TOP OF DOC
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR
1998
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997.
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WITNESSES
RAYMOND W. KELLY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT
JOHN W. MAGAW, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
Opening Comments From Chairman Kolbe
Mr. KOLBE. This meeting of the Subcommittee
on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government will come to order.
I am very pleased this morning to welcome again
our third or fourth time Under Secretary Kelly and Director of Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Director Magaw, to our hearing today. This
hearing today, our third or fourth in our series on the law enforcement
aspects of Treasury, will focus on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms is meeting an increasingly heavy mission requirement that has been
given it to combat violent crime and protect public safety.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The importance of this mission is manifestly
visible in the rising number of incidents of explosives and arson, as well
as the continuing high rate of firearms use in the conduct of violent
crime. The Bureau has the traditional regulatory and revenue collection
responsibilities as well, and it is essential to apply the same energy and
creativity to those routine responsibilities as it does to its law
enforcement efforts.
Bureau resources have been taxed in recent years
by several major and tragic acts of terrorism that have stretched its
personnel and technical capacity greatly. The committee has been responsive
to ATF's resource needs, providing, for instance, $12 million in
supplemental funding last year for the Bureau to investigate church fires,
church arson fires.
Last year, the Director expressed his concerns
that ATF lacked the resources it needed to provide optimal levels of
equipment and training for ATF personnel. The committee addressed this
issue by encouraging ATF to downsize and use its resources for training,
equipment, and staff. I am concerned that this downsizing has not happened
as had been anticipated or directed by the subcommittee.
I share the views of my predecessor in this role
of chairman that it is essential the Bureau can perform its missions with
the optimal technology and systems for incident analysis and reporting, for
database development, explosives, arson, and ballistics identification, and
that Bureau personnel be trained and equipped at a level equal to or better
than that of any other Federal law enforcement agency.
I am pleased with ATF's efforts at developing
performance measures. I look forward to hearing about your progress, Mr.
Director, in maintaining appropriate standards for internal
investigations.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Director Magaw's written testimony begins on a
promising note, gauging ATF performance by focusing on outcomes and
strategic planning. The categories you have selected, violent crime
reduction, revenue collection, and public safety, I think are very much on
the mark.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today
and would, prior to your opening statements, ask the distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Hoyer, for his comments.
Introduction by Representative Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate your opening statement and the comments you
made.
Mr. Director, I don't know whether you heard, but
when Secretary Kelly was testifying here on the overall Treasury law
enforcement picture, I mentioned both your agency and the Secret Service,
as well as Customs, in terms of the significant law enforcement
responsibilities under the Department of Treasury and how he was himself an
outstanding law enforcement officer in our country. We are privileged to
have the opportunity of working with both you and Mr. Bowron, who I told
him were two of the best in the Nation, and I want to reiterate that with
you in the room. I hope you heard about that because I feel strongly about
it.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, Director Magaw was
himself associated with the Secret Service for most of his career and
Secretary Bentsen, at a time when ATF needed a strong leader and a leader
who would be able to communicate ATF's mission within the Government and
without prevailed upon Director Magaw to shift from his Secret Service
responsibilities, where he was the Director, to ATF. ATF has benefited from
that greatly, as has the country.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to make a comment, Mr. Chairman and Mrs.
Northrup. There has been a lot of controversy about the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, and much undeserved. It obviously has some very
vociferous opponents, opposed both to its regulatory capacity, in some
degree, but also to the law enforcement responsibilities it has dealing
with some of the most dangerous and deranged criminals in America who pose
threats not just to individuals but to masses of people in our Nation
through the use of explosives and other terrorist tactics.
Let me say, without criticizing any other Federal
agency, but the ATF, in fact, even in its controversial roles, has for the
most part not been the agency that brought the greatest controversy. Even
in the Waco incident, Mr. Chairman, as you heard last week, when I
mentioned the hearings that Mr. Lightfoot and I conducted on Waco. These
were held immediately after Waco but before the trials of the Davidians,
and, therefore, we did not go into some of the facts that may have come up
at trial. But notwithstanding that, those series of hearings that we had
essentially brought out all the facts that were brought out in the series
of hearings that occurred in 1995. We already had that on the record.
In addition, Mr. Chairman—and I make this
statement not so much for the public, but as we start to hear from the
Director of ATF—we are not getting every word that I am saying? They
are very important, and I know everybody wants to hear them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HOYER. I am appreciative of your help.
Thank you so much.
The Treasury Department, Mr. Secretary, in looking
at its performance and ATF's performance as it related to Waco, wrote a
report that was very self-critical, and analytical. It spared no persons or
policy, and was one of the best reports that I have ever read of an agency
criticizing itself and correcting those aspects where it thought it did not
perform properly.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We know there were mistakes made at Waco, and
there is no point in reiterating those. However, it is my view that the
wrongdoers at Waco were the Davidians, not law enforcement.
But having said that, the important point is, Mr.
Chairman, ATF is many times wrongly maligned. It has a very distinguished
track record, as you know, and I mentioned this to Secretary Kelly. And, of
course, he was in New York at the time when the World Trade Center was
bombed. It was an ATF agent that found the VIN number, I suppose, the tag
that led to the leads and led to the identification of the participant and
led to the breaking of that case.
ATF has extraordinarily able leadership, but as
leadership well knows, without an extraordinarily able management and
officer corps, it could not be as successful as it is.
We have a number of issues that we are going to
discuss. Moving headquarters buildings to a secure areas, is of critical
concern to every law enforcement agency nowadays. Completing the
construction of the new laboratory, which is included in your budget, is
very important. I would mention also, Mr. Chairman—I do not know how
familiar you are with it—under ATF we have the Gang Resistance
Education and Training, a program which we have utilized. I know Arizona
has utilized it greatly, with great success. And I look forward to
reviewing the budget so that we ensure that an outstanding performance is
continued both in terms of the law enforcement side and the regulatory
side, and that we give you the resources that you need to perform the
critical tasks necessary not just for the Federal law enforcement but for
interface with local law enforcement as well.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Director, your work in conjunction with the
HIDTA in the Baltimore-Washington area, which I know and which I am
familiar with—and I am sure the chairman is familiar with the
Southwest border HIDTA—is absolutely essential to the effectiveness
of that group, and I want to thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I know I was a little longer than I
usually am in opening statements, but this agency does a superlative job.
It is criticized a lot. Cheap shots are taken. I know that you will be in
that same vein as Mr. Lightfoot who was a very strong supporter. He and I
worked very closely together, and I know that you and I will continue to
work closely together to make sure that its effectiveness is not
compromised in any way because it is critical to the welfare of our country
and our citizens.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyer,
and certainly you are accurate in saying that we will cooperate on these
issues, and I welcome your insight, which is substantial and goes back a
long way.
I will turn now to Secretary Kelly and Director
Magaw for their opening statements. As always, the full statements will be
placed in the record. We urge you to summarize them. That admonition I
particularly want to give to Director Magaw, looking at the length of the
submitted testimony here.
Secretary Kelly?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
STATEMENT BY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Kolbe and
Congressman Hoyer and members of the committee. Once again, it is a
pleasure to appear before you today.
With me is Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, John Magaw, and members of his staff, as well as
Assistant Secretary James Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary Elisabeth
Bresee, and other members from the Treasury enforcement staff.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, you have my written
testimony, so I will not take your time to read it, but I want to make just
a few brief observations.
No one is better than ATF in the investigations of
arsons and bombings, and ATF has successfully translated its national
expertise into a resource for local law enforcement. This partnership with
local law enforcement is real and tangible, built on mutual respect. ATF is
also the recognized leader in combating gun trafficking, and ATF is using
computer advances and other technology to bring innovation to its law
enforcement mission. Through Project LEAD and other programs, ATF is
revolutionizing the way we attack crime in the United States. Let me give
you one example.
Last March, a New York City police officer was
shot and killed when he tried to stop a carjacking. In the running gun
battle that followed, the carjacker was also killed. There were plenty of
witnesses. The gun used to kill the police officer was recovered. The
carjacker was dead, and his accomplices were in custody. That would have
pretty much wrapped it up in the old way of handling gun case. But now,
because of ATF's Project LEAD, investigators were able to trace the
carjacker's gun and three other weapons recovered at the scene to gun
traffickers in various States. ATF found that the traffickers were
supplying other guns to other criminals who used them to commit crimes.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Police used to stop when they took the shooter
into custody. Now, because of ATF's innovative approach, we can get the
trafficker behind the shooter and prevent potential crimes, as well as
solve the immediate case at hand.
As I said, this is revolutionizing the way police
solve and prevent crimes, and it is due in large measure to ATF's expertise
and to this committee's support of ATF and its mission.
I am confident that with the continued help and
guidance of the committee, ATF as well as Treasury enforcement overall will
remain leaders in law enforcement innovations.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional
material here."
