appear here before you today with Chairman 

Strickland who is a long-time champion of pro bono legal services 

for low-income Americans and is a champion for the legal rights of 

the poor. It has been an honor to know him and to work with him. 

Mr. Chairman, while the legal aid community understands the 

difficult funding choices that the Subcommittee faces, the justice 

gap is a harsh reality in our nation and the downturn in our economy has dramatically increased the number of people needing civil 

legal services. 

Millions of Americans are at risk of falling deeper into poverty 

and many are in danger of slipping into poverty for the first time. 

The numbers of people coming to our offices seeking help with foreclosures and unemployment benefits have understandably increased across the country. 

We have 54 million Americans who are eligible for LSC funded 

civil legal assistance. Eighteen million and a half of them are children. 

For low-income Americans, legal aid greatly improves their 

chances of keeping their homes rather than moving into a shelter, 

holding jobs rather than going on to public assistance, retaining 

custody of their children rather than losing them to foster care, receiving early medical care rather than costly hospitalization, and 

escaping abusive relationships rather than suffering injury and 

even death. 

Nearly three out of four of our clients are women, many of them 

struggling to keep their families together and their children safe. 

Just as the weak economy has severely impacted our clients, it 

has placed a great strain on the resources that support legal aid 

programs. Our programs are concerned about their ability to provide increased services in 2010 and 2011. 

For years, interest on lawyers’ trust accounts—or IOLTA—was a 

growing and significant part of the non-federal funding received by 

LSC programs. That funding is tied to short-term interest rates, 

which are now at unprecedented lows. 

At the same time, most state and local governments have experienced revenue shortfalls and they, too, are likely to reduce their 

support of legal aid. 

For fiscal year 2011, LSC requests an appropriation of $516.5 

million. This is a request that clearly and aggressively reflects the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
663 

Board’s view that the need is critical and has to be communicated 

in any way possible, but especially in our request for funding. 

The request is the result of a determined effort by our bipartisan 

Board of Directors to help eliminate the justice gap in four years. Ninety-four percent of our requested appropriation—or $485 million—would be distributed directly to the LSC programs as basic 

field grants to fund civil legal aid to the poor. 

Our request also provides for a continuation of our student loan 

repayment assistance program, which helps our programs recruit 

and retain talented lawyers, and it includes a proposal to expand 

our program of technology initiative grants to leverage the federal 

investment in civil legal aid. 

We are also requesting additional funding for management and 

grants oversight. The additional funds would help us deliver new 

web-based training on compliance, governance, fiscal operations, 

and best practices. 

In particular, we want to ensure the ability of LSC programs and 

their Boards of Directors to fully meet requirements and strictly 

comply with restrictions. 

In the past, management and grants oversight has represented 

approximately four percent of our appropriation. This year, we are 

in line with that. The request would be just under four percent. 

Our budget would also provide for some additional funding for the 

Office of Inspector General. These oversight efforts will help us be 

faithful stewards of federal funds. 

Chairman Strickland provided you with an update of our work 

with the Government Accountability Office, so I will not repeat the 

points made by him. 

But I do want to underscore that I fully share his sentiments on 

improving governance and operations, and our sincere commitment 

to implementing the recommendations to GAO. 

And at this point, I have concluded my prepared remarks and 

would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
664 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1136 here 56795B.201
665 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1137 here 56795B.202
666 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1138 here 56795B.203
667 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1139 here 56795B.204
668 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1140 here 56795B.205
669 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1141 here 56795B.206
670 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1142 here 56795B.207
671 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1143 here 56795B.208
672 

UPDATING THE JUSTICE GAP REPORT

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would like to start by again commending the 

Legal Services Corporation for its good work and by reaffirming 

this Subcommittee’s support. I can certainly speak for a good majority of the Subcommittee, and we support funding for Legal Services to provide legal aid to those who need it and are disappointed 

that there are so many people out there who make up this justice 

gap that we all talk about. 

I would like to point out that last year the House funded Legal 

Services at five million dollars above the President’s request. That 

was considerably below your request, but five million dollars above 

the President’s request. 

We also removed one of the restrictions having to do with fees, 

which may or may not help you in regard to your financing. 

We thought that we were in as good a position as we could be 

going into conference, whatever the Senate decided to do. The Senate, of course, came in with a number considerably lower. And it 

turned out that because of some of the issues with regard to the 

restrictions, we really were not in as good a position. That put us 

in a compromising position. 

Perhaps as we move into this year, we will be equally well positioned and we hope that it can move forward in a different way. 

My goal would be to preserve our funding level regardless of what 

the Senate’s happens to be, which would create a base off of which 

we would be in a better position to help you in future years. The 

Administration would also be, I think, working off a different baseline. 

If our funding had been put in place, you would be working off 

a baseline of $440 million, and hopefully the Administration would 

have come in with some increase above that, which would have put 

you in a better position. If you do that year after year, it amounts 

to real money. 

LSC is not close to the funding levels and real services that it 

had at its high point. While that might be a reach, certainly in the 

short term and in the kind of budgetary environment we find ourselves, this path forward would at least put us in a better position 

to achieve the funding levels on the federal level that we would like 

to achieve. Just a comment as we begin our hearing. 

As you have described in your testimony, LSC recently updated 

its justice gap report to measure changes since 2005 in the unmet 

need for legal aid services. Given the state of the economy, pressures on grantee budgets and the fact that the eligible client population has increased by three million people, I would have expected 

to see the gap widening significantly. Instead, findings of your new 

2009 report are extremely consistent with the findings of both your 

2005 report and a 1994 report by the American Bar Association. 

Why do you think that the documented gap did not increase despite such anecdotal evidence that implies a greater unmet need? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We, too, were surprised that the report did not 

show higher numbers being turned away. We were certainly aware 

of a number of very compelling state legal need studies that suggest that our justice gap report represents a significant undercount. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
673 

We, however, thought it was best to take a very conservative approach. 

And while we believe that, in fact, it is an undercount and have 

the state legal need studies that indicate that, in fact, the unmet 

legal need is much greater, possibly as high as 90 percent. But in 

the case of our justice gap report, any number of factors could have 

gone into that. 

One of the things that we have learned anecdotally is that our 

grantees reach full capacity. And once they reach full capacity and 

are unable to take on any additional cases, that then results in 

folks not getting in and being processed unless, of course, it is an 

emergency case. 

What normally happens is someone walks in, program has 

reached capacity and is unable to take on any new cases, those 

folks would not go through the intake process and would be told 

to come back. So there would be no determination as to eligibility 

at that point, so they would not be factored into our numbers. And 

only emergency cases would be picked up at that point. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, the numbers are meaningless. If I understand you correctly, because you are at capacity and just cannot 

handle any more folks, you turn them away at the door and you 

do not count them. Unless you process them for eligibility, how 

would you know how many people you are actually turning away? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And it would vary from program to program. But 

I respectfully submit that the numbers would not be meaningless. 

They are certainly not as meaningful as they could be, but they 

give us at the very least a low-end number of what the gap is. 

And that is what I meant by I think we have taken a conservative approach and that is why the state legal need studies that 

have been published come in at so much higher a figure in terms 

of individuals who are in need of a lawyer being unable to get one. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Say that again. That is why the state studies 

comes in with a higher number of unmet needs? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. The state legal need studies suggest that the 

actual need is greater than is reflected in our justice gap report 

which has the one turned away for every one represented. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the difference in their methodology that 

makes them more accurate? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. It is going to vary from state to state and survey 

to survey. I think that they are not necessarily as conservative as 

we are. They are not limiting their count to the number of people 

who actually make it in the door and are screened for purposes of 

determining eligibility. 

What we are looking at in our survey is the number of individuals who are eligible for services and would be represented but for 

the lack of resources. 

That screening may not have occurred in some of the studies. 

There are different methodologies. They come to different results. 

The one thing that seems to be consistent is they all come in with 

results of higher unmet need. 

I think that the numbers in 2009 justice gap report remain consistent with those of the 2005 report and reflect that we still have 

a one-to-one. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
674 

We also have another factor to consider which is that when our 

programs do reach capacity and are unable to take any new cases, 

we have anecdotal information from our grantees that the word in 

the legal services community spreads and folks are discouraged 

from coming in. When they learn that the program is unable to 

take new cases, folks do not even attempt to be seen. 

But we do have, again referring to anecdotal information from 

our grantees, that, for example, our Tennessee programs turned 

away 75 percent. Our Arizona program turned away 38 and a half 

percent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So they had a process. Was that a more careful 

process? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. In addition to the information they provide to us 

for our survey, grantees do measure the need in their own ways. 

They may have a different methodology. They do so because it is 

important for their individual—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So the justice gap is based on information, but 

it is also based on a lot of intuition and extrapolation and maybe 

a little bit of lag here and there. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Well, in our case, I think some of the—some other 

studies maybe—I think ours does not involve much speculation. It 

involves hard and fast numbers, that is people who actually get 

through the door who are screened for eligibility, who are found to 

be eligible, they are not disqualified on the basis of—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But just to be clear, that is inconsistent from 

program to program. It also does not include folks that come to the 

door and are told, ‘‘we cannot handle any more people and we are 

not even screening you?’’ 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So it is definitely a low number. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is also—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I must say that I always assumed it was little 

more rigorous process to achieve that gap number. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I was going to say it is also very hard to measure, following on Mr. Fortuno’s point about when the word gets 

around that a program is at capacity and a person simply does not 

come forward, it is very hard to measure the number of people who 

do not come forward and, therefore, will not be surveyed under any 

methodology. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is an important number because you use it 

pretty effectively to inform appropriators and policymakers as to 

what the need is out there. But you have been reassuring that 

whatever you are coming forward with is conservative. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PRIVATE ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT

With respect to the justice gap, what activity is LSC currently 

undertaking in order to increase the involvement of private attorneys in pro bono efforts aimed at serving a greater number of 

lower-income Americans? Just what are the overall efforts and how 

successful and how deep is the pool? What percentage do you have 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
675 

participating? What is the potential percentage if all the law firms 

were to participate? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Currently ten percent of the cases closed by LSC 

programs are closed by attorneys participating in the PAI Program 

of individual programs. So we do have a figure as to current involvement. We—— 

Mr. WOLF. What is the number of attorneys around the country? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I do not have but we can certainly get that information for you and provide it to the Committee. I do not know the 

number of individual attorneys participating in PAI programs offhand. I only know that ten percent of the 900,000 cases a year that 

we close—— 

Mr. WOLF. But that is not the question. The question is, how 

many attorneys are participating and—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And what percentage of the legal profession? 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. And what percentage of the pool are you 

now being successful with? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I do not have those figures on hand. I can certainly check to see if we have those and provide them to the Committee. 