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
Director Magaw.
Statement by ATF Director
Mr. MAGAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Hoyer and Mrs. Northup. My written statement, as the chairman
mentions, contains a complete description of our budget request, and I will
not take up time covering those details. With me, though, here today is
ATF's executive staff, to include, Mr. Chairman, our Legal Counsel, our
Ombudsman, our Executive Assistant for EEO. I want them all to hear what
has been said here. I am very proud of the staff. I believe it is extremely
important that they get involved and they hear your questions, concerns,
suggestions and comments so that we can better carry out the wishes of
Congress.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Secretary of the Treasury is charged by
Congress with a unique set of regulatory and criminal enforcement
responsibilities involving very controversial products: alcohol, tobacco,
firearms, and explosives. These ATF-regulated products all have legitimate
applications, but also have serious social consequences if misused.
Congress has chosen to address these products through the full array of
Federal powers.
ATF is a law enforcement agency with interwoven
responsibilities for criminal investigation, tax collection, of which we
collect about $12 billion a year, and industry regulation. ATF's fiscal
year 1998 budget request flows from our key strategies developed to best
fulfill our mission activities, which are to reduce crime, collect revenue,
and protect the public, as you mentioned in your statement, Mr.
Chairman.
In compliance with the Government Performance and
Results Act, we have developed a performance plan and a set of program
performance targets for each major activity. Our budget request this time
is approximately $602 million. If we were to withdraw the headquarters and
the laboratory relocation funding, our request represents less than a 3
percent increase over fiscal year 1997 base funding.
The most important message I bring to you today is
that you are now overseeing a revitalized ATF, made stronger by the
accountability demanded by the men and women of ATF, the Secretary and the
Under Secretary of the Treasury, and, as important as any, the close
oversight of this Subcommittee.
None of our recent successes—and there have
been many—would have been possible without the funding you have
provided for the vital training and the much needed operational equipment.
The Director and women and men of ATF thank you.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional
material here."
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. I
appreciate that——
Mr. HOYER. They took you pretty
literally.
Mr. KOLBE. They did, they did. I appreciate
the brevity in summarizing that.
As I have indicated in the past, we will do the
questioning with the chairman and the ranking member, and then we will go
to other committee members as they come in. So Mrs. Northup will be the
third person to question. We will try to stick to our 5-minute rule, and I
will do that as much as I can on my first round. I do have several areas of
questioning that I would like to talk about, so I will not get through them
at all in my first round.
Let me just focus on what is fundamentally a
budget issue here. It may not be as much fun as some of the other things
that we talk about in this committee with law enforcement agencies, but I
do want to ask about—and I referred to it in my opening
remarks—the downsizing and the base restoration for the agency.
DOWNSIZING
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As I indicated, in 1997 the subcommittee
appropriation provided authority for ATF to downsize with the expectation
that it would be using this to meet its requirement for equipment and
training and operating expenses. But you did not do so. You have not done
so. So my first question is: What was your decision not to downsize? Why
did you decide not to downsize?
Mr. MAGAW. Well, shortly after that
meeting, Mr. Chairman, a rash of church fires started to occur. Bombings
have gone up, and arsons have gone up some 600 in that period of time. As a
result this Committee saw a need to give us additional funds.
Now, by taking those additional funds that you
gave us and applying them to the equipment, moving personnel in to assist
in all those particular areas, it freed up some of our base, and,
therefore, I did not have to do that.
I want to make sure that you understand, as well
as everybody on the Committee, that this was not any intentional act
whatsoever to do something different than what the Committee wanted us to
do. Last year, as I remember this discussion, it was, ''Mr. Director, what
will you do if you do not get your base restored?'' Our base was cut up to
70-some percent, and we did not have much operational money because our
fixed costs were 16 or 20 percent. My answer was: ''If I do not get the
funds, I will have to reduce the size.'' I must have a balanced budget. I
must be fiscally sound. And that was what I intended to do.
But in the meantime, all these other things
occurred. As a result, I think we have been able to serve the public very
well and, at the same time, do it with a reasonable amount of money.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The truth is that this organization is only 48
people larger than it was in 1973. We are 200 smaller than we were in 1990.
So, it is not a large organization. And with the things that have occurred
in the last year—we had the Olympics, the church fires, the bombings,
the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Brady law, the Youth Crime Interdiction
Program, the Lautenberg amendment—these kinds of things have added to
our responsibilities. And I believe that we have done them well.
Had we not received that extra amount of money and
had those other things not occurred, we would have downsized.
Mr. KOLBE. Are you proposing to reduce any
positions this year? If so, what savings would you achieve in the
forthcoming budget?
Mr. MAGAW. In the forthcoming budget, we
are not going to lose positions.
Mr. KOLBE. Let me ask you first, are you
reducing any at all during this fiscal year?
Mr. MAGAW. During this fiscal year, no,
sir. We have hardly hired any agents or regulatory inspectors since 1993,
and I want to try to start working at that vacuum so 15 years from now we
do not have a huge vacuum there. So I intended to hire about 100 people
this year.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NEW AGENT COST
Mr. KOLBE. What is the current cost of
equipping and training an ATF officer?
Mr. MAGAW. If you are talking about an
agent, it costs—
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, an agent.
Mr. MAGAW. To hire, to train, to provide
the equipment, the desk space, computer, all of that, we figure around
$120,000 in the first year.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau amended this to
$203,000.]
Mr. KOLBE. What would you propose that it
be with your proposed base increase?
Mr. MAGAW. I do not understand the
question.
Mr. KOLBE. Well, you are proposing to
increase your base. Is that figure going to stay the same, or does part of
the base go into more of the equipment and the training?
Mr. MAGAW. If the base is restored by $20
million, it would cover what I am talking about doing, hiring the
additional 100, and it would cover all of that amount for their
training——
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. But the cost per officer would
not change?
Mr. MAGAW. The cost per officer would not
change. Now, an inspector is less than that. It is somewhere around
$65,000.
[CLERK's NOTE.—Bureau later
clarified that the cost per agent and per inspector would change based on
one-time, non-recurring items (e.g., computers and desks) that do not
remain in the base after the first year.]
BASE EROSION
Mr. KOLBE. You have always
identified—and I am not familiar with other agencies who do this, but
you have always identified an ideal mix of expenditures of 62 percent for
personnel, 23 percent for operations, 15 percent for fixed costs. Is that
your current allocation?
Mr. MAGAW. No, we are a little higher than
that right now.
Mr. KOLBE. Higher on which one?
Mr. MAGAW. We are higher on the personnel
side.
Mr. KOLBE. The personnel side.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. We have gained about half
of our $40 million shortfall. The 1998 budget request would get us to about
62 or 63 percent of total budget for pay. This year we are still up around
68 or 69 percent. We went from 74 to about 68 percent. Not only the public
sector but the private sector would say that you need to be somewhere
between 60 and 65 percent for pay and that you need to have 20-some percent
for operational costs for a unit like this.
[CLERK's NOTE.—The bureau
later clarified that in fiscal year 1997, we reduced our payroll costs by 4
percent compared to fiscal year 1996. Thus, we are able to increase funding
of operational costs. The Bureau's fiscal year 1997 financial plan
distributes funding as follows: pay—69 percent, fixed costs—16
percent and operational costs—15 percent. The fiscal year 1998
request would result in an even better distribution: pay—63 percent,
fixed costs—16 percent and operational costs—21 percent.]
Mr. KOLBE. Does the $20.5 million fully
fund your base?
Mr. MAGAW. The $20.5 million would put our
base back to fully funded, yes, sir.
Mr. KOLBE. One more question in this area
here. You have no offsetting reduction in personnel. You have the base
increase, but no offsetting reduction in personnel as you are proposing it.
Your current attrition rate is only about 1 percent. Is that likely to
continue?
Mr. MAGAW. That is likely to continue, yes,
sir.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. What is the ideal rate for
officer replacement? Is that attrition rate correct for what you need in
terms of maintaining your officers, your agents?
Mr. MAGAW. Well, you know, when you used to
have an attrition rate of somewhere between 5 and 7 percent, that took care
of those that were gradually getting higher in grade.
Mr. KOLBE. Right.
Mr. MAGAW. But now that it is down to 1
percent, you have grade creep sometimes, and what we are trying to do is
look very carefully at every grade we have and does it need to be that high
of a grade so that we can kind of maybe have less 14 and 15 positions so
that that grade creep is not as strong. And we are also looking at the
administration which has given us guidelines in terms of how many people
should you normally supervise for a particular grade and trying to apply
that to our organization.
Mr. KOLBE. The attrition rate is unusually
low for law enforcement agents, isn't it?
Mr. MAGAW. Well, not really, not for at
least the two units that I have worked with, the Secret Service and ATF.
That is not too low. Now, the uniformed division of Secret Service would be
a little higher.
[CLERK's NOTE.—The bureau
later amended this by adding ''the attrition rate for ATF agents is rather
low. Currently, the rate is approximately 1 percent.'']
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
If you go to local police departments, it is going
to be much higher because what they do a lot of times is they go to
college, they get their degree, and they go on to other law enforcement
units that pay more. So you do have more turnover in local law enforcement,
but not so much in Federal, certainly not in the Secret Service or ATF. I
think the highest might be 2 percent.
Mr. KOLBE. If that held up forever, 1
percent attrition rate, if it held up perpetually, every 100 years you
would replace your force.
Mr. MAGAW. Well, you——
Mr. KOLBE. Is that right? What is wrong
with my thinking here?
Mr. HOYER. If every 100 years you replace
your force, then you have got an aging group of folks.
Mr. KOLBE. That is what I am trying to get
at. If you don't have a higher attrition rate than that, you are going to
be suddenly faced with a very high attrition—grade creep and a very
high attrition rate.
Mr. MAGAW. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
You will have bulk years. For instance, I just mentioned that we did not
hire from 1993 until now very much. So come the 20 years, you add 25 years
on to 1993, 2018, you will have a fairly large group go because of an age
limit. And then that is where that vacuum occurs. So sometimes if you have
a vacuum, it offsets that some, too.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[CLERK's NOTE.—The bureau
later clarified that is why it is good practice to hire some new agents
every year. This hiring would offset the number of those retiring.]
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you. I have gone over my
time.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. What is the age limit, Mr.
Director?
Mr. MAGAW. It is 57, sir.
Mr. HOYER. It is 57?
Mr. MAGAW. Yes, 57 for us. That is
mandatory. And I have had a number of requests——
Mr. HOYER. Well, that is still very young,
I would add. [Laughter.]
AGENT CASELOAD
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Director, the chairman asked
certain questions about the personnel and your base. What is your caseload
now and what is projected for the coming budget?
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. The caseload——
Mr. HOYER. Per agent. I am talking about
agents, obviously.
Mr. MAGAW. Per agent, with arson and
explosives and firearms trafficking cases, because those are such detailed
investigations and they take such amount of time, the caseload per year for
those people working those kinds of investigations generally will run about
four or five because they are so extensive.
If you are talking about cases where you
have—some agents we have working with the United States attorney in
court monitoring everything that comes through there, and if this is a
third-time offender, then we are trying to apply the habitual
criminal——
Mr. HOYER. Career criminal.
Mr. MAGAW. That is right. And so as a
result of that, they will run many, many more in total. So it is hard to
measure the number.
We have quit measuring the performance of our
personnel by number of cases. It is more the quality and the kind of case
that they are working. So it is a little difficult to answer that.
CHURCH ARSON TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Director, I did not mention
it specifically in my opening remarks, but I had the opportunity to see the
interim report on the church burnings task force, also known as ATF. The
arrests of 143 suspects in the 107 burnings is a very high ratio for arson
cases, which are very tough cases. I want to congratulate you and all the
other law enforcement officials who have worked together at the Sate,
Federal, and local level to effect that end. This is an excellent report,
and, Mr. Chairman, there is some good news in this report in that the hate
crimes aspect appears to be less than what originally we might have
perceived, which, of course, is good news. It is bad news that any of the
arsons occurred, but some were for sort of base venal reasons of insurance
proceeds and others were apparently more vandalism than malicious. That is
not to say that the result was not malicious and terrible, but more
sporadic than some planned efforts. So I was glad to see this report and
glad to see the success we are having.
CEASE FIRE
We are doing the 5-minute CEASEFIRE, Mr. Director.
As you know, I am very interested in that program. There is some
controversy, as we know, as to who ought to be doing this. Mr. Secretary, I
hope you stay on top of this because it will be at your level and higher
where some of this competition occurs.
But, Mr. Director, if you could speak to
CEASEFIRE, what we are doing, and what success we are having? I noticed
there is no request for new sites. Do we have request for new sites we
simply are not funding?
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. We had requests for new
sites but OMB made the decision and judgment not to fund those. It so
happens that with the funds that the FBI has for this fiscal year, they
will virtually saturate the country with Drugfire. So we will have 27
CEASEFIRE units; they will have hundreds of Drugfire units out there.
[Bureau Insert]
I think what we need to do now—Director
Freeh and I are working on this with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology and (NIST), OMB and, of course, the Secretary's officer to
make sure that we bridge these machines together so they can talk to each
other and so that we can help the police officers all throughout the
country so it becomes a national net rather than just a local net.
For instance, you may have read in your county the
other night the police officer that was shot there, they picked up the
shell casing. They know——
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau clarified that
''they'' refers to the perpetrator.]
Mr. HOYER. This is the metropolitan police
officer.
Mr. MAGAW. That is right. They [the
perpetrators] know that these shell casings can be checked. They picked up
the shell casings. But we [CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau refers to
IBIS] can also do the bullets, and we have done that. The gun found in the
suspect's car had the bullet that came from that weapon.
We are doing this all over the country, and also
some of the things that the Secretary mentioned. It is a very positive
program. It will allow 13 handlers of these machines, do what 7,000
technicians had to do before. It picks the needle out of the haystack.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau clarified that
this refers to firearms examiners using the IBIS system.]
Mr. HOYER. It is a great program. Mr.
Chairman, if you haven't seen it, I hope you have the opportunity to see
it.
This program is a critically important program,
that is one of the reasons why crime statistics are going down. I think one
of the reasons is not because we have got more personnel, although I think
the Cops on the Beat program the President has fought for is a good one,
but having said that, our technology has, I think, been helping crime
efforts. Secretary Kelly referred to how, what could have been a discrete
incident in New York turned into a successful arrest; but as importantly, a
broader perspective and effort on the broad range that gave that discrete
incident the ability to happen. So that is good.
My 5 minutes are gone. I have a lot of other
questions, and I will ask them on subsequent rounds, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much.
Mr. KOLBE. Mrs. Northup.
ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO REVENUE BY STATE
Mrs. NORTHUP. Yes, I have a couple of
questions. First of all, a more local issue, you regulate tobacco and
alcohol. When you regulate racehorses, you will probably get most of
Kentucky's industries. But in the meantime, I wondered if you had a
breakdown State by State of what the revenues are that you collect in each
State.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. We would have that, and we can
get that to you today or tomorrow. I do not know off the top of my head
exactly what it is.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional
material here."
Mrs. NORTHUP. Alcohol taxes I presume you
regulate at the point of the distributor as opposed to the
manufacturer.
Mr. MAGAW. Yes, the point of manufacture of
alcohol.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Point of manufacture,
okay.
Mr. MAGAW. And it is about $6 billion,
somewhere in the $6 billion area. The other $6 billion would come from
tobacco, and then the small 0.8 would come from firearms and
ammunition.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau amended 0.8 to
be 0.3 in excise taxes.]
Mrs. NORTHUP. Do you think there is any
State that pays more into that fund than Kentucky does?
Mr. MAGAW. Does anybody have that—I
don't think so.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mrs. NORTHUP. Well, you might think about
looking at Louisville as a possible site. You would be right there where
you regulate. [Laughter.]
We are not under water most of the time. Anyway, I
just thought I would talk to you about how close you would be to the
business you are conducting.
Mr. HOYER. The new member is learning very
fast, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
We are really aware of Mrs. Northup's focus
here.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
Mrs. NORTHUP. Let me ask you about outcome.
You do point out in your report about the Government Performance and
Results Act when you were talking about the Achilles program, and I really
do not mean to be critical here. I have a lot of appreciation and
admiration for what you all do. But when I look at sort of the varied areas
that you regulate—arson, illegal trafficking in drugs and guns, gang
violence—I feel like all of those things, what we are hearing is they
are going up. And I just wondered, you know, it seems like there is so much
focus in your statement on input-based analysis: we have done this, we have
added this computer model, we have trained. And I know that those are all
attempts to improve, but since the problems seem to be getting worse, do
you collaborate with other agencies and try to perhaps find a different
paradigm for addressing these issues rather than just keep trying to
improve these programs when the problems, especially the gang violence, are
just escalating across this country? The 44 sites that you currently have
will hardly begin to touch the cities that are currently affected by
that.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. This gives me great frustration
and our personnel who are out there on the street every day with the
increased violence and the children's violence. That is one of the things
that we are so thankful for the GREAT program, the Gang Resistance
Education and Training program, which is in virtually every State now.
There is one more State, and it comes online this summer. And we have
reached 2 million children already, and we do it with local law
enforcement. And so the law enforcement officer is in the school. The
University of Nebraska has just run a complete examination of our success
in the first 3 or 4 years, and compared the children who have been in the
program as opposed to those who have not. The results are encouraging.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau amended this to
be 1 million.]