[The information follows:] 

NUMBER OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS PARTICIPATING IN LSC ACTIVITIES

In 2009, 34,000 private attorneys handled 103,753 cases for LSC-funded programs—an increase of 11 percent from the previous year and over 11 percent of the 

total cases closed in 2009. We do not have any information about how many pro 

bono attorneys provide assistance at non-LSC programs, state bar projects, law 

school clinics, church and other non-profit pro-bono assistance, and other areas of 

pro bono assistance. 

Mr. WOLF. How aggressive are you out there asking others? 

Coming in today—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We—— 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Listening to the news, the story broke 

that at the Justice Department, there are a number of lawyers in 

the Administration, some with political jobs, others not, who were 

with very good law firms around the country and the pro bono 

work they were doing—one was the lawyer for Osama bin Laden’s 

driver. And I just wondered maybe if that lawyer’s time could have 

been to help people from the United States that really need the 

help. 

And I just wonder how aggressive are you and I would I would 

like to see the Committee ask for, if we can, Mr. Chairman, an indepth analysis. 

Do you have a formal program? Have you hired people to go out 

and to encourage the Bar? I think most lawyers if asked and presented—it is sort of like I remember once hearing or reading the 

story about Tip O’Neill. He said that a lady across the street had 

voted for the other person and he said to her, Mrs. McGillicuddy, 

or whatever her name was, why did you vote for the other person. 

And she said Tip, he asked, he asked me for the vote. 

And I think sometimes you have to ask. And if you actually ask 

the average lawyer who I think would probably say yes, and I just 

wondered how aggressive is it and what formal program do you 

have? Have you gone outside to perhaps hire some people to actuVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00675 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
676 

ally—do you have a formal program with people on the staff that 

actually—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We—— 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Go out and encourage—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Actually, what we have is, among other things, we 

have a requirement, a formal requirement that our grantees expend at least 12 and a half percent of their LSC funds or an 

amount equal to 12 and a half percent of their LSC grant on private attorney involvement which would involve recruitment, training, oversight. 

So there is a fairly substantial program out there that is mandated by regulation. 

Mr. WOLF. But is there a best practices that you have? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We are—— 

Mr. WOLF. The Memphis office has done the greatest job whereas 

the Nashville office has not? Do you have best practice? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We are providing resources of that type, where information on best practices is made available so that successful experiences that some grantees have and can serve as—— 

Mr. WOLF. Should it not be a formal best practices that you go 

out to every Director of every office saying here is what was done 

around the country and we know this has been successful, they did 

this type of program, they had a Saturday morning training program, they did a letter to every law firm? Should it not be a formal 

best practices? Would you submit that for the record what you do 

have? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Oh, certainly. 

Mr. WOLF. But should that not be sort of standard? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And I think a good deal of that, in fact maybe 

most of that is, but we would be glad to submit detailed information on the program that we have and how our grantees use that 

information and how they go about enlisting the aid of private attorneys. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
677 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1156 here 56795B.209
678 

I know that our Board of Directors, in fact, has become very involved in that. And I do not know if the Chairman would like to 

speak to that or—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to address that just briefly, Mr. 

Wolf. 

In 2007, the Board of Directors adopted a concept called help 

close the justice gap, unleash the power of pro bono. And we encouraged all of our grantee programs, we currently have 136 grantee programs, we encouraged every one of those programs to adopt 

a similar resolution that is modeled after the one that our Board 

adopted in April of 2007. 

And to date, we are pleased to say that 109 out of 136 programs 

have adopted a similar resolution that is designed to stimulate activity at the program level to encourage more pro bono work. 

That is more of a subjective approach as opposed to objective as 

we were not looking for particular numbers. We were just trying 

to stir the pot, if you will. 

Mr. WOLF. But should not—excuse me. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And LSC does recognize its responsibility to use 

its national voice to further encourage a culture of private attorney 

involvement. 

I think that following up on what the Chairman was referring to, 

the Board of Directors when it meets away from Washington 

makes it a point of, at every away meeting, having the local grantees identify the leading pro bono providers so that they can be formally and publicly acknowledged and thanked. We prepare certificates of appreciation that are distributed at formal public events. 

Mr. WOLF. I understood. The question is, what number are participating and how does the participation level differ now both up 

or down than it was, say, five years ago and ten years ago? 

We are in a tight budget situation and when I was Chairman of 

this Committee, we always supported the legal services at the good 

rate, so we did not have in a sense a controversy. I think the poor 

need this. It is very, very necessary. 

We are also faced with a situation in the country, this Congress 

is somewhat numb to it on both sides of the aisle, but we have a 

situation that we have $37 trillion of unfunded obligations. We 

have $12 trillion of debt. 

And on that same news show, it said that the Chinese are ready 

to move its paper around. Moody says we lose our Triple A bond 

rating perhaps in 2013. We see the government agrees this is on 

the edge having lost its Triple A rating and the Government of 

Dubai in the same category, the government of Portugal, the government of Spain, and the government of Ireland, and there are 

people on both sides of the aisle that believe we are facing a fundamental crisis. 

And Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was the Lutheran pastor who stood 

up to the Nazis made the comment that a test of a moral society 

is how it treats its future generation. I have five children. My wife 

and I have a large sum of grandchildren. What are we transferring? And so this important. 

I stipulate the legal services, if my memory serves me right, the 

Congressman that I used to work for, Congressman Biester, Pete 

Biester, was very active with regard to in setting it up. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
679 

But I just think from a reality point of view, the figures that I 

heard today were that in the year 2028, but the number was dropping, so it could be 2026, 2025, that every dollar that comes into 

the federal government will go out for four things, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. That does not cover 

legal services. It does not cover something that I think is important, to find a cure for cancer or to find a cure for autism or to find 

a cure for Alzheimer’s or to find a cure for Parkinson’s or to have 

the best education system in the country. 

And I appreciate the Chairman. Math and science and physics 

and chemistry and biology, none of them are entitlements. And so 

I am not really differing with what you are doing. God bless you. 

I think it is very, very important. 

But I think this has to be an area that is not just kind of a— 

I am disappointed. Even the number. The number ought to be right 

up here. You need to know Memphis has the best job. They have 

been out there. They have every lawyer in DeKalb County or whatever that is over there or in Atlanta. Every lawyer is participating. 

We have contacted every lawyer. We put in 15 different sessions 

because to bring them in—and I really believe, and to say something kind about lawyers, I believe that if asked to participate to 

be there, not just with a flyer, but with a visit and everything else, 

I think a large number will participate. So I think that is really 

where you are going to have to go in order that you can meet what 

is a necessary need. 

But when I look at the numbers that you have asked for here, 

there would be some that were saying this Administration is 

spending too much. The deficit this year will be $1.6 trillion. You 

are actually asking $516 million which is $96.6 million or 23 percent above fiscal year 2010 enacted level. And the President’s budget is $435 million which is $15 million above. 

So you are above this Administration’s request that many people 

believe is high—so I think you really have to make a major effort 

to reach out to the legal community and I believe if challenged and 

asked, I think they will participate. 

So I would like to know what you are really going to do rather 

than just say you have a resolution or—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Well, certainly. And we will get back to you with 

concrete numbers and information. 

I think that what you will find is that a good deal of that 12 and 

a half percent that grantees are required to expend on generating 

pro bono involvement goes to outreach, goes to that kind of making 

the ask. 

I think that because of the economic downturn, lawyers like everyone else have been impacted and so we may be seeing less of 

that, but we will have some specific numbers for you. We certainly 

believe—— 

Mr. WOLF. You could contact some of the lawyers that are representing Osama bin Laden’s driver and people who helped kill 

Americans in the 9/11 attack. 

And, I mean, the Administration was actually going to bring 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City. The cost of trying 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City would be over a cost 

of four to four and a half years, about a billion dollars. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
680 

RESTRICTIONS ON FUNDS

So let me ask you this other question here. The restrictions on 

LSC grantees, the Administration’s budget request proposes to lift 

the restrictions on the use of LSC funds for involvement in class 

action lawsuits. 

One common problem with class action lawsuits is that personal 

injury class actions, which are often settled, for example, offer lawyers huge fees while individual class members get only a few dollars each. As a result, lifting the restriction on fee collection while 

permitting the LSC funded attorneys to pursue class action cases 

could be very controversial. 

What are your comments about that? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The Corporation has consistently expressed the 

view that we do not take positions—substantive positions—on restrictions. We simply implement the will of the Congress. We recognize that there are arguments that can be made for and against. 

Our Board has not authorized us to take any substantive position 

other than, as I said, enforcement of the will of Congress. 