The majority of those arrested today are career
criminals that we are putting in institutions, they are for the most part
what we deal with, those Achilles and those multiple offenders and the
continual criminals. Violent criminals, they are beyond the kind of help
that we would be able to give them at this point. But what about the next
generation coming along? So we are doing both, and we love this program,
and our people, our personnel, just love the program. We want to keep it
going. So we are trying to do that.
And in all the cities, almost every place we work,
if you go to a local law enforcement probably any place in your State, and
you say what Federal agency helps you the most on a day-to-day basis, they
will tell you ATF almost always, and they will follow that very quickly
probably with DEA. We do work in task forces, and we do try to make sure
that we are dealing with the United States attorney, the States attorneys,
and make sure we are prosecuting—or they are prosecuting the cases
that are most important to them.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mrs. NORTHUP. Exactly. And if you have any
of those studies, I would really love to see the analysis of, like I said,
the outcome instead of the input basis of what we are improving. Because,
again, you may be doing the best job that is even imaginable, but if our
Justice Department is not or if our youth programs are not, then we need to
address that, because you cannot just keep running around the same track
and ignore the fact. I know that gang violence is something that actually
is moving into our area, and many cities, and the community feels almost
helpless to stem that.
Mr. MAGAW. This GREAT program is starting
to work closely with the Boys and Girls Clubs. We are now sitting down with
the leaders of the DARE program—we did last week—trying to see
how they can complement each other. Most people think that we have to
influence the children in kindergarten and first grade and then again in
third and fourth, and then again in about the seventh and the eighth grades
and then in high school. And if we put all these programs together, I do
not care what program, what grades ATF and the other police departments
this GREAT program teaches. It is just how can it all bind together. We
cannot all do it, so we——
Mrs. NORTHUP. And does it work?
Mr. MAGAW. Pardon me?
Mrs. NORTHUP. And does it work? The
question eventually has to be: And does it work?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. Does it work? That is
correct. And that is why we are evaluating our GREAT program now.
Mrs. NORTHUP. I have more questions. I will
be back next round.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Not at this time.
EXCESSIVE FORCE
Mr. KOLBE. Let me go back to some of the
questions that I had.
On this issue of force—first of all, a
question occurred to me after we were starting the hearing here about the
recent L.A. bank robbery where two robbers used AK-47's. There were 300
police officers there, and they were unable to do anything. They went to a
local gun shop, I believe, and borrowed a couple of AK-47's, and the
robbers were gunned down, basically.
Does this incident suggest anything about the
disparity in the fire power that the criminals have versus the law
enforcement officers?
Mr. MAGAW. In certain situations, it does,
but I think it is too early to tell across the board.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Los Angeles Police Department has an
outstanding response unit. They got there just about the same time that the
officers did with those weapons from the gun store. I thought it was a very
innovative way of doing it. They realized their troops were in trouble.
They saw a gun store. They used it.
By the time that they got there, then their real
crack team arrived, and so we just have to wait and see where this goes.
These people [CLERK'S NOTE.—By ''people'' bureau refers to the
perpetrators.] even designed armor for their legs, arms, neck and face. It
was fairly crude, but it worked. Some of the police officers said, ''I
could see our bullets bouncing off their bodies.''
There have been probably, in the last 5 years,
eight or nine incidents like this. Up in the Midwest, there was a police
officer that was killed like this and two others wounded. So I think we
have to try to monitor it, but to carry weapons of that magnitude around in
every police car, I don't think is justified yet. There is too much
training involved, but every unit, including ATF, has a very, very
well-trained response unit to handle those kinds of situations.
The officers took cover behind automobiles and
waited for the rest of the response.
Mr. KELLY. If I may just add something, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. I was head of a major police
department, and to address the issue, many police departments are going to
having heavier weapons on patrol, with officers who are especially trained
to handle these weapons because it does take, as the Director said, a lot
of training, a lot of proficiency.
In New York City, we want our officers with heavy
weapons. We want them to go and shoot once a month. Now, there is a large
cost attendant to that.
So I don't think it is practical for most
departments to have patrol officers armed with heavier weapons, but the key
is to have people well trained who are immediately available, who are on
patrol 24 hours.
If you see what happened in Los Angeles, the SWAT
team responded very quickly. They are among the best in the business, no
question about it, the Los Angeles SWAT team, and they did an outstanding
job.
I don't think as yet you see a trend developing,
but it is something that has to be monitored closely.
Mr. KOLBE. I appreciate that statement. I
think that is exactly right that it is something that has to be monitored,
but I am interested in hearing you say that the trend is not yet developed.
Certainly, I would find it discouraging if we found it necessary for police
officers to have to carry in every police car that kind of fire power.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
On the issue of ATF and force, your agency
has been criticized for its use of force, and I think many of the reports
that have been done, investigations that have been done, have given you a
clean bill of health on that, but just for the record, can you tell me how
many incidents you had in 1996 where ATF officers were required to shoot or
use deadly force? Can you provide that for the record if you don't have
it?
DEADLY FORCE
Mr. MAGAW. We will get those numbers to
you. They are very small in terms of deadly force; in terms of physical
force, rather low, also.
What we are doing now in ATF——
Mr. KOLBE. Oh, include with that a
comparison from previous years.
Mr. MAGAW. From previous years, all
right.
We were also concerned to make sure when I came
here 3 1/2 years ago of what our use of force policy was. We got together
with the Attorney General and Treasury and made sure that all of our use of
force policies could stand the test and were in proper order. I am pleased
to say ours is in that order, sir, but I will get you those statistics.
[The information follows:]
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
1. The number of times the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has used excessive force during the past few
years is:
FY 1997—none.
FY 1996—8 times.
FY 1995—6 times.
2. What is the procedure for reviewing excessive
force?
Deadly force can be used by any ATF special agent
whenever he/she believes that his/her life, or the life of another is at
risk, or whenever a threat of serious bodily harm is evident against a
special agent or another.
All shooting incidents are reviewed and, depending
upon the seriousness of the incident, may require an investigation by a
Shooting Incident Review Team (SIRT).
All SIRT investigations conclude in a report and
are reviewed by a Shooting Review Board. This Board may make
recommendations to those involved in the incident, their superiors, or
other ATF entities about a variety of issues including safety, compliance
with ATF and Treasury policies and guidelines, planning, etc.
If an employee, or one acting under ATF color, is
alleged to have used ''excessive force,'' such matter would be investigated
by the appropriate inspection service and, in the case of an ATF employee,
would be reviewed by ATF managerial authorities and ATF's Professional
Review Board for administrative and/or disciplinary action. Employees
actions may also be reviewed by other law enforcement agencies and
prosecutorial entities if so warranted.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. One of the criticisms in the
past of ATF and its use of force, at Waco and some of the other incidents,
is that there was a culture that existed within ATF, as you know. That is
the suggestion that has been made. There was a lack of adequate assistance
to ensure the right professional behavior and, perhaps most important,
accountability for it.
Tell me a little bit about the review that is
applied to these kinds of cases when there are suggestions or criticisms of
excessive force and how does it currently work.
Mr. MAGAW. Well, if there is an accusation
that there was some excessive force used, our Inspection Unit, will go out
and make an inspection to find out what the facts are.
Let me just back up for one second here. I believe
that over the years, ATF was in a position where they had to make a lot of
arrests. ATF arrests a lot of armed, dangerous individuals, and we, in my
view, got into a situation where we would do whatever was necessary to make
that arrest with safety to all the officers, and a lot of times, we did
make arrests at homes and in very high-risk situations.
Now we don't do that. The guideline now and
culture, if you will, say, is that you make the arrest. You try everything
else to make this arrest before you use a forcible arrest, before you use a
special response team, before you enter someone's home and invade that
area.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We are successfully implementing those
policies now. Our training instructs along those lines. We used to have 24
special response teams. We now have five.
Mr. KOLBE. That is good to hear you say
that. How do you deal with the public, though, on this issue? There is
certainly still a large perception among a lot of the public that the
general rule of thumb for ATF is kick the door down first and ask questions
later. So how are you dealing with the perception of the public that you
use, what is referred to as dynamic entry or heavy force, first?
Mr. MAGAW. We have a liaison and public
information unit now that we really didn't have before. Previously there
was one person doing it. Now we have public relations and information
officers in each field office. They are agents. So they are regulatory
personnel.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau amended
''regulatory'' to ''enforcement'']
What we want to do is make sure that we are
dealing with the local media, making sure that they have the facts and the
straight story, not to try to slant it in any way. It is a slippery slope
because if you get in a situation where you are trying to work public
relations, you may not be doing your job and you can be criticized for
that, but what we want to do is make sure that the message and the
information gets out.
We had a number of Congressmen and Senators who
really didn't understand what ATF did, and it was because we had a rule
that you can't contact them except here in Washington. Now what we have is
a requirement that our supervisors out there have to visit with them once
or twice a year, and their staff, to let them know what we are doing in
their area, what the pros and cons are.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
When you ask me a question or any of the staff a
question, you are going to get an honest, straightforward answer and any
documentation. There are a few publications that are interested in doing
documentation about ATF.
Our job is telling the story as it is; if we make
a mistake, say so. I believe over a period of time, if the public had seen
our troops, as they did in Oklahoma City, as our troops would leave that
bomb site in Oklahoma City, and the crowds would cheer.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau changed
''troops'' to ''agents'']
It is the same way with some of the church fires.
You won't find a minister now or any of those church congregations that are
anti-ATF.
So we are just doing our job every day. When the
opportunity arises to tell the straight facts of the situation, we will,
but we don't do a public relations job.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoyer.
CANINE PROGRAM
Mr. HOYER. I think that was an excellent
answer. I think it is always doing the best job possible.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am talking about successful programs, the
K–9 program. The chairman and Mrs. Northup and all of us know that
there is increasing resort to the use of explosives in random and targeted
ways.
Tell us about the K–9 program. I understand
you have 17 FTE additions scheduled and $4 million. Tell us about that, and
tell us about the success of this program.
Mr. MAGAW. The success of the program in
the explosives area——
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, let me make a
comment. We considered the airport safety. I forget what the specific name
was, but in the last days of the session last year, this issue came up. It
is important to focus on what ATF is doing in this area because I think it
has broader application as it relates to security at airports, stadiums,
convention halls—wherever there is a large gathering and, therefore,
attractive targets.
Mr. MAGAW. There are explosive dogs, and
there are arson dogs, and I am going to talk about the explosives canines
here.
Right now, ATF just has the one dog team, but with
the success of that dog team and the success that you and others have seen,
you have seen fit to give us the funds to move ahead.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that we have had success in training dogs and handlers for
foreign law enforcement at the request of the State Department.]
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Customs already has a dog training facility for
their functions on drugs and things at Front Royal, Virginia. We are using
that existing site and are building some kennels and an indoor facility so
that we can train year-round.
We expect that once we are up and running, there
will be about 100 dog teams trained a year. So, in 1998, we figure we will
train 100 dog teams.
This year, 1997, we will train much less than
that, probably 25 or 30 teams. Of those, only seven or eight [CLERK'S
NOTE.—bureau corrected this to be ''six''] will remain with ATF.
The rest will go out to State and local law enforcement. When ATF has a
problem in that particular area, the local law enforcement usually has too.
So they just share that dog, as we do our arson dogs.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that ATF plans to train approximately six additional ATF
agent/canine teams to be deployed nationwide. Also, the Bureau plans to
conduct eight pilot programs with State and local law enforcement.]
Those seven or eight that we will have, two will
be used in an experimental program. At Dulles Airport, FAA and ATF
personnel will use two canine handler teams as part of a two year pilot
program to see where it can be beneficial, in what area, without being
overly disruptive.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—As above, bureau
amended this to ''six'']
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There also will be a second dog trained by
the Air Force because the Air Force has a dog training unit, we see how the
two training units work, how the two dogs work, are there things we can
learn from them and that they can learn from us. That is the experiment
that will take place in the next year as far as airports are concerned.
GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. HOYER. Well, I think that has great
promise, and I am pleased to see that request.
Gang Resistance Education and Training program.
Mrs. Northup asked a question, and you responded. How much money are we
asking for GREAT this year?
Mr. MAGAW. $11 million.
Mr. HOYER. $11 million.
You say, Mr. Director, that that will then extend
to all 50 States, the GREAT program?
Mr. MAGAW. Yes. This summer, it will be in
all 50 States.
And not all of these States are funded by this
because, as soon as a police department or a city gets this program and
sees how important it is, sometimes they fund it themselves, and all we
provide are the training for their instructors and the book materials and
things like that.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau amended ''all
50 States'' to ''44 localities'']
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that the Bureau anticipates providing funding to 44 different
localities to support their participation in GREAT. We estimate that over
800 different localities are currently teaching the GREAT curriculum. In
addition to providing financial resources, ATF also provides training to
law enforcement officers, certifying them as GREAT instructors.]
Mr. HOYER. Mrs. Northup asked a question
and you responded. I don't know whether she has seen the GREAT program in
operation. It is a terrific program in the sense that it started, as you
know, with seventh-graders. In Prince George's County, as you know, they
wanted to go to fourth-graders because they think the earlier you get to
the young people, the better. Like the DARE program, one of its strengths
is uniformed officers dealing with kids because one of the things we need
is the synergy, the cooperation, the feeling of a joint enterprise between
young people and uniformed officers. Bringing in ATF's expertise in this
area and working with the local officers, really has been very
successful.
These young people, Mr. Secretary, get a
psychology that the policeman, the cop on the beat, is their buddy, not
their adversary, not looking over their shoulder, but a joint enterprise.
It is a dynamite program. I am glad to see it going forward. If we were
spending twice that $11 million, I think it would be worth the money.
EXPLOSIVES TAGGANT STUDY
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The taggant study, a lot of discussion about this
over the years, language in our bill with reference to taggants. I,
frankly, personally am somewhat ambivalent in terms of whether or not this
is a program that can be successful.
Would you speak to the status of the taggant study
that was called for in the '97 appropriation bill?
Mr. MAGAW. Yes, sir. The taggant
study—we are remaining neutral by learning what everyone says about
this.
I want to make sure, too, that as we talk about
taggants, that somebody doesn't misunderstand. We are not talking about
black powder here. We are talking about taggants.
So, you take materials such as fertilizer
determine whether and taggants can be put in those materials that won't be
destroyed upon the explosion and then will help lead to the
perpetrator.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that as part of the four-part study authorized by the
legislation, the Bureau has met with worldwide representatives in an
Interagency Committee on Explosives Technical Support Working Group;
entered into two contracts with the National Academy of Sciences to
independently study explosives for detection and identification; and
contracted with the International Fertilizer Development Center to study
the agronomic and economic impact of tagging ammonium nitrate
fertilizer.]
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There are a number of things to
study—how much is this going to cost, does it make these explosives
more volatile, does it make them more difficult to handle, does it
deteriorate the chemicals so that they don't work for what they were
intended to do?
We are working with the Fertilizer Institute, the
Sandia National Laboratory, and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, and we are using all the information we can get from foreign
countries who have used it. Taggants have been used in Ireland and in
Europe for a number of years. So we are pulling all that information
together, making sure that it is not a group of just ATF persons. It is the
national organizations as well as the Federal organizations, and making
sure that we can have a good report to bring back to the body of Congress.
The National Academy of Sciences is under contract with us. So we can bring
a report back that will allow this body to make some judgments.
Mr. HOYER. How soon do we expect the
report. I forget when it is called for, in the legislation.
Mr. MAGAW. The delivery to Congress will be
May 24th of this year.
Mr. HOYER. May 24th.
Mr. MAGAW. But most people that we are
working with, sir, feels that the initial report on May 24th is not going
to be complete. There needs to be some additional time, and they are hoping
that it will give us time for a supplemental report in December of
1997.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have some
additional questions, but I can submit them for the record.
Mr. KOLBE. All right. I am going to do a
couple more rounds myself. So I will be happy to get back to you in a
moment here.
Mr. HOYER. All right.
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND/BASE FUNDING
Mr. KOLBE. On the issue of the amount of
money from the violent crime reduction trust fund, the GREAT program, I
have a concern. You are requesting $50.4 million, I think, this year for
violent crime reduction trust fund. $26 million is for the ATF
headquarters. That is presumably a one-time expenditure. I have some
questions about the capital that is involved in this, whether that is what
was intended by that fund, but nonetheless, we are as guilty of that as
anybody here in Congress, but the other part of this, your $24 million for
increased explosive inspectors and the rest is for such things as the GREAT
program. Those are all base activities. So this is going to get reflected
in your base in the future years.
Mr. MAGAW. Those are base activities. We
have felt that the church fires, the explosions, all the kind of things
that have occurred in the last couple of years, that we need to work on
inspecting 100 percent of those units out there because there is so much
being stolen. What is being stolen, then, is ending up in your bombs.
So what we feel we have to do in order to support
the correction of this bombing problem is to make sure we inspect every
handler of explosives a year, and we can't do it with the personnel that we
have.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. That is not what I am getting
at. Why are we requesting this money out of the violent crime reduction
trust fund, VCRTF, rather than in your salaries and expenses account if it
is base programs?
Mr. MAGAW. I will have to get that answer
for you. I just don't know.