And that is seen as recently as when the attorneys’ fees’ restriction was lifted. That occurred with our appropriation in the middle 

of December and the Board, within days, met to discuss the issue 

and then at its annual meeting in January proceeded with instructions that we publish an interim final regulation which brings our 

regulation in compliance with the rollback of that restriction. 

But whatever the requirement or restriction may be at any point 

in time, our position is that we faithfully implement the will of 

Congress. 

Mr. WOLF. And you are not seeking to change? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We are here asking for funding. We are focused 

on the appropriation amount, not on specific restrictions, no. 

Mr. WOLF. I think that is important because John Erlenborn, 

who I thought was a fine person, did a great job in taking this 

whole issue out of the political involvement to see that LSC get 

back into the political involvement and some of things, I think, 

takes away, for instance, the controversy. 

So you are not asking the Committee to lift anything? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. No. We are not making any request with respect 

to restrictions, only as to funding. 

Mr. WOLF. What about the Administration’s request here with 

regard to participating in class action suits? Do you have—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We do not take a position as to that, no. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I know you are, I think, precluded from taking a position, 

but that does not mean you do not have an opinion. And I may ask 

you about that opinion in a little bit. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. My one concern about that, though, is that if I express a personal opinion that—sitting here in my official capacity 

as I do today—that that can be confused for the institutional view 

and so there is, I think, an overriding danger, whatever my opinion 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
681 

may be. So I would respectfully seek to answer the question without taking a position. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And you can do that, you know, by discussing the 

impact of the policies. And let me start by asking you about the 

policy that has just changed in terms of the attorney fees. 

Do you have any sense yet, have there been any analysis about 

what kind of additional revenue that may bring into the LSCs? 

And the second part of that question is, because there will be revenues coming in via attorney fees, will that create a pressure to take 

on more cases which can result in attorney fees as opposed to other 

cases which have a lesser capability of doing that? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Let me make a comment on that. 

Mr. Schiff, I want to give you some information I gleaned from 

the Executive Director of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society on the 

point of the lifting of the attorneys’ fees’ restriction. And he has 

been in his job for 25 years and in my view is one of the best Executive Directors of any of our programs. 

What he told me was this, that the dollars are not as important 

as the leverage. In other words, if you file a case and you have the 

right to claim attorneys’ fees and you can put that in your complaint, that is a leverage factor that has been missing in terms of 

representation of the poor. Now it is back in play. 

In other words, his view was the leverage factor was considerably 

more important than dollars. So we do not have any numbers on 

what dollars might be at play, but leverage was his main interest. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Are you going to undertake an analysis to figure out 

what this will mean revenue-wise? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. Well, it is too early to say. We do not have 

numbers on which to base any kind of assessment. We are collecting that information and do hope to have that kind of information and assessment and analysis available come this time next 

year. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The only thing I would also suggest, and I think it 

is a positive change and one that I supported, is I think we do need 

to keep an eye on making sure that it does not distort the type of 

cases that LSCs take on given the financially strapped times so 

that there is a movement towards taking on the cases where you 

can get fees and shying away from others where you cannot, where 

there may be a more pressing need. 

I wanted to ask you about one of the other restrictions bearing 

in mind your caveat. This is one that I think I differ from Mr. Wolf 

on and that is the restrictions on the use of state and private 

funds. 

And I would be happy to defer to my colleague because I am surprised really that there is as much opposition to this as there is 

given that those that are usually very solicitous of the rights of 

states I would think would want, more want to have states decide 

how state funds can be used. But I want to understand the issue 

a little better. 

Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WOLF. That was kind of a cheap shot to a certain extent. I 

have been a strong supporter of legal services. As legal services 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
682 

gets into these controversial issues, it begins to weaken it here in 

this body. 

As you begin to weaken—and when I was Chairman of this Committee, we protected legal services and I went against my party to 

make sure we brought it out with integrity. And so as you begin 

to add these controversies, and I do favor the states’ rights. It was 

sort of an elbow there and I personally took it that way. 

That is not the purpose. The purpose is to help legal services and 

to remove all the controversy—there was a lot of controversy before 

you were even elected to Congress. So what we are trying to do is 

to go back whereby it is a noncontroversial, a good program that 

really helps the poor. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Wolf, I do not consider it 

a cheap shot to say that there is inconsistency with people who advocate for states’ rights when it is convenient and do not when it 

is not convenient. And that, I think, is the issue here. I have the 

time right now, Mr. Wolf. That, I think, is the issue here because 

we can disagree on a policy and that is fine, but do not claim that 

you are consistently a state right supporter here and that you are 

doing this to protect legal services because you can protect legal 

services in your state if your state legislator does not want these 

funds used in a certain way. So that is, I think, where we disagree. 

So what I would like to ask is how you see these state restrictions affecting the resources available to you to do your work? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We can only speak to what we hear anecdotally 

from our grantees and it is what you would expect to hear which 

is that restrictions on non-LSC funds have an impact, have a tendency to depress private contributions because the funders may not 

want to have their contributions, their grants, their donations so 

limited. 

So what we hear anecdotally, we have not done any systematic 

study, but what we hear anecdotally and do not have any reason 

to question is that it has a suppressing impact on private and other 

non-government—well, actually, even government contributions. 

We have certainly seen the issue you are referring to. We have 

litigated against the state of Oregon. I personally have been deeply 

involved in the defense of the challenges against the restrictions 

since 1996. So we have had to defend these challenges coast to 

coast, with success coast to coast, including interestingly a challenge by a state, the state of Oregon, which was litigated and resolved in our favor—in our favor meaning in defense of the restriction. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, let me ask you this in an effort to see if there 

is a way to bridge the gulf between Mr. Wolf and myself. 

As I understand it now, all of the federal restrictions apply regardless of what the state of California says, regardless of what the 

state of Virginia says. They apply to the funds that the states put 

in and they apply to the funds that private parties put in. 

Are you aware of any circumstance in which states have imposed 

greater restrictions than the federal government has? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Different may be greater. I do not know. We could 

certainly check and get back to you once we have looked for that. 

Offhand I do not happen to know of instances where the state restrictions have been greater than the federal. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
683 

Mr. SCHIFF. And are there some states that have put in parallel 

restrictions, in other words, that have said that in this particular 

state, the funds that were provided LSCs cannot be used for any 

of the purposes for which the federal law prohibits federal contributions? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I think there is not a need for them to do that because by federal law, that is, in fact, the case. And it may be that 

it is just because it is unnecessary, they have not been crafted that 

way. 

In fact, we have a regulation which is intended to create avenues 

for that alternative use, that is affiliated organizations, and that is 

where we get into the question of program integrity and whether 

there is sufficient separation. 

But you can have an LSC grantee, for example, in Oregon and 

an affiliate that does work that would not be permitted with LSC 

grant funds and that our grantee would not be permitted to undertake because they do receive LSC grant funds and so the restrictions apply to all their other funds. 

But there is that possibility. The dispute there focuses around 

whether that is a cost effective, efficient way of doing it. But there 

are means through which the state can tap some of the expertise 

and resources that are available out there in the legal services 

community to accomplish what they want to do. 

It is just that currently, under the existing structure, they cannot 

just funnel all the money into the grantee and expect that the 

grantee is going to be able to do everything, including things that 

are prohibited to the federal funds. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Would it put us on any better legal ground as well 

as help the financial situation of the LSCs if by way of bridging 

this difference in opinion we gave states the authority to impose 

whatever restrictions they deemed on the use of state as well as 

private funds so the federal restrictions would apply to the use of 

federal funds, but they would not apply to the state or private 

funds, but the state would be—each state would be empowered to 

set its own restrictions on the use of its funds as well as private 

funds? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I think that is a matter of policy and drafting. I 

think it can certainly be accomplished, but it is not something that 

we would take a position on in terms of should it or should it not 

be—— 

Mr. SCHIFF. But the impact of that, if I am articulating correctly, 

is if you repeal the prohibition on state and local, state and private 

funds, then the states would be empowered to set whatever restrictions they want on state funds, right? They would still retain that 

power—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. As long as you did not preclude them 

from doing that? So the additional impact, the sort of bridging of 

the divide here would be you could empower states to control private funds as well as their own state public funds; could you not? 

In other words, if you—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. LSC could not, but the Congress certainly could 

and we would implement that. But certainly something could be 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
684 

done. Again, it is a matter of policy and drafting and the legislation. 

But whether it is—the states having final say on what can be 

done with their funds or on LSC limiting the reach of our restrictions to federal and private funds but not state—those, again, are 

policy issues that we have not been authorized by our Board to address. But certainly it seems from a standpoint of can it be done, 

yes, it can be done. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The last question is, given the changes in the economy, what type of cases in particular have escalated? You probably 

have across-the-board increases, but has it been more in the area 

of foreclosure or in what areas have you seen the greatest rise? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We have seen the justice gap report, the 2009 report, while it shows to one-to-one, in the area of foreclosure is 

showing two persons who are qualified—that is financially and otherwise qualified for services by a grantee—who have to be turned 

away because of no other reason but lack of resources. So we are 

turning away two for every one that is represented. Clearly that is 

a significant increase. 

And in the employment area, we see more of that. So there are 

increases. But I think the more pronounced has been in the area 

of foreclosures and predatory lending. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. Honda. 

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

Again, welcome. Good to see you guys. You do good work and—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. I think that the state of California has 

benefitted by your work, but I think that the state of California 

and perhaps other states have suffered because of the impositions 

that Congress has placed upon you. 

I just want to state for the record that I recognize the position 

that sometimes we place you in with our questions. So I think, I 

am not an attorney, I am just a simple school teacher, and so I 

think I have to rephrase my questions in a way that would, you 

know, reflect our desires for you to do the kind of work that we see 

that is necessary. 