Mr. KOLBE. I don't think that is a
difficult question to understand.
The violent crime reduction trust fund was
designed to be for things that were one-time expenditures. That was the
idea of it.
Now you are using this money to build things into
base that you will have to request in the future years as part of your
base. Why don't you start by requesting that in your base expenses?
Mr. MAGAW. I am told by the note here that
OMB and the Administration gave it to us in that manner, and so that is the
way we have accepted it. It needs to roll over in the base because we are
going to need to continue to do that once we start it.
Mr. KOLBE. Let me go on, on this line here.
You are also requesting a large—$5.4 million of that is for increased
explosives inspectors, and you say in your testimony, in your budget
request, that you are going to increase the number of explosive inspections
by 53 from the present number of about 47. Is that correct?
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. That is correct.
Mr. KOLBE. That is a doubling?
Mr. MAGAW. That is right. We are going from
inspecting about 28 percent of those.
Mr. KOLBE. So an increase of over 100
percent, fine.
Yet, you say that the number of sites you are
going to be able to inspect will increase by 15 percent; from this year, 65
percent. Something doesn't add up here.
Mr. MAGAW. Well, the first year, you have
got to get them on board. You have to train them. We go up to 100 percent
in 1999. We will go to 100 percent.
Mr. KOLBE. With these additional
inspectors.
Mr. MAGAW. With these additional
inspectors. That is correct, sir.
Mr. KOLBE. So you will be able to reach 100
percent with these additional inspectors.
Mr. MAGAW. That is right. We will go from
28 percent to 100 percent in that 3-year period.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. Okay. You are not going to be
coming back and saying, next year, we need another 53 in order to get
another 15 percent.
Mr. MAGAW. No. That has been projected and
preplanned, and we can handle it with those.
Mr. KOLBE. So it has to do with bringing
on-line training, getting them out into the field and so forth, in that
time frame.
Mr. MAGAW. That is right. Then, before you
get through each inspection, because each one is fairly extensive—if
it is a quarry, how they store explosives, the safety and all of those
kinds of things.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The Bureau later
clarified earlier information by adding but, as I mentioned earlier, the
Bureau may have a problem paying these additional inspectors since the
request for funding was not asked for in our direct Salary and Expenses
account request.]
Now, once we get them all hired and they comply,
then that number, we will be able to do that every year because you won't
have so much to overcome after you have done it the first time.
Mr. KOLBE. All right. I have another line
of questioning I want to do. It is going to take me a little time. So let
me go to Mr. Price, who just joined us here, and see if Mr. Price has any
questions, and then back to Mr. Hoyer.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
BOMBINGS AND ARSON
Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to add my welcome and thanks to our
witnesses and ask Mr. Magaw, if he could, to elaborate on a matter that Mr.
Hoyer raised briefly, that is the bombings and fires at houses of worship,
incidents that have plagued particularly the Southeast in the last couple
of years. It is, of course, an alarming situation. I know you share that
view, particularly about the numerous attacks against African-American
churches, which I believe represent 138 of the total of 328 fires of this
sort that have occurred since 1995. So I want to commend ATF for its
involvement in helping investigate the violence and working with the
National Church Arson Task Force to combat it.
I know there were some 328 church burnings
investigated by ATF in the last couple of years, and I would like, first,
to know how that figure relates to the total number of arson investigations
that were opened over that time period.
Mr. MAGAW. Well, there were actually 508
church investigations, but, see, not all of them are arson. There are an
awful lot of them that are accidental, but it takes a fairly decent amount
of time to determine that. So you are right. Out of that 508, there are
352.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The Bureau later
clarified that from January 1995 to February 25, 1997, 352 investigations
have been initiated by the National Church Arson Task Force (NCATF).]
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But as far as all fires, all arsons throughout the
country, we will run 1,700 or 1,800 during that period of time, almost
2,000 when you count all the different fires that we assist with throughout
the country.
Mr. PRICE. Well, as Mr. Hoyer noted, the
arrest rate for these church arson investigations has been higher than for
other arsons. What kind of resources, both in terms of dollars and FTEs,
have you devoted to the church burning investigations, and how much are you
proposing to devote to this in fiscal 1998?
Mr. MAGAW. Up until now, we have spent
about $13 million, and we have 125 to 150 personnel working on these church
fires every day. Of course, we are not only talking about church fires in
the South, but you are talking about church fires all over the country
because all church fires now are reported. Sometimes they are a few days
late, and sometimes they are very easy to resolve, but we are working them
all around the country.
We expect next year, if this trend continues, to
spend even more than that because it appears that the church fires are
continuing. It is not a case that church fires are new. There have been
church fires for years. They just haven't been reported for the most part.
Now every one is being reported.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau later gave the
amount as $8.2 million.]
So, as you showed, of the 352 that are arson, 146
were African-American and 206 were non-African-American churches. So, it is
a real mixed bag, but it is something that if there is going to be a
repository, which the suggestion has been, and if ATF is going to continue
to assist local fire departments and local fire marshals when they don't
have the expertise or the wherewithal to do it, it still will need to be
funded at about that same level.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PRICE. You say the trend is continuing.
Are there any particular trend lines you would deem significant?
Mr. MAGAW. ''Probable'' is an improper
term, Congressman. I apologize for that.
The trend as far as number of fires are
continuing, but those arrested is a real mixed bag. It is everything from
people setting fires in their own church for insurance purposes, to
juveniles who are satanistic, to covering up burglaries. In some cases, the
perpetrators have been volunteer firemen. In other cases, they have been
the Ku Klux Klan members. So, it has run the gamut.
Mr. PRICE. I am aware that there is a wide
variety of circumstances and motivations. Yet, I wonder, in all this
detail, if you are going to be able to draw some conclusions, some helpful
conclusions.
I noticed in the interim report for the President
you don't make any conclusions about why we have witnessed this rash of
attacks on churches. Maybe that is just because it is an interim report,
but I wonder, do you have any preliminary conclusions about the
motivations, the dominant motivations that lie behind these incidents?
For example, can you give any estimate of the
percentage of these 138 attacks against African-American churches that
appear to have been racially motivated?
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. I don't have the percent
here that were racially motivated. Maybe while I am answering another part
of that question, we might be able to pull this off.
In terms of the fires around the country, it is
just such a mixed bag. There is no doubt that in the Southeast part of the
country, there have been an inordinate number of African-American churches
burned.
What we are finding helpful as we go about our
business is a booklet we put out. We have talked with the churches, and we
have visited with the congregations and the pastors and talked to them
about the safety.
A lot of them are remote. They have no outside
lighting system. They have no alarm system. They have no smoke detectors.
They have no provisions where once every 24 hours or twice every 24 hours,
some of their parishioners will go by. That booklet has been very, very
valuable.
The other part of this, too, is a lot of these
people that we are arresting as a result of these investigations are
copycat because of the notoriety and because there is notoriety. It is
giving them the idea to do it. Some of them are very pathetic in the way
they go about it. Others are very, very successful, and so it is so
mixed.
The answer specifically to your question
concerning how many of these are racially motivated, we haven't drawn any
conclusions on that, neither has ATF or the National Committee.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PRICE. But presumably, your final
report would attempt to be more definitive than this interim document?
Mr. MAGAW. Oh, yes. The final report will
be much more detailed.
Mr. PRICE. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Hoyer?
FIREARMS LICENSEES
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Director, I think it was 2
years ago, that we increased substantially costs of the licenses. Tell me
the experience now in terms of your firearms licenses.
I know the number of licenses has substantially
decreased reduced. I would like, therefore, the percentage of inspections
that you can now make as it relates to licensees and whether or not we are
receiving a large number of complaints.
I asked my staff whether or not we received
complaints from former licensees who now find it too expensive to
participate, and the answer was no, we have none, but I presume there have
been some complaints. Obviously, you read stories about it, and I would
appreciate your comments on this.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. There have been some complaints,
Congressman. One, because of the expense going up——
Mr. HOYER. For the record, we went from
what figure to what figure?
Mr. MAGAW. From 288,000 to—right now
it is not quite 121.000.
Mr. HOYER. That is the gross number of
licensees. I was referring specifically to the cost of the license.
Mr. MAGAW. The cost went from $10 a year to
$200 now, and then $90, 3 years later, so $200.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau later added
that $200 is the cost of a three-year license, and $90 is the cost of a
subsequent three-year renewal.]
Mr. HOYER. Am I correct, when we debated
this and discussed it, the cost now is more reflective of the cost it takes
to regulate, inspect, and to ensure compliance?
Mr. MAGAW. That is correct. They submit
their fingerprints so there can be a record check and those additional
things, but initially, when this program was instituted, it took a while to
get it started. So there were some complaints about, well, it is taking
longer to renew my license than normal. So we gave them a letter saying we
are extending your privilege to operate until we get this done. So, as we
have had complaints come to us, we have tried to correct them.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau changed this to
''not correct'']
We are in the final of the three years. We expect
the final third of those licenses coming through for renewal will be
completed in May, and we expect that the total will probably drop down
somewhere around $110,000 if the same number decide that they don't want to
renew it.
Most of those people who decided not to renew were
primarily the one or two purchases a year. They purchased one or two guns
for themselves or their family, and by having this, they could get the
wholesale price. So, that is the biggest group, but that is also the group
that traffickers hid behind because they knew there was no way we could
inspect them in a reasonable period of time.
Down around 100,000, with the personnel that we
have, we feel not only by the telephone contacts, the inquiries from them,
the kind of information we are trying to get out to help them do their job
better and comply with the laws, that we will have close oversight. It will
not be disruptive to what they are trying to do, but will also not allow
the traffickers to hide or those who will not abide by the law to hide.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Director, at $200, are we
cost-neutral? That is to say, is the cost of the program now, for the most
part, paid for by the fees?
Mr. MAGAW. At least what we have shown up
until now, it is cost-neutral.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that the current fees set by statute do not cover the costs of
implementing this compliance program. The Treasury Under Secretary's 1994
memo to the GAO regarding ''user fees,'' stated that control of gun
licenses and fees should be left to Congress to decide. Thus, legislation
versus regulation was passed establishing license fees. Neither the $200
million initial fee nor the $90 three-year renewal fee covered the cost of
the program.]
Mr. HOYER. Referring specifically to the
case that Secretary Kelly mentioned to in New York, did we find that the
traced guns were black market or were they, purchased from a licensed
dealer or formerly licensed dealer? You may not have that knowledge.
Mr. KELLY. It was a store purchase from an
FFL in Ohio, the one I remember most vividly.
Mr. HOYER. So it was a licensee?
Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think what we
have done is focused the ability of ATF to do what we want them to do under
law.
I have a number of gun dealers who are absolutely
honest, law-abiding citizens. A gun show was held down in La Plata, a big
attendance at the armory down there this weekend, very legitimate people,
but there were some fly-by-nighters who were really participating in a lot
of gun running, effectively, and getting guns to folks who were then using
them to commit a lot of crime. While we want to make sure that legitimate
citizens can own, and purchase without being hassled to protect themselves,
their homes, their businesses, we also want to make sure that these thugs
that are running around just don't have easy access.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
They are probably going to get them some way or
the other, but the harder we make it, the better we are.
Mr. MAGAW. As part of our strategic plan,
Congressman, we have reached out to the manufacturers, and also the
firearms license dealers and those who are collectors, and we are reaching
out in meetings with them by asking what can ATF do or what is ATF doing
that is causing you problems and seeing how we can work those out. That, we
have done a much better job with in the last 2 or 3 years, we have cut down
the size of our applications, but still getting the same information. I
think it went from seven pages to two or three. So we are reaching out to
the legitimate businesses.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a few other
questions. With your leave, I am going to go next door because the Labor
Health Subcommittee is having a hearing on NIDA, the drug agency, and I
want to see what their report is. It ties in with some of what you are
doing, the GREAT program, DARE and all of that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CEASEFIRE/DRUGFIRE
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr.
Hoyer.
I want to follow up with one question along the
line that Mr. Hoyer had earlier, and that has to do with CEASEFIRE. You
mentioned that you've got, I think, 11 sites, is that correct, or something
like that?
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. That is correct.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that by the end of FY 1997, ATF will have 25 to 27 IBIS sites
operational.]
Mr. KOLBE. Drugfire has blanketed the
country.
Do we have just an incredible amount of not
overlap here, but of inability to have these two systems function together?
I have been told that in Oakland and San Francisco, for example, right
across the bay, these two police departments can't talk to each other. They
can't compare notes on ballistics characteristics. I mean, this is
ludicrous. It is the kind of thing we hear about over and over again, about
law enforcement, at the local level, Federal level, or State level. I
despair that we are ever going to change this.
I remember from my first days, 20 years ago, this
year, when I first served on the State legislature and was on the Judiciary
Committee and the Appropriations Committee simultaneously hearing about
this kind of problem. Are we ever going to get this kind of thing where we
get some commonality, interoperability? I just think that the criminals
must have laughed their way to the bank all the time with the fact that we
can't ever get our act together.
What are we going to do about getting CEASEFIRE
and Drugfire to operate in a compatible fashion? How much of the money that
we are appropriating to you this year for that is going to go to the
interoperability of these systems?
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. Well, OMB has put together
a team of specialists under the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). NIST is doing it, and that contract is out. They are
looking at how we can tie these two systems together.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
clarified that they are responsible for performing the interoperability
test between IBIS and Drugfire.]
The fact that these two systems were developed
side by side ends up with really two better systems. You have in CEASEFIRE
a system that can do bullets, almost regardless of their condition.
Drugfire is primarily a cartridge technology.
The fact is, what we have got to do is get them
tied together, and I agree with you and that is what I said in my
statement. I am not enough of a technician to know exactly how they can do
that. The fact is, they are both systems that are computerized, and we
should be able to tie them together, and we have NIST looking at that now
in terms of exactly the amount of money we are spending for that.
I did, also, when you talked about our IBIS
systems—we talked about 11. It is really 25 IBIS systems as opposed
to 11.
Mr. KOLBE. It was the lack of
interoperability of these systems.
So, at this moment, it is in the hands of NIST to
come up with a plan to make them interoperable?
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. Make them interoperable,
yes.
Mr. KOLBE. You would expect to have a
report on this, a plan to coordinate with the Justice Department on this?
Do you expect to tell us what you are planning to do in this area?
Mr. MAGAW. Yes, sir, we do. I don't have a
time frame.
Mr. KOLBE. You do not have a time table for
that.
Mr. MAGAW. I know the study has taken
place.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau amended this to
say ''testing is taking place'']
Mr. KOLBE. We will review this question
again. My final line——
Mr. MAGAW. We will make that a point, and
as we get status reports on that, we will bring those to your staff.
THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT
Mr. KOLBE. All right. Thank you. I would
like that very much, to be kept up to date on that.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
My final line of question is the Lautenberg
amendment. The shorthand, everybody knows what we are talking about here,
but for the record, it is the amendment that was adopted in the omnibus
consolidated appropriations bill last year that says that anybody convicted
of a misdemeanor crime of violence is prohibited from possessing, shipping,
transporting or receiving firearms or ammunition. It does not exclude law
enforcement agents. It does not exclude BATF, Federal law enforcement
agents.
I guess the first question is to you, Mr.
Secretary. Is the Treasury fully complying with this law?
Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir, we are fully
complying.
Virtually, everyone has reported, and we have
approximately 10 individuals who are affected by this law.
Mr. KOLBE. Treasury-wide.
Mr. KELLY. Throughout Treasury, yes,
sir.
Mr. KOLBE. All the law enforcement agents
carrying weapons.
Mr. KELLY. Everyone who carries a
gun——
Mr. KOLBE. Only 10.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. That is not the
absolute final figure. It won't deviate from that very much, approximately
10.
Mr. KOLBE. Right. Well, the first question
is, how did you make that determination?
Mr. KELLY. Well, the heads of the bureaus
and agencies queried their personnel either through their personal records
or——
Mr. KOLBE. Going through your own internal
personnel records?
Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. Then they certified
the number.
Mr. KOLBE. It should be able to tell you if
there is a misdemeanor conviction in there? The personnel records would
have normally any misdemeanor conviction?
Mr. KELLY. Personnel records should have
it, but it may not have it. So there is a certification process where the
employee is asked to certify that he or she does not have a misdemeanor
conviction for domestic violence.
Mr. KOLBE. Right. If they falsely answered
that and it later were discovered, they would be subject to dismissal,
correct?
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. Well, they would be
subject, certainly, to disciplinary action, but obviously, they would be
not in compliance with the law. They would be breaking the law.
Mr. KOLBE. Correct, in more than one count.
What have you done with these 10 agents?
Mr. KELLY. We have taken their weapons away
from them. We have formed an inter-agency committee to address this, and we
are going to have to look at each individual case. Certainly, the number is
10 or approximately 10. It is certainly a number we can deal with.
Mr. KOLBE. Will those agents be placed in
other—they are not being dismissed——
Mr. KELLY. No.
Mr. KOLBE [continuing]. Because it is only
a misdemeanor conviction.
Mr. KELLY. That is right.
Mr. KOLBE. So they will be placed in other
lines of duties that do not require them to have weapons?
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. Most likely. That is what
this committee is about. I think we have to look at each individual case to
see what they are doing, what their level is, their GS level, and to
attempt to address it appropriately, but we don't have a concrete policy
that says specifically what will happen to each individual. We hope to
determine that with this committee.