And so in my humble opinion, some of the restrictions that we 

have placed upon LSC has been counterproductive in terms of us 

being able to provide services that some of the folks and many of 

the folks in California has needed in the past. 

And I guess it is going to be dependent upon our judgment and 

our leadership and our direction to you in order for us to be able 

to articulate that which needs to be done and then cover it with 

the appropriate amount of money. 

And so having said that, my sense is that we need to allow the 

LSC to operate on behalf of Congress with the understanding 

that—I have the trust that you would do so with the full spirit of 

what we define as justice for all and that folks need representation 

as part of our value system regardless of their standing in our society. And so I would be working in that direction. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
685 

I think that the ability of what I have seen in the past what our 

folks were able to do to leverage certain kinds of folks that are already in the community that wants to help and leverage on behalf 

of our clients that you are helping by lifting some of the restrictions, I think, does make sense because I do not want to send a 

gunfighter into a gunfight with a muzzle loading rifle when everybody else has automatic weapons. And I think that it does not set 

up things for a fair fight where justice needs to be served. 

So I really do appreciate this. I think I know how to answer my 

own questions. But just to express, and it took me a couple years 

to understand, the frustration I had when I was asking a lot of 

questions and I was trying to elicit, you know, responses from you 

that I wanted to hear, but you consistently say, you know, whatever you guys say. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And I think we are here in our official capacities, 

so we present the institutional view. I know that—— 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O [continuing]. You know, we all have personal 

views, although my wife tells me what mine are. But we do have 

our own personal views. But when we sit here, we sit here as representatives of the institution-presenting their views. 

And as I said earlier, my concern is that the expression of a personal view, whatever it may be, might be mistaken for the view of 

the institution. And if we had not been authorized to communicate 

that, I think it would be inappropriate for us to answer. 

Mr. HONDA. Yeah. And I appreciate your high level of professionalism and self-discipline. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. And I guess it really tells me that I have to tell you 

what I really want and why. And so I guess I met the enemy and 

it was me. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me welcome both of you before the Committee. And to the 

Chairman, I know through your information provided, you are a 

former Commander in the United States Coast Guard and you 

were formerly involved in a lot of activities, including General 

Counsel to the Republican party in Georgia and head of the Republican Lawyers Association. 

So it is good to see that there are Republicans and Democrats 

alike who find it appropriate under our Constitution to work to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to seek justice under our 

legal system. 

And to our Director here, Philadelphia, I mean, I think the best 

place to find people to lead major—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I could not agree more. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. You look to Philadelphia. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I could not agree more. 

Mr. FATTAH. And so Community Legal Services is where you got 

your start in the District Attorney’s Office. And I am glad my colVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00685 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
686 

league who is actually a former Philadelphian has returned to the 

room, Chairman Wolf, Representative Wolf. 

And I just want to clear up some things that were said and I 

have no intentions of throwing any elbows. I do want to get the 

record straight. 

Legal Services Corporation is not providing any lawyers on behalf of drivers, cooks, bottle watchers for Osama bin Laden under 

any circumstances, right? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. Put that on the record because sometimes you hear 

this, you know, a lot of what is said around here, and people who 

are not paying attention can get the wrong impression, right? So 

we can clarify that in no way, shape, or form. 

Secondly, as a former Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, I do want to say something. There is going to be an announcement apparently today that the Administration has worked 

something out and there is not going to be this big trial in New 

York of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If someone had conducted a 

crime of such a horrendous nature in Philadelphia and thousands 

of our citizens were killed, we would be proud to host a trial to go 

and make sure that justice was served, assuming the guy could live 

long enough to get to trial. All right? 

So this notion that America should be afraid of putting people on 

trial or hosting a trial somewhere to get a bad guy I think is nonsense. And it is a disservice to many, many people in our country 

who are not afraid to—you know, and I’m glad this Administration 

is killing and capturing bad guys all over the world. And we 

shouldn’t be afraid to use our judicial system as one of the tools 

to go after them. 

But I do want to thank Legal Services for the work that you are 

doing on behalf of millions of Americans. You know, when Dr. King 

had the great march on Washington he said that, you know, ‘‘Let 

us not be told that there are insufficient in the vaults of justice in 

this country.’’ 

And what he was really saying in the Poor People’s Campaign 

was that poor people need to have access to the court. And class 

actions is a good example. If you have an entity that is—you know, 

we had this problem with proprietary on higher education institutions ripping off poor people all over the country with false educational opportunities, accessing millions of dollars of federally 

guaranteed student loans. If you couldn’t go in on a class action, 

you would have to go upon each individual student and go after 

each individual situation. 

So class actions have an—you know, both can provide the taxpayers a protection when Legal Services operates and also help 

many, many more people. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAMS

So I just want to thank you for what you are doing. I do have 

some particular questions. The costs in your budget now, Legal 

Services, can you tell us a little bit about healthcare and what is 

happening with your premiums over the last 12 to 24 months? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Meaning the premiums of our grantees? I don’t 

have specific information here at hand but can provide that. I think 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
687 

that what—I would be surprised if it was anything other than increasing. I know that there has been an increase in the premiums 

for our own staff. That is, the staff at the corporation. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But I don’t have the specific numbers on what it 

is across the country in our various programs. But we should be 

able to acquire that information for you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Now your request this year is—and the 

Chairman worked very hard. And I do want to compliment our 

former Chair, Congressman Wolf. I was on the Committee when he 

chaired this. And he worked very hard against a lot of obstacles in 

his own party who didn’t see the wisdom of continuing to support 

Legal Services. So I do want to thank him. 

But in your request for an increase, I noticed a significant 

amount is in the management and oversight area, which is, you 

know, obviously you get—most of our interest is in your management and oversight. And you need to find an ability, because grantees are operating as independent agents all over the country. 

So this 80-plus million in increases is the most significant part 

thereof of your request; is that correct? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The most significant increase would be to basic 

field. In terms of management and grants administration, we are 

asking for an increase of over $2 million over what we got for 2010. 

That is for purposes of increasing and stepping up oversight. The 

board of directors has authorized a hiring of 15 persons to go into 

that part of the operation—that is, grantee oversight. 

The two-plus million would be salary to accommodate that—annualize it—and account for corresponding increased costs. But the 

largest component of the increase is clearly oversight. It is to step 

up and improve oversight of and guidance to grantees. 

But we also have a training component there where we talk 

about having web-based training that would provide training to 

grantees and to their boards of directors with a focus on the boards 

being oversight, internal controls, and proper oversight of grantees. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Well let me thank you, and let me thank the 

Chairman for the time. And I think that you know, given the work 

of this Committee and the leadership of our Chairman, that we are 

very interested in trying to make sure that Legal Services can continue and improve to close this justice gap. 

And, again, with the leadership of someone from the greatest city 

anywhere in the world at the helm, I am feeling even more confident that we are going to find room to be favorable about working 

towards your requests. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

TRENDS IN FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL SUPPORT

Gentlemen, I would like to walk through your funding file and 

understand more clearly where your money actually comes from 

and how much of it is contributed by the federal government, recognizing that in every program and every state it is different. 

But give us some idea of where dollars are coming from and at 

the end of the day how much of the resources used by Legal ServVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:16 Jul 09, 2010 Jkt 056795 PO 00000 Frm 00687 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A795P2.XXX A795P2

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
688 

ices across the country come from the federal government. Could 

you do that for me, please? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I can certainly give you some of that information. 

I think that non-LSC funding has steadily increased from 1996 

through 2008. We went from 41 percent to almost 60 percent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Forty-one percent of what? Sixty percent of 

what? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is our grantee’s funding back in 1996 was 41 

percent non-LSC nationwide. We are talking national averages. So 

41 percent of what our grantees—the funding they had—was from 

non-LSC sources. 

That was in 1996. In 2008, we were up to just under 60 percent. 

I am told it was 59.8 in 2008. Now, as might be expected because 

of the economic downturn, we have seen a dramatic decrease in 

those non-federal funds. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That trend you just described would have as 

much to do with the decrease in the federal funding as it would 

with an increase of the non-federal funding? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I think that if federal funding were to go down, 

then certainly that would impact on the percentage. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Right. It surely did between 1996 and 2008. 

Based on the fact that you are going down, one could conclude that 

LSC funding remained constant, maybe in real dollars. 

But you had a real increase in non-LSC contributions. Is that the 

case, or did you have both? Did you have a decrease in LSC funding and an increase in outside funding? That is quite a dramatic 

shift, actually, from 40 to 60 percent. Maybe it was both. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. And I think that—this from our 2008 book. 

I was just handed a page that has some figures on funding type, 

amount, and percentage. I think that, again, this wouldn’t respond 

to the question of—since LSC funding is not a constant, since there 

are variations there, it is difficult to glean terribly much from the 

percentage rise in non-LSC funding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we are going to get to the current time period. I just want to understand a little bit more about the 1996 to 

2008 history. 

Let me lead you through it a little bit. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then you tell me where I am leading in the 

wrong direction. In 1996, you say non-LSC funding was 41 percent 

of your overall—legal services programming funding. And LSC 

funding decreased pretty dramatically from 1996 to 2008; did it 

not? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. There were decreases. The last four years 

have certainly been better. But prior to that there were decreases. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well in 2006 then maybe, sir. So now 60 percent 

of the resources are non-LSC funding, correct? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That was as of 2008. The percentage has decreased since then. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that because federal funding has increased, or 

outside funding has decreased, or both? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I think it is a combination of both. I think that 

federal funding has increased. And that would impact on the relative percentages. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
689 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well then let us take them one at a time. LSC 

funding has increased. We know that. What is happening to nonLSC funding? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Non-LSC funding—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In real dollars. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O [continuing]. We have, for example, IOLTA. We 

don’t yet have the final numbers. But from the figures we do have, 

one thing that is clear is that there is a very sharp decline. We estimate that there will be a drop from 33 to 50 percent in IOLTA 

and similar drops in—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You already had a drop in IOLTA. Do you mean 

a further drop? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. A further drop. That is between—from 2009—from 

2008 to 2009, there was this drop we are estimating to be 33 to 

50 percent. And we are expecting a like decline in 2010–2011. 