Mr. KOLBE. I would appreciate it if you
would give us just a breakdown of the agents and where they are at,
obviously not the name, but just the numbers.
Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
Offset folios 344 insert here
Mr. KOLBE. Is there a category for crime of
domestic violence that exists now in the criminal record databases?
Mr. KELLY. In some States, yes, and
probably most States, no. Some States have discreet domestic violence
crimes that you can pick up by querying a database. Other States do
not.
Mr. KOLBE. So how are local law enforcement
agencies expected to comply with this if there is not the database, if we
don't have this on the database?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. Well, as I say, some States
do. This will be a question on the form, on the Brady form. This will be
added, and an individual will answer that question yes or no.
Mr. KOLBE. For new agents coming in, being
hired.
Mr. KELLY. Oh, I am sorry. I was talking
about——
Mr. KOLBE. Prospective.
Mr. KELLY [continuing]. The public at
large, but you are talking about an employee now.
Mr. KOLBE. An employee, yes.
Mr. KELLY. Well, a background
investigation, which is done on any new employee, that will be a question,
and obviously, there is an investigation that is done for people who carry
guns. There will be a criminal records check.
Mr. KOLBE. That criminal records check,
though, should always turn up this kind of a misdemeanor?
Mr. KELLY. No. It is going to be difficult,
but the obligation is on the individual who fills out an employment form,
just like anyone for a job. That will be a question that will have to be
asked for people who are going to be authorized to carry a weapon.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. Do you have some concern about
the tremendous wide variation of State laws in domestic violence and the
fact this is going to end up with a very uneven application?
Mr. KELLY. Well, getting the information is
going to be a challenge, no question about it.
Mr. KOLBE. That wasn't the thrust of this
question. The thrust of what I am trying to get at is that, in some States,
a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence can be really almost words
used rather than any kind of physical violence, and in other States, it may
be, indeed, somebody who was plea-bargained down from a felony to a
misdemeanor.
I am just wondering about the tremendously uneven
application. The amendment has no common definition of what is domestic
violence, and the States vary widely in that. I am just wondering whether
that poses any—whether you have any concern about that.
Mr. KELLY. Well, we have some concern, but
I think the——
Mr. KOLBE. You have to go by the State law.
So you have a Federal agent in one State that may have committed some real
domestic violence, but isn't covered by it, and you may have another agent
in another State that did something that is really fairly minor and now is
deprived of his or her livelihood.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. I think the misdemeanor
threshold is so relatively high to be convicted of a crime in this
country.
I mean, there is a uniform penal code that is
followed by most States. I am not certain there is that wide disparity. To
be convicted of a crime, to be convicted of a misdemeanor, I think is still
a fairly high threshold throughout the country.
Mr. KOLBE. Are you concerned at all about
the retroactive application of this for your department?
Mr. KELLY. Counsel tells us that it is not
retroactive in the sense that the law is violated after the passage of the
Lautenberg law. Retroactive, I understand what you mean in terms of not
being on notice previously; that this would be a bar.
Mr. KOLBE. No. I wasn't questioning the
constitutionality of it, but the fact that it is being applied
retroactively and agents that were hired legitimately and performed well
are now suddenly, basically, out of a job.
Mr. KELLY. The law is applicable to, yes,
law enforcement personnel, but everyone throughout the country. So, in that
sense, it is being fairly applied.
Mr. KOLBE. Okay. Then you are not concerned
about the retroactive feature of it, whether it is law enforcement agents
to anybody else, then? That doesn't concern you particularly?
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KELLY. Well, I think the law
should be applied across the board evenly.
Mr. KOLBE. Of course, but one could have
adopted this and said, henceforth, no one shall be employed by any agency
or no person who is convicted, henceforth, from this date forward of a
misdemeanor will be allowed to possess a weapon.
What I am trying to get at, going back, my
understanding with local law enforcement agencies is that they are opposing
it, and they are very concerned for some individuals that have absolutely
impeccable records as law enforcement officers from the day they were hired
onward. They may have had some in a previous divorce, some minor incident
that resulted in, for whatever reason, a misdemeanor conviction.
I think the local law enforcement agencies just
dismiss it. They have no choice. They don't have the smaller units. They
don't have the number of non-weapons-carrying jobs and the kinds of jobs
that they can put these people into. I think there is a lot of concern
about this.
Mr. MAGAW. Mr. Chairman, we are carrying
out the law as it was written.
Mr. KOLBE. I understand. I was just
wondering if you personally had any concerns about the way of the law, but
apparently, you don't.
Mr. MAGAW. Mr. Chairman, can I mention
something about Lautenberg before you go on?
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. Yes.
Mr. MAGAW. Some of those concerns you were
talking about, a young officer, in order to get a divorce settled, agrees
to plead to something like this, and in 25 years, he or she has served very
well. There are a few of those around. There are not very many, but the
part about this law that really concerns me, and I want to bring it to the
committee now, is that in almost every State, ATF is going to be the
enforcement arm of first resort. There are no State statutes.
So, when we get a call that says my spouse or my
former spouse has these weapons, was convicted as such and such a time, we
are concerned about the ballooning of all of these investigations. We don't
know where the number is going to go.
We have a number of them going on right now around
the country and have made some arrests. We may not under these
circumstances have the personnel to carry all of these investigations out,
and if we do, I am not sure the committee and the Congress wants us doing
that. We need to understand that part of Lautenberg, and if we don't do it
and someone is killed as a result of it, then we are going to be sitting
holding the bag on this one.
So I just want to make you aware of it that it is
starting. We are handling it right now, but it may become very difficult in
the months to come.
Mr. KOLBE. Just so I understand, do you use
the word ''arrest'' here?
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MAGAW. If a person calls and says this
person——
Mr. KOLBE. My ex-husband.
Mr. MAGAW [continuing]. Is carrying a
weapon or has weapons——
Mr. KOLBE. And he has a misdemeanor.
Mr. MAGAW. That is right, and has not
turned them over, has violated the law, has threatened me 2 days ago, what
does ATF do at this point? The local law enforcement, unless there is an
actual threat, unless somebody calls and says he is threatening me with a
gun, and of course, we will have local law enforcement. We will call them
right away, but how will we handle these cases? That is where the
tremendous problem with Lautenberg is going to come in the months to
come.
I don't think you want ATF handling these
cases——
Mr. KOLBE. No, I don't.
Mr. MAGAW [continuing]. But I don't know
how we are going to get out of it if we aren't careful as we get into it
because we are the only one that can enforce it. It is a Federal law for
which there is no State or county or city counterpart.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. I hope we are not going to
arrest them, whether it is ATF or local, unless we have informed them, made
sure that they were informed of this provision of law. Granted, there is a
well-established provision that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but
nonetheless, I hope we are not going after somebody who legitimately has
had a gun for all these years, didn't get the word about Lautenberg. We are
not going to just go out and yank them off the street because, aha, you
have a gun and you didn't know that we just passed a law last year.
Mr. MAGAW. Your point is well made.
Mr. KOLBE. We can't have this.
Mr. MAGAW. Your point is well made. It is
like that flashing traffic light yellow. They leave it flash for a few
months. We are going to do that kind of thing, but the kind of cases we are
going to get involved with, I think your imagination can tell you the kinds
of things we are going to get involved with.
BUREAU COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMENDMENT
Mr. KOLBE. Have you done anything about
what the workload for BATF would be under this? Do you have any
estimations?
Mr. MAGAW. Well, there is no way for us to
know yet. Right now we have put guidelines out to our personnel, as best we
can right now. If there is an emergency call that an assault is taking
place or something, have local police respond, and then they have the
jurisdiction and we follow up with the investigation later, make sure that,
like you said, if it is a situation where there is a call that this person
has weapons, then we have a responsibility to make sure they are informed,
and can we do that by registered letter and those kinds of things. We are
just now trying to work out that policy and that procedure, and we need to
share that with this committee, so that we make sure that as we go down
this road, we are doing what this committee wants us to do.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[CLERK'S NOTE.—The bureau later
classifed that the Bureau has spent over $1 million on printing and postage
costs associated with notification mailing and revisions made to form
4473.]
Mr. KOLBE. I think that is very, very
important because I think there would be significant budget impacts for
that. I would appreciate it if you would do that.
I understand Mr. McCollum's subcommittee is
holding a hearing on this issue tomorrow. I don't know whether you people
are going to be testifying or not, but certainly, this issue is going to be
one that we are going to be revisiting.
No questions?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I have some I will submit for
the record.
Mr. KOLBE. Okay. Mr. Aderholt will submit
his questions for the record, and I will have a few others that I will
submit also for the record.
Thank you both very much for coming to testify
today, and this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record
and selected budget justifications follow:]
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Offset folios 354 to 434 insert here