There had been a similar decline in local government funding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You mean another 50 percent decline? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. On top of the first 50 percent? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is correct. 

The state government support has not suffered as much as the 

local government and IOLTA. But those two are major sources of 

non-LSC funding. And they clearly have been impacted adversely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So state government support is going down. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. All three, state less than local. But certainly local 

going down about as much as IOLTA. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well no matter what the federal government 

does then it doesn’t look—— 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. It doesn’t look good. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Sanguine. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Which is why we have come to you with an aggressive budget request. It’s because I think that when our nation 

encounters a hardship, I think it is the poor that are generally the 

first and worst affected by it. And I think this one has been no different. I think that the poor have been disproportionately impacted 

by it. I think that the need is increasing. 

And so we have an increasing need. And at the same time these 

other sources of funding are dwindling. So that is why we have 

come to you with what clearly is an aggressive funding request. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, and you should. You should be aggressive. 

You are aggressive here today with us. What are you doing outside 

of LSC funding to try to correct this or to check this trend, if not 

to reverse it? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. What is LSC doing outside of its request to the 

federal government? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We certainly are encouraging our grantees to be 

aggressive about fundraising. We are trying to help them with information that can be valuable to them, that can be used by them, 

with guidance, with best practices. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well I hear you saying all those things. I want 

to understand how much energy is behind them. How much real 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
690 

effort is out there? Do you have a program out there to encourage 

your grantees to develop other sources of funding or to be more 

successful in their conventional sources of funding? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We don’t have—we don’t have a program—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Should you? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O [continuing]. That is specifically staffed for that 

purpose. The same way that we don’t have a PAI office that is 

staffed exclusively for that purpose. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Some of our grantees do. And that is part of what 

they use to—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I know. But nationally should you be ringing the bell? Tell me what you should be doing, or could you be 

doing more in this area? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We recognize that this is a complex issue and that 

funding has to involve a multi-faceted approach. So we certainly 

recognize that there are a number of different dimensions to this 

that need to be explored and that are not fully exploited right now. 

But we are doing things along the lines that have been asked 

about here. Maybe not in the structured, have a specific unit set 

aside to come up with innovation, to generate innovation, to do 

more in the way of communicating best practices and to develop 

the—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, the Committee would like for you to submit for the record in a reasonable time frame, which you can work 

out with staff, a plan that addresses enhancing your non-LSC resources. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We would be happy to. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you would. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would think if you needed someone to take on 

that mission full time, we would want an estimate of whether that 

would be money well spent. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Mm-hmm. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
691 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1188 here 56795B.210
692 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There is an irony here, a couple of them. However hard Chairman Wolf fought for LSC during the time he was 

Chairman, he was still up against a less favorable political and 

philosophical environment. 

You are in a very favorable political environment from the executives through the Congress but what I am hearing is you are actually going to have less resources to address legal needs of the poor 

than we have had in the past, during a time when those needs are 

increasing because of the economic circumstances. 

I don’t think when the President asked two years in a row for 

the same requests, and I would like for him to have been working 

off another baseline, just to put that in there again, that doesn’t 

look really encouraging. Especially given the overall budgetary situation we are facing. 

So wanting to do as much as we can to get those resources, I 

would like to see how you are working harder outside LSC funding 

to achieve that with the programs across the country. 

ACTIVITIES OF AFFILIATE ORGANIZATION

With respect to your activities and the activities of your grantees, 

am I correct to some extent, and tell me if I am not, that a lot of 

the things that the restrictions address are being done in separately stood up organizations? Is that correct or incorrect? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. Affiliate organizations are, as are organizations that are not affiliated. But, yes, there are other channels 

through which those activities can be undertaken. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well it can be, but I’m asking are they? That is 

my question. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I know it could be. Could you give us an example 

or two? How does that work? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We receive requests for guidance from grantees on 

a periodic basis where they ask whether there is sufficient separation between them and an affiliate. I can certainly put together 

numbers as to how many of those we are aware of. There may be 

any number that we are unaware of. But we can certainly share 

with you the information concerning any of those that we are 

aware of and provide some detail on that. 

[The information follows:] 

USE OF AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS

At present, LSC is aware of approximately 30 affiliate organizations. For LSC 

purposes, affiliate organizations are entities that closely coordinate with an LSC 

grantee in a variety of ways. These include: sharing overlapping board members and 

part-time staff, and providing other services such as intake, advice and transfer of 

non-LSC funds to the affiliate. Affiliated entities usually work outside of the restrictions, but LSC has strict requirements that grantees maintain Part 1610 program 

integrity—objective integrity and independence—from any entity engaging in restricted activities. Program integrity requires legal, physical and financial separation, and no provision of LSC funds to the other entity or subsidies of restricted activities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well I guess my point is that, in an imperfect 

world, this activity would appropriately be undertaken by LSC 

grantees if it were not for these restrictions. But those desires are 

actually being met by organizations, however inefficient it might 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
693 

be, by setting up a fire walled sort of arrangement or structure; is 

that not correct? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. I think it is largely not an issue of whether 

the work can be undertaken. It is an issue of by whom and whether it is efficient. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Democracy and conflicting philosophies 

sometimes are inefficient. We pay a price through the inefficiency 

to accommodate all of those interests and to achieve the consensus 

goal, which Mr. Wolf represents, of getting funding for LSC up. So 

those are the choices sometimes we have to make. 

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

I would like to try to update the record with regard to the governance and management issues that GAO raised. First of all, let 

me compliment you on working on them. 

I understood that it was represented here last year that everything was okay. But I learned this year that perhaps, and maybe 

it is a technicality, while significant progress has been made, all of 

these issues have not been completed. 

So just one more time for the record, if you will: Could you clarify 

for us how many of the GAO recommendations you have completed, 

how many have already been submitted to GAO for final review, 

and how many might be outstanding? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I believe there were two in recent years, two GAO 

reports. The first was on governance. The second was on grants 

oversight. I think we had a total of 17—if I’m not mistaken, 17 recommendations of which nine have been fully—the Corporation has 

accepted all of them—the recommendations as to nine have been 

fully implemented. 

What remains is the other eight now. My understanding is that 

as to three of those eight, it is a matter of whether sufficient documentation is available so that the Corporation is confident that the 

documentation that is being made available will satisfy the GAO. 

That at least those three have also been fully implemented, which 

would take us to 12. 

Leaving five yet to be implemented. They revolve around things 

like oversight of management processes. So what is happening is 

at the April board of directors meeting, one of the items that is 

going to be taken up is how to do that. We have a part-time board 

that meets four to six times a year. 

So how do they accomplish this oversight of management processes—whether they delegate that to a committee, whether someone on that committee spends a couple of days at the corporation 

every six months or so, whether they hire a consultant? Whatever 

the process may be, that is what will be discussed by the board in 

April. 

So steps are being taken to implement the remaining recommendations. As I said, nine of the seventeen. GAO, in fact, has 

already testified before our Senate Subcommittee, the Judiciary 

Committee, that they have been implemented. And that we have 

made real progress. And that we are on the road to resolving the 

others. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
694 

In addition to those nine, we think we have another three done 

for a total of twelve. And then what remains are five, which we are 

still working on. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have an estimate of when you might be 

finished implementing? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I don’t know that—— 

Mr. CONSTANCE. All will be done this year. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I think we are confident that—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This calendar year, fiscal year? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Calendar year. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Understand that these questions are in 

the spirit of trying to get these things off the table, so we take 

away any criticisms of those who might be less supportive of the 

program. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And I might add that the recommendations have 

been taken very seriously. It is not just paying lip service. 

You know, examples the board—GAO recommended the adoption 

of specific charters, something more substantial than in fact was in 

place up until then. The board has done that and, in fact, started 

looking at whether things like the requirement of an audit committee. The board established an audit committee, which it didn’t 

have heretofore. And is actually looking at whether that is advisable in the context of our grantees and has had some discussion 

about that. 

So clearly the recommendations made by GAO have not only 

been accepted but have been embraced. And in addition to implementing them for LSC, LSC is looking at how else they can be of 

value and used, because I think LSC’s experience has been that 

those were good, helpful recommendations. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Can you formally respond to the separate 

allegations that were made in the Washington Times last summer 

about improper expenditures by grantees? Have you finished your 

investigations? Do you have recommendations? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That may be. If I am not mistaken, that is probably what has sometimes been referred to as the natural stone on 

one of our grantees building. 

A grantee in Texas built an office. And there was some imported 

natural stone that was used. The matter was investigated by our 

OIG. They reported to management. Management initiated—questioned cost proceedings. In fact, succeeded in having—the program 

agreed, I should say, to having the cost of that born by some other 

source so that no LSC funds were used. 

In fact, it is actually an example of how the system works and 

can work, which is as you might expect. We are all human, and we 

are talking about a lot of people in the program. On occasion mistakes in judgement are made. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
695 

We like to think that we have a system in place that will help 

not just deter but when mistakes in judgement occur, identify them 

and then trigger the system as it did in this case. And ultimately 

what happened was no LSC funds went into the purchase of that 

stone that was used on the exterior of the building. 

That is the one I can think of from last summer. I am not sure 

if there is another. 

Mr. CONSTANCE. We can respond on the record for the rest. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We would be happy to respond. 

[The information follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
696 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1197 here 56795B.211
697 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1198 here 56795B.212
698 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is fine. Respond for the record. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Do you feel scrutinized? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. No. I think it is appropriate. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I didn’t say it was inappropriate. I said do you 

feel scrutinized? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. But I would expect no less. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I get into a couple of questions, and my good friend Mr. 

Fattah, I just want to kind of respond back. I am from Philadelphia. You are from Philly. I was out there with some constituents. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. I was with a Legal Services program, an LSC 

funded program in Philadelphia and then with the DA’s office back 

when—— 

Mr. WOLF. Where in Philadelphia? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Where in Philadelphia? I lived in Center City. I 

am originally from New York. I was born and raised in Hell’s 

Kitchen. But I spent my first seven–eight years practicing law in 

Philadelphia. 

Mr. WOLF. I was born in South Philadelphia and raised in South 

Philadelphia. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I know South Philly well. 

Mr. WOLF. But the comment that Mr. Fattah made, what I was 

inferring to was the report today and not inferring that Legal Services was involved in that. 

But there was the comment that the person who was representing Osama bin Laden’s driver was working in the Justice Department. And 35 of the top 50 law firms in the country have done 

pro bono work representing Guantanamo Bay people. And I would 

be interested if you would, for the record, let me know if these 50 

law firms are also participating in the Legal Services. So if we 

could get that answer. 

[The information follows:] 

PRO BONO WORK BY FIRMS WHO REPRESENTED GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

LSC does not have any information on the national law firms who have represented Guantanamo detainees and if they have also done pro bono work at LSC 

grantees. While many LSC grantees have relationships with large law firms in their 

state to encourage private attorney assistance, we do not know whether they have 

also represented detainees at Guantanamo. 

The other question that he was raising about not being afraid, 

and I feel an obligation on behalf of the families, there were 30 

people from my District who died in the attack on 9/11. 

In 1998, I had come back from Algeria where 175,000 people 

were killed. And I introduced a bill to create the National Commission on Terror. Both sides of the aisle ridiculed me, my side and 

the other side. 

I said when I introduced the bill that Osama bin Laden lived in 

Sudan where I had been a number of times for five years. In the 

end we passed the bill. It was the Bremer Commission. And both 

the Bush Administration ignored the recommendations, as did the 

Clinton Administration. 

No one is afraid of this trial. The reasons the concern about— 

particularly many of the families who have lost loved ones is they 

see the cost of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
699 

would be roughly a billion dollars. The City of New York was asking for $206 million a year. 

And Moussaoui was tried, if you recall—the 20th hijacker was 

tried in Alexandria. Tried before there was the Patent Trademark 

Office, before there was the hotel across the street, before the condominium, and it tied up the area. He was there for four and a half 

years. 

So if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in New York City for four and 

a half years, the cost would be over a billion dollars. 

Secondly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not an American citizen. 

If you are in the military, as you know, and you do something 

wrong, you go through the military system. I think to give Khalid 

Sheikh Mohammed greater rights than we give an American man 

or woman who serves in the military is wrong. 

Thirdly, he acknowledged that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed beheaded Daniel Pearl. I mean, does anyone care about the pain and 

agony of Daniel Pearl’s wife and his family? He has acknowledged 

too that he was the mastermind of the 9/11, which resulted in 

death for a number of people from my area. 

Fourth, no one is afraid of course. But Sheikh Rahman, who was 

convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center attack, was sending 

things out through his lawyer if you recall. And she was later prosecuted. Also incarcerate terrorists stabbed Officer Pepe in the eye. 

And there are many other ramifications. And if you talk to people 

who were guards down in Guantanamo Bay, they wear a blank 

name tag over their name tags so their names are not there. And 

so the ramifications, and then you can take it into traffic and take 

it into many other areas. 

So I have the bill in the House; Lindsay Graham has it in the 

Senate. There are Democratic members on the bill that I have that 

says basically do not try him in a civilian court. Try him in a military court, either in Guantanamo Bay or a military base in a remote area somewhere in the United States. 

I just felt an obligation to kind of put that into perspective. And 

also lastly, to think of the pain, and the suffering, and the agony 

of those policemen. My dad was a Philadelphia policemen, the policemen, the firemen, Deborah Burlingame who is the sister of a 

fellow from my District who was the pilot of the airplane that went 

into the Pentagon. And the hurt and the pain that they have gone 

through. I wanted to put it into context of what my concerns are. 

WORKING WITH BAR ASSOCIATIONS

The two questions in addition to the list of the top 50 firms, 

there are two questions. I will ask them together. One, when you 

are paying your bar dues, does any of that go to Legal Services? 

I think that would be a very appropriate thing. I pay my bar dues. 

I am not practicing, but I have kept a portion of it. Does any of 

that go? 

Secondly, I had a bill in that gives a tax credit for doctors who 

participate in helping people who don’t have healthcare. We have 

some free clinics in my area. We encourage doctors to come in. And 

so we put it in such a way that if you are a doctor and you participate in the free clinic, you will get a tax credit because your time, 

and as a lawyer your time is valuable. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
700 

And so the two questions are, one, has that ever been looked at 

with regard to a tax credit for a lawyer or an individual who participates and gives his or her time. Although fitting it to the IRS 

regulations that obviously that they have. 

And secondly, does any of the money that goes into the bar dues, 

for instance, when you pay into the D.C. Bar or the Virginia Bar, 

whatever bar it is, is there any that goes to Legal Services? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I can maybe take that in reverse order. Whether 

the tax credit approach has been explored, not to my knowledge. 

Although I like the idea and—certainly keep lawyers in mind when 

exploring that kind of approach. 

As to the bar dues, obviously that is a matter of local control, 

and it can vary. It does vary from state to state and the purposes 

to which they put the dues. In some instances, it is to the regulation of the lawyers in that jurisdiction. But whether any portion of 

dues goes to Legal Services, I don’t know that there is a specific 

set-aside. 

Although in some instances they do have—the Bar Association 

may have a foundation which provides funding. We certainly do receive funding from the organized bar. There has been a significant 

drop this past year along with all the other sources of non-LSC 

funding. There has been a significant drop in contributions from 

the Bar. 

But whether any given state devotes any of the revenue received 

from bar dues to Legal Services would be a matter of local control. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Let me comment. May I comment on that also, 

Mr. Wolf? 

In many states, as you know, you have what is called a mandatory bar and Georgia being one of those states. And there was a 

case coming out of California known generally as the Keller case, 

having to do with what you can do with dues derived from a mandatory bar. For example, you can’t do any legislative lobbying with 

mandatory bar dues. 

I say that just to comment on your question. There are some limitations on what can be done with mandatory bar dues. 

Mr. WOLF. Could there be a possibility of in the Bar Associations of having a check that you can add $5.00, $10.00, whatever the 

case may be, to Legal Services? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We had an experience on that in Georgia. We 

had both good and bad results. But I need to tell the whole story. 

One year the Board of Governors, on which I have served for 25 

years, voted to do a checkoff such as you are describing for the 

Georgia Legal Services Program. And it generated $800,000. So the 

following year—but it did so at the expense of another checkoff program for the legislative fund. 

As I said a moment ago, you can’t use mandatory bar dues for 

legislative lobbying. Well the following year, a proposal came before 

the Board of Governors to flip that. In other words, it was such an 

overwhelming success and at the same time a penalty if you will 

to the legislative work. 

I thought it was really a sorry day for the Board of Governors 

for the State Bar of Georgia, which voted exactly that way. In my 

view, in favor of legislative lobbying and to the detriment of the following years raise for Georgia Legal Services. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
701 

I don’t remember the precise numbers. I do remember the 

800,000 number, because it was more than twice as much as had 

ever been raised for Georgia Legal Services in a fundraising effort 

as opposed to a dues checkoff. 

So that has been—I don’t want to leave you with a completely 

negative impression of the State Bar of Georgia. However, there is 

a Bar Foundation, as Mr. Fortun ̃ o mentioned, that people do contribute do on a voluntary basis that generated probably in the 

neighborhood of a half million dollars a year for direct allocation 

to Legal Services in our state. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I think it would be a good idea. My sense is that 

if perhaps we could approach, you know, maybe the different Bar 

Associations to see if you could do a pilot program that way, because there are many attorneys. I think it is sort of never asked. 

I am not really quite sure what way to go. But if given the opportunity, they may very well be anxious to participate. 

And you would like the idea with regard to the tax credit? Is that 

what you were saying? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think that is a real interesting concept that 

we should look into. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I think both are good ideas. You know, there are 

any number of others. I know I have always been particularly partial to, although I am not sure how well it would be received, to 

a set-aside from punitive damages. You know, that is sometimes 

done at the federal level or the state level by state law. I don’t 

think it exists at the federal level. But I have always been interested in that. Although it is not something we have formally explored, and it may not have anything to offer. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, let us look at these, and we will see. And, again, 

thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. One more thing for the record—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STRICKLAND [continuing]. On my comments on the State Bar 

of Georgia. 

Mr. WOLF. You are running for presidency of that Bar. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are moving up to votes. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Okay, I’m sorry. I was just going to say my law 

firm stopped contributing to the legislative program. That is all. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. That is commendable. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of questions. But I, you know, want to put one last coat 

on the private funds, state funds, issue. And that is express the 

view of my constituents in California who put up half the funds for 

LSC. We are big supporters of LSC. 

You know, our constituents of California don’t support the restrictions. They can’t understand the restrictions on the use of federal funds. It is a national body. They can understand a national 

Congress deciding on how federal funds ought to be used. But they 

have a very difficult time understanding why the Congress is deciding how they should do state funds or how that is somehow to their 

advantage. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
702 

And as you point out, and as they have pointed out to me repeatedly, it has a real effect on their fundraising, notwithstanding the 

separate entities that have been set up. They have a lot of donors 

who will not give to them because of the restrictions. So I do want 

to take the opportunity to let you know how my constituents feel 

about it. 

And I think the idea of looking for other sources of revenue that 

are more stable is a good one. I don’t know whether the bar dues 

or a checkoff is. I have some experience with that as well and see 

the feast or famine quality of the checkoff. 

But the IOLTA funds I know are running very low because of interest rates, and that is not ideal either. I was curious about how 

the IOLTA fund provision was established. Is that a state by state 

thing, or is that a—it is a state by state thing. I see some nodding 

heads. 

I don’t know if there is a mechanism like that, which has been 

a relatively consistent source of funding, just not in a consistent 

amount. If there is something—a mechanism like that that might 

have a more consistent revenue stream. 

CONFIRMATION OF A NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS

I would like to get your thoughts on that. And the only other 

question I had was on the board itself, through your testimony, 

written testimony, I gather there is still eight nominees that are 

sort of in the wings? And I am curious to how long they have been 

waiting for confirmation, and how you are handling that when you 

have sort of a current board and a shadow board. I know you have 

been doing orientations. But are they more involved in the decision 

making than just sort of being kept in the loop? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. One of the nominees for the new board was 

seated in July to fill a vacancy, so Laurie Mikva of Chicago is already serving on the board. Leaving five Democrat nominees who 

have—my understanding is have cleared the committee. Three of 

the five Republican nominees are before the committee but are not 

out of the committee at this point. And that leaves two Republican 

nominees who have not yet been announced. 

But in response to your question about involvement, thinking 

back to my own time as a nominee, I don’t mean this critically, but 

we didn’t really have any orientation. We were nominees for a year. 

I don’t know that we were controversial. I think there was some 

disagreement on some of the other nominees. So until we were all 

together as a group, no one was confirmed. 

By contrast, early on I made a direct contact with a member of 

the group of nominees who may well be the next board chairman 

to talk about a transition. And that led to the orientation program 

that you heard described a few moments ago in January. And we 

have immediately and continuously invited the nominees to attend 

our meetings. And they do have to do that as observers however. 

So far though we have had I think a very good working relationship with the group of nominees that have already been identified. 

IOLTA FUNDING

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. Any other thoughts? I don’t know if 

there is a way to—within IOLTA to float as a percentage of—well 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
703 

to float with interest rates in a way that keeps it a more consistent 

source of funds or whether there are other mechanisms like IOLTA 

that would be a better candidate. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We do work with the local—with the State IOLTA 

commissions and the national body. So there is a flow of information back and forth. And certainly we would like to have a more 

consistent revenue streams, so that it is not as dependent on interest rates. 

But, unfortunately, it is the interest on lawyer’s trust accounts. 

So long as we are talking interest rates, they are going to fluctuate. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I wonder though. I mean, this may not be workable 

at all. But you could have a situation where when interest rates 

go above a certain point, that a, for lack of a better term, rainy day 

fund is created. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. In fact, they do have reserves, which is why the— 

in 2008—in part in 2008 we didn’t feel as big a pinch. I think that 

the reserves were tapped. And now what concerns us is that not 

only are the rates down, but the reserves have been depleted. 

But they do establish reserves so that when they need to tap into 

them, those rainy day funds are available. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony here today. 

I am going to submit a few questions for the record. There may be 

some questions other members might wish to submit for the record. 

I would like to get some cost effectiveness information in the 

record justifying Legal Services in economic terms. I think you 

probably can address that effectively. 

I want to thank you very much for your appearance here today, 

for the expertise, for the time that you have given the program. 

And, Mr. Strickland, if you are not going to be here next year, 

we very much appreciate your service. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. This may very well be my final appearance before your Committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

Hearing is adjourned. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
704 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1213 here 56795B.213
705 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1214 here 56795B.214
706 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1215 here 56795B.215
707 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1216 here 56795B.216
708 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1217 here 56795B.217
709 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1218 here 56795B.218
710 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1219 here 56795B.219
711 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1220 here 56795B.220
712 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1221 here 56795B.221
713 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1222/1400 here 56795B.222
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Fortun ̃ o, V. M ........................................................................................................... 653 

Glover, Phil .............................................................................................................. 529 

Holder, Hon. E. H., Jr ............................................................................................. 1 

Lappin, H. G ............................................................................................................ 361 

Lowry, Bryan ........................................................................................................... 529 

Melson, Kenneth ...................................................................................................... 273 

Mueller, Robert ........................................................................................................ 185 

Robinson, Laurie ...................................................................................................... 567 

Strickland, F. B ........................................................................................................ 653 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Department of Justice FY2011 Budget Overview 

Witness: Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States 

2010 Census ............................................................................................................. 35 

Adam Walsh Act..................................................................................................... 57, 117 

Balancing Security and Justice in Terrorism Trials ............................................. 39 

Budget Request for Holding Civilian Terrorist Trials .......................................... 17 

Civilian Terrorism Trials ........................................................................................ 26 

Delays in the Implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act .................... 23, 44 

Disposition of Guantanamo Detainees ................................................................... 13 

DNA Analysis Backlog ............................................................................................ 27 

Drug Court ............................................................................................................... 98 

Drug, Mental Health and Problem-Solving Courts ............................................... 126 

Firearms Trafficking and Related Violence ........................................................... 38 

Gangs ...................................................................................................................... 94, 111 

Guantanamo as a Recruiting Tool .......................................................................... 41, 45 

Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force ............................................................ 120 

Guantanamo ............................................................................................................. 100 

Hate Crimes against Immigrants ........................................................................... 53 

Holding 9/11 Trials in New York City ................................................................... 51 

Human Rights Watch Report on Prison Rape ....................................................... 59 

Immigration Case Reviews ..................................................................................... 37 

Intellectual Property Enforcement ......................................................................... 88 

Interrogation of Abdulmutallab ........................................................................ 42, 54, 58 

Interrogation Policy ................................................................................................. 102 

John Adams Project ................................................................................................. 22 

Legal Technicalities in Terrorism Trials ............................................................... 59 

Letters from Ranking Member Wolf to Attorney General Holder .......... 132, 136, 146, 

147, 150, 152 

Letters from Ranking Member Wolf to Attorney General Holder, continued..................................................................................... 154, 158, 159, 163, 164, 165 

Letters from Ranking Member Wolf to Attorney General Holder, continued..................................................................................... 168, 172, 175, 176, 178, 180 

Letters from Ranking Member Wolf to Attorney General Holder, continued ..................................................................................................................... 181, 183 

Medical Marijuana ................................................................................................... 121 

Mexican Firearms Trafficking ................................................................................ 46 

Opening Statement of Chairman Mollohan ........................................................... 1 

Opening Statement of Mr. Wolf .............................................................................. 3 

Past Provision of Miranda Warnings to Terrorist Suspects ................................. 46 

Potential Trial of Osama Bin Laden ...................................................................... 43 

Previous Terrorist Trials in Civilian Court ........................................................... 56 

Prosecutions of Human Rights Violators ............................................................... 43 

Protection of National Security Information in Civilian Trials ........................... 32 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Questions for the Record, Chairman Alan Mollohan ............................................ 64 

Questions for the Record, Ranking Member Frank R. Wolf ................................ 100 

Questions for the Record, Representative Adam Schiff ........................................ 88 

Questions for the Record, Representative C.A. ‘‘Dutch’’ Ruppersberger ............. 91 

Questions for the Record, Representative Jerry Lewis ........................................ 126 

Questions for the Record, Representative Robert B. Aderholt ............................. 128 

Reinstituting the 9/11 Commission ........................................................................ 20 

Resources for Indian Country ................................................................................. 36 

Rights Afforded to Defendants in Civilian Trials ................................................. 29 

Rights of Detainees in Civilian Trials, Continued ................................................ 40 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) ............................................. 126 

Statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States .......... 6 

TARP and Stimulus Fraud ..................................................................................... 119 

Testimony of Attorney General Holder .................................................................. 3 

The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group ..................................................... 21 

Trials of the 9/11 Perpetrators ............................................................................... 18 

Use of Civilian Trials as a Tool in the War on Terrorism ................................... 49 

Use of the Civilian Trial System To Reinforce the Rule of Law .......................... 33 

White Collar Crime ................................................................................................. 56 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Director Robert S. Mueller 

Answer on Fix for the DNA Technical Review Problem ....................................... 231 

Article by Michael B. Mukasey ............................................................................... 213 

Big Budget Numbers ............................................................................................... 219 

Civilian Trials for Terrorism Suspects ................................................................... 228 

Comparison of Agent Coverage in Indian Country to Coverage in Comparability-Sized Rural Areas ............................................................................... 235 

Comparison of Agent Coverage in Indian Country to Coverage in Comparability-Sized Crime Rates .............................................................................. 236 

Development of the National Security Branch ...................................................... 219 

DNA and Fingerprint Analysis ............................................................................... 229 

Firearms Trafficking ............................................................................................... 244 

Follow-up on the Robert Hanssen Case ................................................................. 244 

Gang Enforcement ................................................................................................... 240 

Hate Crimes Enforcement ....................................................................................... 225 

High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group ............................................................ 262 

Homegrown Terrorists ............................................................................................. 221 

Interrogation of Terrorism Suspects in the U.S .................................................... 205 

Jurisdictional Issues Between FBI and DHS ........................................................ 220 

Lab-Wide Average Evidence Processing Turnaround Time ................................. 237 

Law Enforcement in Indian Country ..................................................................... 233 

Legat Program/Overseas Presence ......................................................................... 271 

License Plate on Car Driven by Consular Employee Murdered in Juarez ......... 241 

New Agents Visiting the Holocaust Museum ........................................................ 223 

Official Response on why the Indian Country Agents are Being Funded 

Though BIA .......................................................................................................... 237 

Opening Statement of Chairman Mollohan ........................................................... 185 

Opening Statement of Mr. Wolf .............................................................................. 187 

Oral Remarks of Director Mueller ......................................................................... 187 

Overseas Contingency Operations .......................................................................... 268 

Progress in Responding to IG Report on Hanssen Follow-up .............................. 245 

Questions for the Record, Chairman Alan Mollohan ............................................ 246 

Questions for the Record, Ranking Member Frank R. Wolf ................................ 262 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Questions for the Record, Representative Adam Schiff ........................................ 259 

Records Management .............................................................................................. 272 

Recruitment in Diverse Communities .................................................................... 226 

Sentinel ................................................................................................................. 238, 267 

Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III ....................................................................... 190 

Terrorism Interrogations, Continued ..................................................................... 227 

Terrorist Radicalization .......................................................................................... 241 

Threats from Gangs ................................................................................................. 222 

Training .................................................................................................................... 269 

Trends in the Level and Types of Crimes Committed in Indian Country .......... 234 

Update on DNA Backlog ......................................................................................... 232 

Views on the Child Protection Improvement Act .................................................. 231 

Violent Crime/Gangs ............................................................................................... 264 

White Collar Crime ................................................................................................. 224 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

Witness: Kenneth Melson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives 

Anti-Gang Coordination .......................................................................................... 299 

ATF Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan ................................................................ 300 

ATF/FBI Explosives Enforcement Efforts .............................................................. 301 

ATF’S ETRACE System .......................................................................................... 301 

Ballistics Information .............................................................................................. 344 

Biography of Kenneth E. Melson ............................................................................ 283 

Coordination with FBI on Explosives Investigations ........................................... 343 

Emergency Support Function #13 .......................................................................... 302 

Gangs—Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT) ....................................................... 336 

Gun Dealer Compliance .......................................................................................... 287 

International Nexus to Gangs ................................................................................ 291 

Introductory Remarks by Mr. Culberson ............................................................... 274 

Opening Remarks of Deputy Director Melson ....................................................... 274 

Opening Statement of Chairman Mollohan ........................................................... 273 

Project Gunrunner ............................................................................................... 284, 328 

Questions for the Record, Chairman Alan Mollohan ............................................ 308 

Questions for the Record, Representative Adam Schiff ........................................ 316 

Questions for the Record, Representative Frank R. Wolf .................................... 328 

Questions for the Record, Representative Mike Honda ........................................ 324 

Questions for the Record, Representative Robert B. Aderholt ............................. 348 

Recovery Act Expenditures per Project Gunrunner .............................................. 304 

Regulatory Backlog .................................................................................................. 297 

Spanish ETRACE .................................................................................................... 295 

Statement of Kenneth E. Melson ........................................................................... 277 

Violent Crime Impact Teams .................................................................................. 290 

Bureau of Prisons FY2011 Budget Overview 

Witness: Harley G. Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons 

Anti-Craving Medication ......................................................................................... 431 

Budget Gaps ............................................................................................................. 420 

Classification/Segregating Groups of Inmates ...................................................... 412 

Counterterrorism.................................................................................................. 396, 510 

Crowding/Inmate-to-Staff Ratios ................................................................ 385, 508, 515 

Federal Prison Industries (FPI) .............................................................................. 407 

Federal Prison Industries (FPI) .............................................................................. 415 

Federal Prison Industries (FPI).......................................................................... 424, 517 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Federal Prison Industries ....................................................................................... 395 

Future Prison Changes........................................................................................ 410, 516 

FY 2011 Budget ....................................................................................................... 387 

Gangs .................................................................................................................... 397, 511 

GAO Review of BOP’s Budgeting ........................................................................... 386 

Guantanamo Bay ..................................................................................................... 427 

Incarcerated Women ................................................................................................ 414 

Inmate Assaults on Staff ......................................................................................... 425 

Inmate Assaults on Staff ......................................................................................... 430 

Inmate Per Capita ................................................................................................... 409 

Inmate Population Increases .................................................................................. 383 

Life Sentences .......................................................................................................... 409 

Modernization and Repair (M&R) .......................................................................... 421 

Modernization and Repair ...................................................................................... 521 

Need for New Prison Beds ...................................................................................... 423 

Non-Returnable Criminal Aliens ............................................................................ 398 

Non-U.S. Citizens .................................................................................................... 409 

Opening Remarks .................................................................................................... 361 

Opening Statement .................................................................................................. 362 

Prison Industries Enhancement ............................................................................. 425 

Prison Population Increases ................................................................................... 414 

Prison Radicalization ............................................................................................... 397 

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) .................................................................... 399 

Questions for the Record, Chairman Alan Mollohan ............................................ 433 

Questions for the Record, Ranking Member Frank R. Wolf ................................ 510 

Questions for the Record, Representative C.A. ‘‘Dutch’’ Rupperseberger ........... 508 

Questions for the Record, Representative Robert B. Aderholt ............................. 523 

Re-entry Programs ............................................................................................... 408, 519 

Sexual Abuse of Inmates ......................................................................................... 426 

Special Management Units (SMUS) ...................................................................... 429 

Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 388 

State and Local Prison Populations ....................................................................... 394 

Statement of Harley G. Lappin, Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons ............. 365 

Thomson Facility.................................................................................................. 426, 512 

U.S. Budget and State and Local ........................................................................... 394 

Veterans ................................................................................................................... 413

American Federation of Government Employees—Council of Prison 

Locals 

Witnesses: Bryan Lowry, President, Council of Prison Locals, AFGE, AFL– 

CIO; Phil Glover, National Legislative Coordinator Council of Prison 

Locals, AFGE, AFL–CIO 

Biography of Bryan Lowry, President of AFL–CIO .............................................. 549 

Biography of Philip W. Glover, Legislative Director of AFL–CIO ....................... 550 

Drug Treatment ....................................................................................................... 564 

Emails of Inmates .................................................................................................... 565 

Gangs ........................................................................................................................ 557 

Monitoring of Inmates Communications ................................................................ 565 

Opening Statement of Chairman Mollohan ........................................................... 529 

Opening Statement of the Witnesses ..................................................................... 529 

Overcrowding ........................................................................................................... 562 

Radicalization of Inmates ....................................................................................... 558 

Rape in Prisons ........................................................................................................ 558 

Reentry and Restitution .......................................................................................... 557 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Staffing Levels ......................................................................................................... 552 

Statements of Bryan Lowry, President and Phil Glover, Legislative Coordinator of AFL–CIO ................................................................................................ 531 

Violence in Prisons .................................................................................................. 559 

Work Opportunities for Inmates ............................................................................ 556 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) FY 2011 Budget 

Witness: Hon. Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General 

Comprehensive Planning ........................................................................................ 597 

Diagnostic Center .................................................................................................... 588 

DNA Rape Kit Backlog in Los Angeles .................................................................. 596 

Drug, Mental Health and Problem-Solving Courts ............................................... 602 

Evidence-Based Approaches ................................................................................... 586 

Evidence-Based Solutions ....................................................................................... 590 

FY 2011 Budget Request ......................................................................................... 568 

FY 2011 Budget Request ......................................................................................... 569 

Gangs and Youth Violence Prevention .................................................................. 647 

Hope Program .......................................................................................................... 597 

Human Trafficking............................................................................................... 593, 645 

ICACS ....................................................................................................................... 609 

Intellectual Property Enforcement ......................................................................... 605 

Justice Reinvestment Program ............................................................................... 603 

Prescription and Drug Monitoring ......................................................................... 603 

Prison Rape Elimination/Prosecution Program ................................................. 591, 642 

Program Cuts and Eliminations ............................................................................. 591 

Questions for the Record, Chairman Alan Mollohan ............................................ 612 

Questions for the Record, Ranking Member Frank R. Wolf ................................ 641 

Questions for the Record, Representative Jo Bonner ........................................... 651 

Reauthorization of Cops and OJJDP ..................................................................... 605 

Recidivism and Prisoner Reentry ........................................................................... 599 

Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program ..................................... 641 

Second Chance Act .................................................................................................. 649 

Sex Offender Registration Notification Act ........................................................... 608 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) ............................................. 650 

Statement of Hon. Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General ...................... 570 

The Purpose of Justice Grants ............................................................................... 586 

Tribal Grants ........................................................................................................... 606 

What Works Clearinghouse .................................................................................... 589 

Work Programs in Prisons ...................................................................................... 600 

Legal Services Corporation 

Witnesses: Victor M. Fortuno, LSC Interim President and General 

Counsel; Frank B. Strickland, Chairman, LSC Board of Directors 

Activities of Affiliate Organization ......................................................................... 692 

Basic Field Grants ................................................................................................... 711 

Confirmation of a New Board of Directors ............................................................ 702 

Foreclosure Crisis/Unemployment ......................................................................... 713 

Governance and Management ................................................................................ 693 

IOLTA Funding.................................................................................................... 702, 711 

Management and Administration of Programs ..................................................... 686 

Opening Remarks .................................................................................................... 653 

Private Attorney Involvement ................................................................................ 674 

Questions for the Record, Chairman Alan Mollohan ............................................ 704 

Questions for the Record, Ranking Member Frank R. Wolf ................................ 711 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

Statement of LSC Board Chairman Frank Strickland ......................................... 654 

Statement of LSC Interim President Victor Fortuno ........................................... 662 

Technology Initiative Grants Program .................................................................. 712 

Trends in Federal and Non-Federal Support ........................................................ 687 

Updating the Justice Gap Report ........................................................................... 672 

Working with Bar Associations .............................................................................. 699 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING