Find a Security Clearance Job!

Homeland Security

Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
CRIMINAL LAW COMPONENTS AT MAIN JUSTICE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

    Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security holds the second of two hearings on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice.

    Our Subcommittee is charged with oversight of seven of the DOJ components. The Subcommittee's first hearing, held on May 6, featured four law enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA and ATF. Events from last week remind us why it is important for this Subcommittee to exercise its oversight responsibilities.

    Today's hearing focuses on four additional criminal law components of the Justice Department. They are the Criminal Division, the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Criminal Division was created in 1919 and is responsible for developing, enforcing and supervising the application of all Federal criminal laws except those specifically assigned to other divisions. The Division has the responsibility of overseeing criminal matters under more than 900 statutes. In addition to its direct litigation responsibilities, the Division formulates and implements criminal law enforcement policy and provides legal advice and assistance to Federal prosecutors and investigative agencies.

    The Office of Justice Programs was established in 1984 to provide Federal leadership, coordination and assistance needed to make the Nation's justice system more efficient and effective in preventing and controlling crime. Through programs developed and funded by its bureaus and offices, OJP works to form partnerships among Federal, State and local government officials to reduce and prevent crime, improve the administration of justice in America and meet the needs of crime victims.

    The Federal Bureau of Prisons was established in 1930 to provide more progressive and humane care for Federal inmates, to professionalize the prison service and to ensure consistent and centralized administration of Federal prisons. The Bureau of Prisons protects society by confining offenders in safe, humane and secure facilities. The Bureau focuses on balancing punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation.

    The United States Marshals Service is the Nation's oldest law enforcement agency. Since 1789, the U.S. Marshals have served in a variety of law enforcement activities. The Marshals Service occupies a uniquely central position in the Federal justice system. It is involved in virtually every Federal law enforcement initiative. Deputy Marshals and career employees perform a variety of missions including fugitive apprehension, court security, prison transportation and custody, witness protections and assets seizure.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Today's witnesses oversee some of the most significant components of our Nation's criminal justice system, since guarding public safety is one of Government's most essential duties. We look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the challenges they face and the ways in which Congress can help them accomplish their goals.

    I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby Scott.

    Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am pleased to join you in convening the hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice criminal law enforcement support operations.

    The operations in force today reflect the wide breadth of the Department's jurisdictions from the front end of the criminal justice process with the Office of Justice programs to prevent crimes before they occur, to the U.S. Marshals' apprehension and arrest functions, the Criminal Division's prosecution function, to the end of the system with the Bureau of Prisons' incarceration and rehabilitation.

    I would hope to hear from OJP about effective crime prevention programs. We know that prevention—just because a program is called a prevention program doesn't mean that it works, but many of the programs save a lot more money than they cost because they are so effective. I understand that Abt Associates has recently done a report on crime prevention programs, and the results are somewhere in the Department of Justice, and we would like to hear the results of that study.(see footnote 1)
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    On the arrest and prosecution functions, we have concerns about violations of traditional principles of criminal law where we are using extraordinary law enforcement powers authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act and the recently enacted Protect Act. The USA PATRIOT Act allows interactions between law enforcement and intelligence gathering which draws the traditional bright line between the two to become a bit fuzzy.

    Under FISA, you can get wiretaps involved, including roving wiretaps, without probable cause of a crime and rove around and place taps in many places without specific court intervention. Now FISA can share information without probable cause with law enforcement, and so criminal investigations can be opened without the probable cause requirement. This is just not for terrorism. It is also for other crimes as well.

    Even under the traditional criminal law enforcement procedures, we have authorized sneak and peek searches, arrest and hold without charges, let alone probable cause; and now we are proposing a second round of PATRIOT Act authorizations. So we need to find out exactly how it has worked and what is being proposed.

    Under the Protect Act, searches, wiretaps, arrests and prosecutions are all authorized for legal virtual images created on a computer; and we force a defendant to prove his or her innocence to avoid a conviction and imprisonment. Under the BOP function, we incarcerate people for many years; and we ought to make sure for the sake of public safety as well as prisoners and their families that they leave better than they came.

    Now we, in Congress, unfortunately, ended the use of Pell Grants which allowed prisoners to take college courses while they are incarcerated, despite the universally consistent evidence that education reduces crime. The crime rate among college graduates is nonexistent, compared to the rate among those who have not attended college. Taking Pell Grants away was not the fault of the Department of Justice, but I would like to hear what they thought of that and some other ideas.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would also like to hear about what we are doing involving work experience and job training for inmates in light of the Department of Defense FPI restrictions and overwhelming evidence of the recidivism reduction for those who have had the opportunity to participate in the prison workforce programs.

    I would like to hear about what we are doing for inmate drug treatment in light of the evidence that drug treatment reduces recidivism. We would like to hear about the Bureau of Prisons' position on the Prison Rape Reduction Act, particularly in light of the Chairman's cosponsorship of the bill and our full Committee Chairman Mr. Sensenbrenner's stated objective of moving the bill forward.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and hope they can address some of those issues.

    Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman; and we are pleased as well to welcome the other gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes.

    Let me give some background about our witnesses. I think members of the audience need to know the credentials our witnesses bring to the table.

    Our first witness is the Honorable Deborah Daniels, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. Assistant Attorney General Daniels was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 21 of 2001.

 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Prior to her work at Justice, Ms. Daniels had a distinguished career in criminal prosecution both on the local and Federal levels, as well as background and community economic development and neighborhood revitalization. She received a BA with honors from DePaul University and was graduated cum laude from the Indiana University School of Law.

    Our next witness is Mr. Harley Lappin, who was sworn in as the Director of the Bureau of Prisons on April 4, 2003. He is a career public administrator in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the seventh director of the Bureau since its establishment in 1930. Director Lappin received a BA degree in forensics studies from Indiana University in Bloomington in 1978 and a Master of Arts degree in criminal justice and correctional administration from Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, in 1985.

    Our third witness is Mr. Benigno G. Reyna, who was appointed by President Bush to serve as Director of the United States Marshals Service on October 29, 2001, after a 25-year career in law enforcement. Director Reyna received his Bachelor of Science Degree in criminal justice from the University of Texas-Pan American and received the 2002 Distinguished Alumnus Award from Texas Southmost College. Director Reyna is also a proud graduate of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

    Our final witness is Ms. Julie Myers, who is the Chief of Staff to Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Prior to joining the Department, Ms. Myers was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Money Laundering and Financial Crimes at the Department of Treasury and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York.

 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. Myers also worked as an Associate Independent Counsel under Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations. Ms. Myers received her bachelor of arts from Baylor University and was graduated cum laude from the Cornell School of Law.

    It is good to have each of you with us. We have written statements from all the witnesses on the panel, and I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record their entirety.

    Folks, as you all have been previously admonished, Mr. Scott and I comply with the 5-minute rule. When the red light illuminates into your eyes, you know the ice is thin on which you are skating, so wrap at the 5-minute rule.

    Your statements have been read and will be reexamined again. It is good to have all of you with us.

    I stated to Mr. Forbes and Mr. Scott I have to depart at 3:30, and I will stand relieved at that time. Don't think that my departure is an indication of lack of interest in what we are discussing today. I just happen to be in another meeting.

    But it is good to have all of you with us.

    Mr. COBLE. Why don't we start, Ms. Daniels, with you.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DEBORAH DANIELS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, Congressman Forbes——

    Mr. COBLE. If you will suspend, Mr. Scott very appropriately reminded me that the ice becomes thin when the amber light appears. But we will be flexible.

    Ms. DANIELS. May I begin again?

    My name again is Deborah Daniels. I am the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss OJP and its efforts to provide Federal leadership in developing the Nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice and assist victims.

    During the last Congress, this Subcommittee held hearings addressing issues related to duplication, overlapping programs, a lack of coordination among OJP bureaus and offices and a management and organizational structure that had grown cumbersome. These are issues of critical importance to OJP as well as to this Subcommittee.

    In 2001, OJP began implementing our agency-wide reorganization in consultation with the Congress aiming for a more effective and efficient organization. We have made great strides in that direction. To guide our improvement efforts, we have developed a comprehensive management plan focusing on how OJP operates as an agency, how we manage the resources appropriated to us by the Congress, how we measure what we do, how we ensure that those resources flow to the communities that need them as quickly and efficiently as possible. Our implementation of the initiatives outlined in the plan is well under way.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for OJP is $2.185 billion. The funds requested will help States, local communities and organizations across the country maintain their momentum in reducing and preventing crime, controlling drug abuse and trafficking, meeting the needs of crime victims and addressing problems such as gang violence, juvenile crime and domestic violence.

    One of the most important initiatives in the President's budget with regard to which this Subcommittee has already been helpful to us is the President's DNA initiative, Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. DNA offers significant opportunities to ensure fairness in the criminal justice system to help protect citizens and to enhance support for victims of crime. To accomplish these goals, President Bush has proposed a 5-year, $1 billion effort. The President's initiative is a multi-front approach which will vastly increase the Nation's ability to protect the innocent, convict the guilty and prevent the victimization of many people in this country.

    The Administration's commitment to protecting children is clearly seen in the nearly $33 million request in our budget request for the Missing and Exploited Children's Program and AMBER Alert. As you know, in October, 2002, the President issued a directive to the Attorney General to designate an AMBER Alert coordinator within the Department of Justice. I have been so named. I am honored to serve in that capacity, and we are moving ahead rapidly in our efforts to establish and link local and Statewide alert plans.

    We are also pleased for the Congress recently passed and the President signed the Protect Act of 2003. This Act is an historic milestone for our Nation's children and provides enhanced tools and resources which will strengthen our ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violent crimes committed against children. We owe special things to the Members of the Judiciary Committee and especially to Chairman Sensenbrenner and to you, Chairman Coble, for being instrumental in the passage of this historic legislation.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    One particular proposal in the Administration's budget on which we hope to work very closely with this Subcommittee is the Justice Assistant Grants, otherwise known as JAG program. This is a consolidation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program and the Edward Byrne Formula Grant Program into a single program distributing funding both to State and local governments.

    OJP proposes that the more than 29 Byrne and 7 LLEBG purpose areas be consolidated into a few very broad purpose areas. This will permit States and communities to improve all aspects of their criminal justice and correction systems and particularly will give local jurisdictions more discretion than they currently have under LLEBG. It will also streamline their process for applying for these funds.

    Mr. Chairman, OJP is committed to being the premier resource for the justice community. I look forward to continuing our work together with the Subcommittee to ensure that OJP carries out its mission to the best of its ability.

    I have submitted my written statement. I appreciate you accepting that, and I thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. I will be pleased after the testimony to respond to any questions the Members may have.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. COBLE. I commend you, Ms. Daniels. You beat the red light.

 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Daniels follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH J. DANIELS

    Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, members of the subcommittee, my name is Deborah J. Daniels, and as the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP), it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss OJP and its efforts to assist State and local communities.

    As the subcommittee is aware, OJP provides Federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims. OJP comprises 5 component bureaus and 2 offices: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime, as well as the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, and the Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education. OJP's Office on Violence Against Women, pursuant to the decision of the Attorney General, will soon be designated as a separate office within the Justice Department.

IMPROVING OJP OPERATIONS

    First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, it is critically important to all of OJP's leadership to improve how OJP does business. During the last Congress this subcommittee held a series of three hearings, addressing issues of critical importance to the subcommittee, as well as to those of us at OJP. Issues discussed included various duplications of authorities within the statutes governing OJP, overlapping programs and lack of coordination among OJP bureaus and offices, and a management and organizational structure that had grown cumbersome.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    During the past decade, OJP has experienced extraordinary growth and change. Since the passage of the crime bill in 1994, OJP added four program offices, expanded its focus from 14 to 43 major budget activities, increased by 1,300% the number of grants awarded annually, and experienced more than a five-fold increase in the total dollar amount of awards administered.

    This period of growth greatly increased the ability of OJP to drive and support improvements throughout the justice system. However the piecemeal fashion in which organizational and programmatic changes occurred resulted in a wide range of management challenges.

    The clear message Mr. Chairman, was that OJP had to change; and we took this message to heart. Today, all of OJP is working to improve the way we accomplish our mission and serve our customers. Our aim is to make significant changes in the way we operate, making our services both more accessible and more effective. I am pleased to report that great progress has been made toward the accomplishment of these goals.

    OJP has begun implementing our agency-wide reorganization. In 2001, we submitted to Congress a reorganization plan for OJP and, consistent with that plan, began the process of re-building OJP into a more effective and efficient organization.

    However, Mr. Chairman, the reorganization of OJP is about more than just streamlining, creating efficiencies, and increasing coordination. Through our efforts, we strive to improve OJP's overall responsiveness to the criminal justice field, to States and localities, to individuals, and to the Congress. Any reorganization must also leverage, to the greatest extent possible, Federal funds to ensure effective utilization of taxpayer resources. Moving forward in this manner will allow OJP to forge new relationships of cooperation and trust with our partners in State and local communities, while not neglecting other pressing, and ongoing, needs in the fight against crime. OJP's reorganization will also meet the President's call to Federal agencies to promote ''an active but limited government; one that empowers States, cities and citizens to make decisions; ensures results through accountability; and promotes innovation through competition.''
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Merging the programs and staffs of the Corrections Program Office and the Drug Courts Program Office into the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) consolidated overlapping functions, reduced management redundancy, and improved coordination and communication not only within OJP, but also with the field. We also created the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), in recognition of the importance of mission-critical automated systems. The swift implementation of the OCIO has transformed OJP's grants process—moving from a labor intensive, paper process to a centralized paperless system through which 84% of our grants are now processed. By the end of fiscal year 2003, we expect to administer all OJP grants electronically.

    We have also begun the consolidation of several administrative and support functions into the Office of Management and Administration. In addition, our new Office of Communications will carry out OJP's congressional and public affairs and other information dissemination functions.

    Mr. Chairman, we will soon be working to merge the programs, functions, and staff of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed and the American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk into the Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO). The CCDO is an exciting concept which brings into focus one of OJP's core missions—to work with local communities to enhance their capabilities to address crime, substance abuse, delinquency, and domestic violence. Through training and technical assistance, the CCDO will help communities better help themselves—enabling communities to develop solutions and the leadership to implement and sustain solutions to these problems. Weed and Seed will be the flagship program in the CCDO, but we will expand the collaborative, community-driven approach to many other programs.

 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    To guide our improvement efforts, we have developed a comprehensive management plan that identifies and schedules major change initiatives within OJP. It is important to recognize that the management plan focuses on how OJP operates as an agency—on how we manage the resources appropriated to us by the Congress, and how we ensure that those resources flow to the communities that need them as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is also important to recognize that OJP's management plan adds depth and detail to OJP's reorganization efforts. At the core of this plan are four major performance improvement goals.

1. Make OJP the premier source for the various types of information and assistance our customers need;

2. Efficiently manage our resources and ensure top-to-bottom accountability;

3. Create the conditions for our employees to flourish; and

4. Standardize and streamline our processes and automated systems.

    And in achieving these goals, OJP's leadership has been guided by several key principles.

1. We will be customer-driven;

2. We will be informed decision-makers; and

3. We will respect and value our employees.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We have already made considerable progress in the development and implementation of OJP's management plan, but much remains to be done. We are not however, without early successes. As I mentioned, we are committed to making OJP the premier source of assistance and information needed by our customers. To that end, we have enhanced our Internet services, making the web more usable and informative for our customers. In 2002, OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics website alone had more than 3 million hits. We have also instituted data quality guidelines for information we release to ensure the objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information. I mentioned that OJP will standardize and streamline its automated systems. This year OJP completed its first Technology Strategic Plan to guide us in identifying and addressing our technology needs. We have also eliminated many administrative requirements for applicants and grantees, in order to allow for the streamlined delivery of financial resources to States and localities.

    We are making progress in improving the business of serving our customers. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) continues to present trends through user friendly tools such as Key Facts at a Glance. Our Guide to Federal Resources for Weed and Seed Communities will improve sustainability of community-driven efforts by helping to identify other potential resources for funding and training. BJA's Guide to Grants will serve as a tool for grantees and will be the model for an OJP Guide to Grants.

    Collectively, these actions will move OJP toward greater centralization of management, and improve communication and coordination across components and programs. These actions will also help reduce redundancies in administrative functions. However, the reorganization, streamlining, and other successes that OJP has achieved over the past few years could not have been achieved without the support and assistance of the Congress. That support has been vitally important and very much appreciated. We look forward to working closely with the Congress, and this subcommittee, as we work to improve OJP's service to the State and local community. Only in this way can we be good and responsible stewards of the funds Congress has entrusted to us in the past, and the funds we ask Congress to entrust to us in the future.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for OJP is $2.185 billion. The funds requested will help States, local communities, and organizations across the country build upon what we have learned through research and experience about what works in controlling crime. Communities will be able to maintain their momentum in finding ways to reduce and prevent crime, control drug abuse and trafficking, meet the needs of crime victims, and address problems such as gang violence, juvenile crime, and domestic violence.

ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY

    One of the most important initiatives in the President's budget, with regard to which this subcommittee has already been helpful to us, is the President's DNA initiative—Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. The President's commitment to this comprehensive initiative using DNA technology was announced by the Attorney General on March 11, 2003. DNA offers significant opportunities to ensure fairness in the criminal justice system, to help protect citizens, and to enhance support for victims of crime. However, the full potential of DNA technology can only be realized through a concentrated effort that improves current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis systems.

    To accomplish these goals, President Bush has proposed a 5-year, $ 1 billion effort. This includes $232.6 million in Federal funding in fiscal year 2004. The elements of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology initiative are:

 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
1. Eliminating backlogs of unanalyzed samples'both known offender samples and crime scene samples, including rape kits;

2. Enhancing crime lab capacity on the Federal, State, and local levels through funding for automation;

3. Stimulating research and development of faster and less expensive means of analyzing DNA samples;

4. Training the criminal justice and medical communities to collect and use DNA evidence to maximum effect, while demonstrating sensitivity to victim concerns;

5. Using DNA to protect the innocent by offering post-conviction testing; and

6. Using DNA to identify missing persons.

    Most of the funds under the President's initiative would be administered by OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ). These funds are intended primarily to assist State and local governments in eliminating their backlogs of crime scene and offender DNA samples, to increase State and local forensic laboratory capacity to carry out DNA analysis, and to advance research to reduce the cost and increase the speed of DNA testing, further enhancing the capability of State and local laboratories to conduct more tests.

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The Administration's commitment to protecting children is clearly seen in the $32.986 million request for the Missing and Exploited Children's Program and AMBER Alert. As you know, on October 2, 2002, the President issued a directive to the Attorney General to designate an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice, which he did that same day by appointing me. It is an honor for me to serve in this capacity.

    We are also pleased that the Congress recently passed, and the President, on April 30, 2003, signed, the PROTECT Act of 2003. This act is an historic milestone for our nation's children and provides the Federal government enhanced tools and resources, including enhanced resources for the AMBER Alert program, which strengthen law enforcement's ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish violent crimes committed against children. We owe special thanks to the members of the Judiciary Committee, especially to Chairman Sensenbrenner and to you, Chairman Coble, for being instrumental in the passage of this historic legislation.

    OJP's Missing and Exploited Children's Program collects statistics about missing children, and identifies best practices and emerging technical information to keep ongoing training and technical assistance programs current. The program also provides training and technical assistance on a wide variety of child victimization topics, ranging from assisting communities in developing comprehensive response protocols and action plans to specific investigative techniques for front-line law enforcement personnel.

    The AMBER Alert program is a voluntary collaboration between police and broadcasters, through which emergency alerts are issued to notify the public about abductions of children. The AMBER Plan was created in 1996 as a powerful legacy to 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas, who was kidnaped and brutally murdered while riding her bicycle. Since her tragic abduction and death, the AMBER Alert Plan has been implemented in 39 States nationwide, and has assisted in the recovery of over 50 children.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In the fiscal year 2004 President's budget, OJP has asked for $2.5 million to continue efforts to establish a coordinated AMBER Alert Network nationwide, as well as to train law enforcement and others in operating it. We are pleased that the Congress provided $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill for these efforts.

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

    A proposal in the Administration's budget on which we will need to work closely with this subcommittee is the Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Program, which is a consolidation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program and the Edward Byrne Formula Grant (Byrne) Program into a single grant program. Authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, the Byrne program assists States and units of local government in carrying out programs that offer a high probability of improving the operation and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The States, in consultation with local officials, develop statewide strategies and funding priorities to address their drug and violent crime problems and to improve the functioning of their criminal justice systems, while supporting national priorities and objectives. Since 1996, the LLEBG program has awarded more than 14,000 grants to jurisdictions in all 50 States, the U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia for the seven legislated purpose areas supporting reductions in crime and improvements in the criminal justice system. This program provides units of local government with funds to underwrite projects designed to reduce crime and improve public safety.

    JAG funding would be distributed to both State and local governments. OJP proposes that the more than 29 Byrne and seven LLEBG purpose areas be consolidated into a few broad purpose areas, including:
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

 Law Enforcement Programs

 Prosecution and Court Programs

 Community-Based and Statewide Prevention and Education Programs

 Corrections Programs

 Drug Treatment Programs

 Planning, Evaluation and Technology Improvement

    Under this structure, local jurisdictions would be given more discretion than they currently have because they will be able to use their funding for broader purposes than those available under LLEBG. Under the JAG initiative, cities such as Greensboro, North Carolina or Newport News, Virginia would enjoy much greater latitude in how and for what purposes they could spend and utilize their local awards, including broader application in such areas as corrections, courts administration, and planning for and responding to terrorism.

CONCLUSION

    Mr. Chairman, OJP will continue to support a comprehensive array of demonstration, training, technical assistance, research, statistical analysis, information-sharing, and other programs and initiatives to enhance the capacity of States, local communities, and organizations in preventing and responding to crime. OJP is committed to being the premier resource for the justice community.
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I assure you that I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure that OJP carries out its mission to the best of its ability. Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I am pleased to respond to any questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.

    Mr. COBLE. Mr. Lappin.

STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Mr. LAPPIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Harley Lappin, the recently appointed Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss programs and operations of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Coble, and Mr. Scott and other Members of the Subcommittee for your strong support of the Bureau of Prisons.

    The Federal inmate population has increased nearly sevenfold in the past two decades, from approximately 25,000 inmates and 41 institutions in 1980 to more than 169,000 inmates and 103 institutions today.

    Our fiscal year 2004 budget request totals almost $4.7 billion: $4.5 billion for operations and $224 million for the capital budget. The operating budget will fund all existing facilities as well as new facilities scheduled to be brought online this coming fiscal year.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The rapid growth of the inmate population has led to system-wide crowding of 37 percent over our rated capacity. To address this, we have four new institutions that will be activated by the end of 2003. The activation funding for seven more new institutions is included in the pending fiscal year 2004 budget request.

    In addition, we contract with private sector, State and local correctional systems to help cover our capacity needs.

    The Bureau confines inmates at institutions at four security levels: minimum, low, medium and high. We have one maximum security prison. We also operate detention centers for pretrial detainees and pre-sentence offenders and Federal medical centers for inmates who require inpatient medical care. We employ a validated classification system in order to place inmates in facilities that meet their security needs.

    We have also improved prison design and construction, made many physical plant improvements, and taken advantage of technological developments to further enhance institution security.

    Although the obvious features of architecture and technology can help the Bureau maintain safety and security of our institutions, the most important way we ensure security is through direct inmate supervision. We manage our institutions through meaningful communication and constructive interaction between staff and inmates, which helps us gather intelligence and encourage positive inmate behavior.

 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In addition, regardless of the specific discipline in which a staff member works, all employees are correctional workers first. All staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive to the inmate accountability and security issues, to respond to emergencies, and to maintain a proficiency in security matters, as well as in their particular job specialty.

    The Bureau helps protect society from criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that will help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle upon release. All Bureau institutions offer a variety of educational programs and occupational and vocational training programs based on the needs of the inmates, general labor market conditions, and institutional labor force needs.

    While sentenced inmates in Federal correctional institutions are required to work, except for the relatively few number who, for security, education, or medical reasons are unable to do so. Approximately 22 percent of the Bureau's medically able sentenced inmates work in Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, which is our most important correctional program. By statute, FPI's mission is to employ and provide skills and training to the greatest possible number of inmates confined within the Bureau of Prisons, while avoiding capturing more than a reasonable share of the Federal market.

    Rigorous research has demonstrated that inmates who work in Federal Prison Industries were 24 percent less likely to recidivate than those who did not and were 14 percent more likely to be employed following release from prison. The studies show that ex-inmates who had the skills and training provided by FPI earned higher wages, providing additional benefits to the community. The research also determined that the FPI programs provide even greater benefit to minorities who are at greater risk for recidivism. FPI operates off sales revenue, rather than appropriated funds, thereby providing no need for additional inmate programs.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Inmates typically have greater health needs than the average citizen. We have extensive medical and mental health programs. We provide comprehensive drug abuse treatment programs to inmates, the cornerstone of which is the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. The treatment program is designed for the approximately 34 percent of our inmate population that has been clinically diagnosed with substance abuse or dependency disorder. A rigorous analysis of the residential drug treatment program revealed that 3 years after release from custody, inmates who completed the program were significantly less likely to be rearrested or to use drugs.

    Our religious programs are intended to provide inmates with opportunities to grow spiritually and to strengthen their religious convictions. We have developed a multi-faith-based pre-release pilot program at five facilities for inmates at various security levels. The goal of our program is to reduce recidivism by providing participants with moral and spiritual principles that can guide them in making good decisions.

    All of our inmate programs are intended to prepare inmates for successful return to the community. We complement our agency array of programs with a specific release preparation program at which inmates become involved near the end of their sentence. We strive to place most inmates in halfway houses prior to their release from custody in order to help them adjust to a life in the community and find suitable post-release employment.

    Mr. Chairman, this is just a quick overview of our budget, security measures, and a wide range of programs and services that we provide to inmates. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this overview to you and Subcommittee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Thank you, sir.

    Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Lappin.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

    I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the programs and operations of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau). Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Coble, Ranking Minority Member Scott, and other members of the Subcommittee for your strong support of the Bureau. I look forward to continuing our work with you and the other members of the Subcommittee.

    The Bureau continues to effectively meet our mission to protect society by confining offenders in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. Earlier this year, we added to our strategic plan a new goal, to enhance our efforts regarding the prevention, disruption, and response to terrorist activities.

POPULATION GROWTH AND RESOURCES

 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The Federal inmate population has increased nearly seven-fold in the last two decades, from approximately 25,000 inmates and 41 institutions in 1980 to more than 169,000 inmates and 103 institutions today. (Of the 169,000 total, approximately 144,000 are in facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons, and the remainder are in privately-operated facilities and facilities managed by state and local governments). The growth stems from more Federal investigations, prosecutions, and convictions, and legislation in the 1980s that dramatically altered sentencing in the Federal criminal justice system.

    To address this population growth, the Bureau's budget has grown from approximately $330 million in 1980 to more than $4.4 billion today. Approximately $4 billion (91 percent) of the total budget is for daily operations (65 percent salaries and expenses), and funding for prison activations is also included. The remainder of funding (nearly $400 million) is for capital budget projects, including new construction and modernization and repairs.

    The FY 2004 budget request totals almost $4.7 billion; $4.5 billion for operations and $224 million for the capital budget. The $224 million request funds the ongoing maintenance and repair program at existing, older facilities and one project to construct up to 24 new super secure cells for convicted terrorists ($23 million). The operating budget will fund 113 existing and requested facilities and will provide for the custody and care of up to 151,400 inmates in Bureau facilities and 28,900 inmates in contract facilities. The Bureau of Prisons relies on the private sector (and state and local governments) to house approximately 15 percent of Federal inmates in privately managed prisons, state and local facilities and community corrections centers.

    Like other law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Prisons has had staff called to active duty in the military and others have left to become Air Marshals or transferred to the Transportation Security Agency. We are taking necessary counter-terrorism measures in order to securely house and manage inmates convicted of terrorist activities. This year, we have incurred unanticipated costs of about $7 million for counter-terrorism related expenses.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    While the Bureau's primary mission is the incarceration of sentenced Federal inmates, the agency provides assistance to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) by confining pretrial detainees and convicted offenders not yet sentenced. The Bureau currently confines just under one-third of the USMS prisoner population. The Bureau also assists the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security by confining approximately 2,600 of their detainees in Bureau institutions and contract facilities.

    We expect the inmate population to continue to increase by more than 8,000 inmates on average per year for the next few years (and then growth will slow to an average increase of around 5,000 inmates per year) due to ongoing Federal law enforcement initiatives, particularly with respect to drugs, immigration, and weapons offenses. Also, as required by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Bureau now confines all District of Columbia felons sentenced to prison.

FACILITIES AND CROWDING

    The Bureau confines inmates in institutions at four security levels (minimum, low, medium, and high) and has one maximum-security prison for the less than 1 percent of Bureau of Prisons inmates who require that level of security. The Bureau also operates detention centers (that confine mostly pretrial detainees and presentenced offenders) and Federal medical centers that provide medical care to inmates who cannot be housed in general population facilities.

    The rapid growth of the inmate population has led to system-wide crowding of 37 percent above the rated capacity, with the most severe crowding at medium-security and high-security institutions (which are 60 and 53 percent above capacity, respectively). These crowding rates, however, will decrease with the activation of 7 new facilities in 2004, 4 medium-security and 3 high-security prisons ($252 million). Prison crowding contributes to increased inmate idleness due to an increased demand on programs and services. With the support of Congress, the Bureau is making every effort to ensure that sufficient staff are available in its facilities to provide adequate prisoner supervision and to offset the deleterious effects of crowding on inmate management.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    For many years, the Bureau has been developing new capacity to meet the demand of its increasing inmate population guided by the following principles: (1) fully utilize and expand existing Federal institutions wherever cost effective and feasible; (2) construct new Federal prisons on surplus or donated property whenever possible; and (3) contract with the private sector and with State and local correctional agencies.

    Four new facilities will be in the activation process by the end of 2003: FCI Gilmer, West Virginia; USPs Big Sandy and McCreary, Kentucky; and USP Victorville, California. Activation funding for seven more new prisons is included in the FY 2004 budget request. Once fully activated, these 11 new facilities will provide more than 12,000 additional medium and high-security beds.

INSTITUTION SECURITY AND INMATE MANAGEMENT

    Although the more obvious features of architecture and technology help the Bureau maintain safety and security of our institutions, the most important way we ensure security is through direct inmate supervision. We manage our institutions through meaningful communication and constructive interaction between staff and inmates. The Bureau believes that this approach ensures accountability, allows us to gather intelligence, encourages positive inmate behavior, and helps the Bureau address inmates' concerns before they become serious problems. In addition, regardless of the specific discipline in which a staff member works, all employees are ''correctional workers first.'' This means that everyone, from secretaries to correctional officers to wardens, is responsible for the security and good order of the institution. All staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive to inmate accountability and security issues, to respond to emergencies, and to maintain a proficiency in security matters, as well as in their particular job specialty. In addition, all Bureau institutions have a comprehensive employee development program, including formal training programs, and mentoring by experienced staff.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

SAFETY AND SECURITY

    The Bureau of Prisons employs a validated inmate classification system to designate inmates to correctional facilities that provide the appropriate level of security and supervision. This system minimizes the likelihood that vulnerable offenders will be confined with predators or that first time non-violent offenders will be confined with sophisticated and dangerous criminals.

    In recent years, the Bureau has improved prison design and construction, made many physical plant improvements, and taken advantage of technological developments to further enhance institution security, including the use of closed-circuit video recording equipment to detect and deter illicit inmate activities. In order to control illegal drug use in Federal prisons, institution staff routinely search inmates and their property. In addition, the Bureau regularly conducts urinalysis on random samples of inmates as well as members of disruptive groups, inmates who are suspected of using drugs, and inmates who have an institutional history of the possession, use, or distribution of drugs. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action if they test positive for a controlled substance or if they refuse to provide a urine sample. The Bureau has experienced significant reductions in assaults (on both staff and other inmates), homicides, suicides, escapes from secure institutions and other serious misconduct over the past several years.

INMATE CARE AND PROGRAMMING

    The Bureau helps protect society from criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that will help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle upon their return to the community. These programs are an essential component of effective inmate management, and they are as important to the security and good order of Federal prisons as fences, daily counts, and searches.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Work Programs

    All sentenced inmates in Federal correctional institutions are required to work, except for the relatively small number who for security, educational, or medical reasons are unable to do so. Most inmates are assigned to institutional maintenance jobs such as a food service worker, orderly, plumber, painter, warehouse worker, or groundskeeper. Due to current levels of crowding, most work details are comprised of more inmates than necessary to accomplish the particular task. Staff must be continually creative to provide sufficient work opportunities. Approximately 22 percent of the Bureau's medically able, sentenced inmates work in Federal Prison Industries, the Bureau's most important correctional program.

    Federal Prison Industries (FPI). The statutorily defined mission of FPI is to employ and provide skills training to the greatest possible number of inmates confined within the Bureau of Prisons while avoiding capturing more than a reasonable share of the Federal market. FPI directly contributes to public safety by providing inmates with skills necessary to successfully reintegrate into society after release from prison.

    Rigorous research has demonstrated that inmates who worked in prison industries were 24 percent less likely to recidivate than those who did not, and were 14 percent more likely to be employed following release from prison than their non-participating peers. This study showed that inmates who returned to the community with the skills and training provided by working in FPI earned higher wages, providing additional benefits to the community. Finally, the research has demonstrated that FPI programs provide even greater benefit to minorities, who are at greater risk for recidivism.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    FPI does not receive any appropriated funding for its operations, and by statute must be economically self-sustaining. Operating from sales revenue, rather than appropriated funds, FPI precludes the need for alternative inmate programs, lowering annual prison management costs to taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only does FPI not cost taxpayers any money, it returns substantial amounts of money to the community: 74 cents of every dollar in FPI revenue is spent on purchases of raw materials and supplies from the private sector (in Fiscal Year 2002, this equated to $502 million, over 62 percent of which was directed to small, women- and minority-owned businesses) and 20 cents on each dollar is spent on staff salaries. The remainder (approximately 6 cents on each dollar) is paid to inmates, and even this money reaches the private sector: inmates are required to pay 50 percent of their FPI earnings to meet court-ordered obligations such as fines, restitution, and child support, and the money they spend in prison commissaries goes to vendors in the community.

    In Fiscal Year 2002, inmates working in FPI paid $3 million for victim restitution, fines, and child support.

    The Bureau is getting significantly greater numbers of Federal inmates who are serving more time in prison, are unskilled, undereducated, criminally sophisticated, and physically violent. Virtually all of these inmates will be released back into our neighborhoods at some point and will need work skills if they are to successfully reintegrate into society. FPI creates the opportunity for inmates to work in diversified work programs that teach work skills and a work ethic, both which can lead to viable employment upon release. Moreover, FPI helps meet a U.S. economic need by creating much-needed workers who have developed basic work skills and have the ability to fill entry-level production jobs (as identified by the National Association of Manufacturers as current and long-term needs). With the Bureau inmate population, projected to increase 27 percent by the year 2010, the greatest challenge facing FPI in the future will be its ability to continue to generate the requisite number of new inmate jobs and thereby help prisoners prepare for a crime-free return to their community after release.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Medical Care

    Inmates typically have greater health care needs than the average citizen. Many offenders have long-standing medical, dental, and psychiatric concerns which either have been neglected in the past, or which have resulted from dysfunctional lifestyles involving drugs or alcohol abuse. The Bureau has developed and implemented several major health services initiatives designed to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the Bureau's medical care. These include an increased emphasis on managed care and the management of infectious diseases.

    Through various cost containment and cost cutting strategies, the Bureau has maintained inmate health care costs below inflation levels over the past 5 years, despite the fact that national health care expenditures have increased an average of approximately 5 percent per year during this period. Unfortunately, in the coming years, the cost of inmate medical care is likely to increase. This increase is attributable primarily to increases in health care costs nationwide, the continually increasing numbers of inmates of all ages who have inordinate health care needs, and steep increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals.

    Additional measures to control medical costs are underway. The Bureau is implementing telehealth capability at virtually every institution, whereby a medical professional is able to diagnose and even treat patients from remote locations. The Bureau of Prisons is also restructuring staffing patterns and primary care provider teams, centralizing pre-certification for certain medical treatments, and implementing an inmate co-payment fee system that is expected to reduce unnecessary medical appointments.

 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
Mental Health Treatment

    In addition to substantial medical needs, many inmates are in need of some form of mental health care. Psychologists at Bureau of Prisons facilities offer inmates a range of psychological services and programs that include: initial psychological assessment, crisis intervention, suicide prevention, counseling, individual psychotherapy, and group psychotherapy. Additionally, psychologists offer inmates a number of specialty treatment programs to assist them in gaining greater insight into their specific psychological disorder(s) and in developing the skills needed to successfully overcome their problem(s).

Education Programs

    All Bureau of Prisons institutions offer a variety of education programs and occupational and vocational training programs based on the vocational training needs of the inmates, general labor market conditions, and institution labor force needs. Through all of these programs, inmates gain knowledge and skills that help them become gainfully employed upon release and avoid new criminal conduct. These programs have been shown to significantly reduce recidivism, and the Bureau is committed to addressing the education deficits with which inmates begin their incarceration. At present, just over one-third of all inmates are enrolled in one or more educational classes.

    The Bureau requires that, with few exceptions, inmates who do not have a verified 12th-grade education participate in the literacy program for a minimum of 240 hours or until they obtain the GED credential. Non-English speaking inmates are required to participate in an English as a Second Language program until they are proficient in oral and written English. Institutions also offer literacy classes and adult continuing education.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Substance Abuse Treatment

    In 1989, the Bureau designed a comprehensive substance abuse treatment strategy in an effort to change inmates' criminal and substance-abuse behaviors. In the drug abuse education component, inmates receive information about alcohol and drugs and the physical, social, and psychological impact of abusing these substances. Inmates who are identified as having a further need for treatment are encouraged to participate in non-residential or residential drug abuse treatment, depending on their individual treatment needs. Non-residential drug abuse treatment and counseling programs are available in every Bureau institution. Treatment includes individual and group therapy, as well as specialty seminars and self-improvement group counseling programs.

    The cornerstone of the Bureau's drug abuse treatment programming is the residential drug abuse treatment program which is provided in 50 Bureau institutions. The treatment is designed for inmates with moderate to serious substance abuse disorders, about 34 percent of the Bureau's population. The residential drug abuse program is a course of individual and group treatment, lasting 9 months in residential treatment units set apart from the general prison population. Treatment is provided 3 to 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, and follows a cognitive behavioral treatment model. When not on the treatment unit, the inmate spends his or her time in educational programs, work, vocational training, or other inmate programs that are available at the institution. Upon completion of the residential drug abuse treatment program, the inmate must continue his or her treatment in the general population and/or in a community corrections center. This follow-up treatment is essential in preventing and detecting relapse, thereby enhancing community safety.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Bureau continues to meet the statutory mandate of providing residential substance abuse treatment to all eligible offenders. Based on empirical research regarding the effectiveness of treatment programs, we provide the residential treatment to inmates toward the end of their sentence. Even though we have waiting lists for the programs (primarily the result of the statutory opportunity for a reduction of their prison term) we are able to treat all eligible offenders prior to release.

    A rigorous analysis of the residential drug treatment program revealed that 3 years after release from custody, inmates who completed the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program were significantly less likely to be rearrested and to use drugs when compared to similar offenders who did not participate in the residential treatment. These findings suggest that the Bureau of Prisons' residential drug abuse treatment programs make a significant difference in the lives of inmates following their release from custody and return to the community. In this way the program furthers the Bureau's mission of protecting public safety.

Other Treatment Programs—Changing Criminal Thinking

    Encouraged by the positive results of the residential substance abuse treatment program, the Bureau has implemented a number of new residential programs for special populations (including younger, high security, and intractable, quick-tempered inmates) who are responsible for much of the misconduct that occurs in Federal prisons. The cognitive restructuring approach used in the drug treatment programs was carried over as the foundation for programs to change the criminal thinking and behavior patterns of inmates. These programs focus on inmates' emotional and behavioral responses to difficult situations. While too early to assess value in terms of reducing recidivism, we have found that these programs significantly reduce inmates' involvement in institution misconduct. In general, a strong relationship exists between institution misconduct and recidivism, so we are hopeful that the full evaluations of these programs will confirm their effect in reducing recidivism.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Programs for Female Inmates

    Recognizing that female offenders have different social, psychological, educational, family, and health care needs, the Bureau continues to design and implement special programs for female offenders. Several facilities operate intensive programs that focus on helping women who have histories of chronic sexual, emotional, or physical abuse by addressing their victimization and enabling positive change.

Religious Programs

    The Bureau of Prisons' religious programs are intended to provide inmates with opportunities to grow spiritually and to strengthen their religious convictions. Bureau institutions schedule services and meeting times for inmates of the approximately 30 faiths represented within the population. Religious programs are led or supervised by staff chaplains, contract spiritual leaders, and community volunteers of a variety of faiths. Chaplains provide and oversee inmate worship services and self-improvement forums such as scripture study and religious workshops and are available upon request to provide pastoral care, spiritual guidance, and counseling to inmates. Inmates may also request spiritual counseling from community representatives. Inmates are able to observe religious holy days and are able to wear and use religious items consistent with both their faith and with the security, safety, and good order of the institution. An alternative diet is available to those inmates whose religious beliefs include special diets.

    Life Connections Programs. The Bureau has developed a residential faith-based pre-release pilot program for male and female inmates of various security levels. The pilot sites are FMC Carswell, Texas; FCI Milan, Michigan; FCI Petersburg, Virginia; FCI Victorville, California; and USP Leavenworth, Kansas. The program—which is voluntary and open to inmates of any faith—aims to reduce crime and recidivism by providing participants with moral and spiritual principles that can influence their future decisions. There is a growing body of empirical evidence that demonstrates the potency of faith in changing behavior. This model initiative has a strong mentoring component during the pre-release phase and post-prison aftercare component designed to offer moral guidance and a caring community to help ex-offenders reenter society with hope and responsibility.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Final Preparations for Release

    All of the Bureau's inmate programs are intended to prepare inmates for a successful return to the community. In fact, immediately upon their admission to Federal prison, offenders are encouraged to begin planning for their eventual release and to start to assume a productive and successful lifestyle. The Bureau complements its array of programs with a specific Release Preparation Program in which inmates become involved near the end of their sentence. The program includes classes in resume writing, job seeking, and job retention skills. The program also includes presentations by officials from community-based organizations that help ex-inmates find employment and training opportunities after release from prison. We also provide mock job fairs at most institutions to instruct inmates in appropriate job interview techniques and to expose community recruiters to the skills available among the inmate population.

Community Corrections Centers

    The Bureau places most inmates in community corrections centers (halfway houses) prior to their release from custody in order to help them adjust to life in the community and find suitable post-release employment. Inmates in community corrections centers are required to work and to pay a subsistence charge of 25 percent of their income to defray the cost of confinement. Some Federal inmates are placed in home confinement for a brief period at the end of their prison terms. They serve this portion of their sentences at home under strict schedules, curfew requirements, telephonic monitoring, and sometimes electronic monitoring.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Nation Institute of Corrections (NIC) resides within the Bureau of Prisons and provides technical assistance, training, information services, and policy and program development assistance to Federal, State, and local correctional agencies throughout the country. NIC also provides leadership to influence correctional policies, practices, and operations nationwide in areas of emerging interest and concern to correctional executives, practitioners, and public policy makers. In this time of ensuring responsive and cost-effective government services, NIC stands out as having a proven track record for providing fast, low-cost, customer-oriented services. NIC often pools financial resources with other Federal agencies and staff resources with the Bureau to provide the maximum benefit to State and local corrections and to public policymakers. Through workshops, seminars, technical assistance visits, and information sharing, NIC continues to provide a valuable service to the corrections community.

CONCLUSION

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide this overview of the programs and operations of the Bureau of Prisons. I am very proud of the Bureau staff and the job they do each and every day. Despite our population growth, we are effectively managing our institutions. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

    Mr. COBLE. We have been joined by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Good to have you with us, Sheila.

    Mr. Reyna, Katie tells me I mispronounced your surname. It should be Reyna. So we are glad to have you with us.
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

STATEMENT OF BENIGNO G. REYNA, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Mr. REYNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the United States Marshals Service.

    First, please let me express our appreciation to you and the Members of the Subcommittee for your strong support and continued support of the United States Marshals Service. Your support has given us the ability to successfully perform our core missions of protecting the Federal judiciary, apprehending fugitives, safeguarding Government witnesses and transporting Federal prisoners.

    As you stated earlier in the introduction, the United States Marshals Service does play a central role in law enforcement, but the United States Marshal does not only protect courthouses and Federal judges, we protect the integrity of the judicial process, and each day deputy marshals across our great country uphold the rule of law. When we uphold the rule of law, we uphold justice, preserve freedom, defend democracy and safeguard the United States Constitution. By safeguarding our Constitution, we protect the rights of all people.

    For fiscal year 2004, we have requested a total of 4,592 positions and $720.8 million in our salary and expenses appropriation.
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As Director, I am aware of the Service's mission to support the Federal courts and other Federal law enforcement agencies; and we recognize that, to a great extent, our workload is generated by others. The efforts of Federal law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute violent criminals and the efforts of the Federal judiciary to rapidly try and sentence individuals have increased.

    During fiscal year 2002, the United States Marshals received over 250,000 Federal prisoners into custody; produced prisoners for court and other proceedings over 640,000 times; received 35,500 new Federal felony warrants; cleared 34,000 Federal felony warrants; served an additional 230,000 pieces of judicial process; analyzed and responded to over 500 potential threats to members of the judicial family; accepted responsibility for 244 new protected witnesses and family members into the Witness Security Program; brought the total number of principal witnesses to over 7,400; and disposed of over 21,000 seized properties.

    Another important strength of the United States Marshals Service is the strong commitment to work with our Federal, State and local law enforcement colleagues. As former chief of Brownsville, Texas, I can assure you that cooperation and long-term relationships are the best tools for fighting crime and improving the quality of life in our communities.

    Last year, in addition to our Federal warrant workload, we assisted State and local law enforcement agencies in clearing over 37,000 State and local warrants. We have many examples of assistance. For example, in March, 2003, two New York City detectives were tragically killed during an undercover operation. The United States Marshal New York and New Jersey Regional Task Force was contacted and immediately dispatched deputy marshals to investigate leads in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Within 2 days, using highly specialized surveillance equipment and investigative techniques, the suspect was captured in Brooklyn.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    There are other examples that illustrate the varied law enforcement missions we perform daily in our districts. In Manhattan, several prisoners were being held in a jury box for pre-trial assignment. One of the prisoners attempted to either escape the courtroom and/or attack the judge. As he leapt out of the jury box, he quickly was brought to the ground by deputy marshals in the courtroom. No one was injured, and there were no further incidents by any of the other prisoners. These types of situations repeat themselves across our country.

    Similarly, the Witness Security Program continues to be a vital weapon in the war against terrorism, as well as against drugs and violent crime.

    I am proud of the dedication and hard work demonstrated by the men and women in the Marshals Service. In the words of Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, ''The United States Marshals Service sometimes performs its most critical work outside of the limelight and with little fanfare. Yet its personnel make extraordinary sacrifices on a daily basis to safeguard our courts and our communities.''

    Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members, I would like to impress upon the Subcommittee that we continually strive to make better use of the resources we have before asking for more. Over the past 15 months, we have streamlined and improved our internal personnel processes.

    We have filled over 104 supervisory law enforcement positions. We have hired 215 new deputy marshals last year, the highest single year total in the past 10 years. Our on-board strength today is the highest it has been in 4 years.
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Terrorism-related court proceedings require an unprecedented level of protection for all our trial participants due to the risk of terrorist attacks, the public's concern and intense media interest. Our requirement to support terrorism-related court proceedings is widespread and is not limited to Virginia and New York. The workload impact on the Marshals Service is particularly heavy in Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas.

    Mr. Chairman, honorable Members, I know that you are aware of our initiatives to provide increased security in the Eastern District of Virginia where Zacarias Moussaoui is charged as a co-conspirator in the September 11 attacks. The threat levels associated with such trials mandate that additional deputy marshals be assigned to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom and transport prisoners to all judicial proceedings.

    I hope that I have highlighted some of our accomplishments over the past year. I know that our full text is in the record, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

    Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Reyna.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reyna follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENIGNO G. REYNA

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the United States Marshals. I am pleased to be on the same panel with Ms. Myers of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Director Lappin of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Assistant Attorney General Daniels of the Department's Office of Justice Programs.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    First, let me express my appreciation to you and the Members of this Subcommittee for your strong and continual support of the United States Marshals. Your support has been essential to our ability to perform successfully our core missions of protecting the federal judiciary, apprehending fugitives, safeguarding government witnesses, and transporting federal prisoners.

    United States Marshals not only protect courthouses and federal judges; we protect the integrity of the judicial process. Each day, deputy marshals across our great country uphold the rule of law and thereby uphold justice, preserve freedom, defend democracy, and safeguard the United States Constitution. By safeguarding our Constitution, we protect the rights of all people and the American dream.

    This has been our role for over 213 years. We have been an integral part of the American story. But, in order to protect the American dream, we must have justice—justice that is administered with the spirit of fairness, opportunity, and due process—because justice is the foundation of our judicial system.

    For fiscal year 2004, we have requested a total of 4,592 positions and $720.8 million in our Salaries and Expenses appropriation. As Director, I am keenly aware of the Service's mission to support the federal courts and other federal law enforcement agencies. I recognize that, to a great extent, our workload is generated by others. The efforts of federal law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute violent criminals, and the efforts of the judiciary to rapidly try and sentence these individuals, have increased. During fiscal year 2002, the United States Marshals:
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

 Received over 250,000 federal prisoners into custody;

 Produced prisoners for court and other proceedings over 640,000 times;

 Received 35,500 new federal felony warrants;

 Cleared 34,000 federal felony warrants;

 Served an additional 230,000 pieces of judicial process;

 Analyzed and responded to over 500 potential threats to members of the judicial family;

 Accepted responsibility for 244 new protected witnesses and family members into the Witness Security Program;

 Brought the total number of principal witnesses to over 7,400; and,

 Disposed of over 21,000 seized properties.

    Another important strength of the United States Marshals Service is our strong commitment to work with our federal, state, and local law enforcement colleagues. As the former Chief of Police of Brownsville, Texas, I can assure you that these cooperative, long-term relationships are the best tool for fighting crime and improving the quality of life in our communities. Last year, in addition to our federal warrant workload, we assisted state and local law enforcement agencies in clearing over 37,000 state and local warrants. For example, in March 2003, two New York City detectives were tragically killed during an undercover operation. The United States Marshals' New York—New Jersey Regional Task Force was contacted and immediately dispatched deputy marshals to investigate leads in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Within two days, using highly specialized surveillance equipment and investigative techniques, the suspect was captured in Brooklyn. Our ability to cross state lines in pursuit of fugitives was the determining factor in closing this case rapidly. Consequently, New York City Police Commissioner Kelly commended the deputy marshals for their timely assistance in this critical arrest. Also, within the past three weeks, the Marshals Service has tracked down and assisted in the capture of three suspects respectively charged with the murders of law enforcement personnel: a Fairlawn, New Jersey, police officer; a Fulton County, Georgia, deputy sheriff; and, a Youngstown, Ohio, police officer.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    There are other examples that vividly illustrate the varied law enforcement missions we perform daily throughout our districts. In Manhattan, several prisoners were being held in a jury box for pre-trial arraignment. One of the prisoners attempted to either escape the courtroom and/or attack the judge. As he leapt out of the jury box, he was quickly brought to the ground by the deputy marshals in the courtroom. No one was injured and there were no further incidents by any of the other prisoners. These types of situations repeat themselves across the country.

    Suffice to say, the Witness Security Program continues to be a vital weapon in the war against terrorism, as well as against drugs and violent crime. While I would be happy to discuss current activities in executive session, I can assure you of the Program's critical importance in significant terrorism-related prosecutions which resulted in the successful conviction of individuals involved in terrorist incidents. In fact, intelligence officials and federal prosecutors continue to obtain valuable information as a result of the Program.

    I am proud of the dedication and hard work demonstrated by the men and women of the Marshals Service. In the words of Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson: ''The United States Marshals Service sometimes performs its most critical work outside the limelight and with little fanfare. Yet its personnel make extraordinary sacrifices on a daily basis to safeguard our courts and communities.''

    Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, I would like to impress upon the Subcommittee that we continually strive to make better use of the resources we have before asking for more. Over the past 15 months, we have streamlined and improved our internal personnel processes. Specifically:
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

 We have filled 104 supervisory law enforcement positions, taking an average of 16 weeks from application to selection. Previously, it took an average of 20 weeks to fill one supervisory position. As first level managers, they are critical for the success of day-to-day operations in the field because they provide direction and leadership for over 2,000 deputy marshals.

 We hired 215 new deputy marshals last year; the highest single year total in the past 10 years. Our on-board strength today is the highest it has been in 4 years.

 We maintain a pool of at least 200 candidates for deputy marshals positions.

 We are using workload measures to quantify our staffing needs to determine which districts are in the most need of additional personnel.

    We are doing our part to support the Attorney General's goal of transferring positions to support front-line missions. We have done this by moving vacancies from Headquarters support functions to operational areas. Simply stated, the Marshals Service is putting the people where the work is.

    Our fiscal year 2004 request includes an increase of 275 positions, including 231 deputy marshals, and $26.6 million to support the judiciary's need for additional security. Our request addresses this critical need so we may perform more effectively this core mission—the protection of the federal judiciary. The number of federal judges and court locations continue to increase, thereby raising and expanding the level of support we must provide. Since September 11, 2001, heightened security alert levels have resulted in additional judicial security requirements on a daily basis.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Terrorism-related court proceedings require an unprecedented level of protection for all trial participants due to the risk of additional terrorist attacks, the public's concerns, and the intense media interest. Our requirement to support terrorism-related court proceedings is widespread and not limited to Virginia and New York. The workload impact on the Marshals Service is particularly heavy in Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas.

    Mr. Chairman, and Members, I know that you are aware of our initiatives to provide increased security at the courthouse in the Eastern District of Virginia where Zacarias Moussaoui is charged as a co-conspirator in the September 11th terrorist attacks. The threat levels associated with such trials mandate that additional deputy marshals be assigned to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom and to transport prisoners to all judicial proceedings. Even when these cases do not lead to trials, we must provide security at all pretrial prisoner and material witness proceedings.

    Equally important, we must ensure that all Marshals Service employees are well prepared to perform these important services. These men and women, who dedicate their lives to the profession of law enforcement and, specifically, to the protection of the federal judicial system, need advanced training and state-of-the-art equipment so they can perform their jobs.

    Finally, we request $2 million from unobligated balances in the Working Capital Fund to provide security systems in new courthouse facilities and to upgrade security equipment in facilities where high threat and high profile trials will be held. The funding for this security equipment and renovation will allow us to remedy weaknesses in many courthouse facilities. Security systems reinforce the physical security provided by deputy marshals when producing prisoners for court. Cameras, duress alarms, entry control packages, and other equipment improve the security level within a courthouse. When incidents occur, we are better equipped to record events, monitor personnel and prisoners, and identify situations requiring an immediate, and sometimes a life-saving, response.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I hope that I have successfully highlighted our accomplishments over the past year and described our need for additional resources in fiscal year 2004. I appreciate the time the Subcommittee has provided me and the opportunity to meet with you. This concludes my prepared statement. I am pleased to answer your questions at this time.

    Mr. COBLE. We have been joined by the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.

    Ms. Myers.

STATEMENT OF JULIE L. MYERS, CHIEF OF STAFF, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Ms. MYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased today to appear today before you to describe briefly some of the Criminal Division's important work.

    I first want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee and Congress as a whole for your strong support of the Division's work to fulfill its broad mandate, especially in our battles against terrorism, corporate fraud and those who endanger and exploit the Nation's children. The USA PATRIOT Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Protect Act—the last of which was signed just a few weeks ago—have provided valuable tools that will promote public safety and enhance our national and economic security.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We think our partnership with you has been extremely productive, and we look forward to continuing it.

    The Criminal Division's work is as broad as its mandate. As the Chairman noted, the Division has 19 sections with wide-ranging responsibilities, ranging from everything from coordinating the nationwide prosecution of organized crime, prosecuting Internet fraud and combating public corruption to approving all Federal wiretap applications and overseeing evidence requests to obtain information from our foreign counterparts.

    To carry out this mandate, the Criminal Division currently operates on a fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $129 million. For fiscal year 2004, the President's budget requests $135.8 million, which would fund a total of 805 permanent positions, including 477 attorneys.

    In my oral statement I would like to briefly highlight several key components within the Criminal Division and describe how they reflect the law enforcement priorities within the Administration.

    First, terrorism. The attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed our Nation's law enforcement priorities. As President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft had made clear, the Department's number one priority is the war on terrorism. The Criminal Division has risen to this challenge, and we serve on the front lines of this ongoing fight. Division-wide, we have reassessed our strengths, restructured our organization and redeployed our staff.

 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    First, working with the FBI and through the joint terrorism task forces, our Counterterrorism Section, or what we call CTS, concentrates its resources on detecting, disrupting and dismantling potential terrorist-related activity throughout the United States and working with our allies to fight terrorism abroad.

    The Division's work has been pivotal in helping the Department achieve several major victories on the war on terrorism including dismantling a terrorist cell in Buffalo; convicting would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid; dismantling a cigarette smuggling organization that funded Hezbollah; and some significant indictments, including exploiting narco-terrorist links through the indictments of AUC and FARC members and the indictments of Sami Al-Arian and Zacarias Moussaoui.

    Of course, money is the lifeblood of terrorist organizations; and for that reason detecting and preventing terrorism requires an expert understanding of the worldwide movement of money and a broad overview of evidence collected from various sources around the globe. Both the Counterterrorism Section and the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section work to detect and disrupt terrorist financing by bringing these skills to bear on these typically far-flung and loosely connected networks of money.

    In addition to the litigation sections, the Division's advisory sections ensure nationwide coordination of critical tools to combat terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the Division's Office of International Affairs has made over 75 treaty or letters rogatory requests involving al Qaeda and other terror-related matters to countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. These requests, seeking everything from box cutters to bank documents, have enabled U.S. prosecutors to obtain crucial evidence from across the globe.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In all of our anti-terrorism efforts, we have been aided greatly by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.

    Next to fighting terrorism, the Division's primary focus has been on uncovering and prosecuting corporate fraud and corruption. For example, in January, 2002, shortly after the collapse of Enron, the Criminal Division created the Enron Task Force, which comprises Fraud Section attorneys and other career department prosecutors. The investigation has been progressing steadily and has already produced substantial results. Here our efforts has been aided greatly by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and we have already used some of the new provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the HealthSouth prosecution.

    Finally, we are very thankful for all of your help with respect to the Protect Act in protecting our children. The important new Protect Act has enhanced penalties, clarified existing law and included penalties to ensure that convictions lead to serious prison time.

    I hope this brief overview of the Criminal Division has been helpful. We appreciate your support and look forward to answering any questions you have.

    Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Myers.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Myers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIE L. MYERS
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

INTRODUCTION

    Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee—I am pleased to appear today before this Subcommittee to describe briefly some of the important work of the Criminal Division. My name is Julie Myers, and I serve as Chief of Staff of the Criminal Division for Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff. I previously served the Department as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York.

    I first want to thank the members of this Subcommittee for your strong support of the Division's work, and especially in some of our core areas: the war on terrorism, fighting corporate fraud, and protecting children. We have worked with Congress, before and since September 11, 2001, to make America more secure while at the same time safeguarding the liberties and rights of all Americans. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the PROTECT Act—signed into law just two weeks ago today—have provided valuable tools that will promote public safety and enhance our national and economic security.

    The Criminal Division has nineteen sections with wide-ranging responsibilities, including everything from coordinating the nationwide prosecution of organized crime cases to approving all wiretap applications. My testimony today will briefly discuss some of the unique responsibilities and recent accomplishments of the Criminal Division. First, I will focus on the Division's top litigation priorities and the work of the litigating sections. Next, I will discuss the offices that provide support and expertise to the law enforcement community through technical advice, training, essential authorizations, and other critical services.

 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
LEADING THE WAR ON TERRORISM

    The attacks of September 11, 2001, dramatically changed the nation's law enforcement priorities. As President Bush has made clear, and as Attorney General Ashcroft has declared many times, the Department's top priority is the fight against terrorism. The Criminal Division has a central role in this fight. We have risen to the challenge by broadly reassessing our strengths and abilities, and substantively restructuring the Division to reflect the law enforcement and investigative priorities needed to combat terrorism.

    The entire Division has responded to this call. Most significantly, the Counterterrorism Section leads the effort for the Division to disrupt and punish potential terrorist-related activity, both in the United States and abroad. CTS serves as both a leader and coordinator in the war on terrorism by: (1) participating in putting terrorists in jail through litigation; (2) disrupting the flow of money to terrorists; and (3) working side-by-side with our allies to disrupt terrorism everywhere. Division prosecutors work with the Joint Terrorist Task Forces (JTTFs); Anti-Terrorism Task Forces (ATTFs); the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies; United States Attorneys; state, and local prosecutors; other United States Government agencies; and our counterparts overseas to ensure the most coordinated and effective approach to this effort. Division prosecutors comprehensively review evidence obtained from various sources, monitor and provide support to investigations and cases nationally and worldwide in order to identify and track crime trends, and develop national and international strategies for prevention and prosecution. CTS and other Division prosecutors participate in the development of new mechanisms for information sharing and exchange, such as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), and provide training with respect to such mechanisms.

 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    This work has led to the disruption of significant terrorist activities, including:

 the dismantling of a terrorist cell in Buffalo;

 the conviction of shoe-bomber Richard Reid;

 the dismantling of a cigarette smuggling organization that funded Hizballah;

 the indictments of Sami Al-Arian and Zacarias Moussaoui; and

 the disruption of nine major alien-smuggling networks.

    Because money is the lifeblood of terrorist organizations, detecting and preventing terrorism requires an expert understanding of the world-wide movement of money. The Division has been at the forefront of detecting and disrupting terrorist financing. CTS plays a key role in the Department's Terrorist Financing Enforcement Program, which involves two critical and complementary areas: (1) developing intelligence about terrorists and their financial supporters, and (2) combining this intelligence with other evidence to disrupt terrorist financing through aggressive criminal, civil and regulatory law enforcement in United States courts. The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) also provides enforcement expertise and leadership to the Financial Action Task Force, an international body dedicated to the development and promotion of sound anti-money laundering practices.

    We have also found that the lucrative profits from illegal drug trafficking are being used to finance terrorism. In cooperation with other relevant law enforcement entities, the Division has been pursuing these narco-terrorist links vigorously. For example, on November 12, 2002, the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) obtained a superseding indictment in the ''FARC'' case, involving the largest Colombian terror army, which finances its activities via the production and trafficking of narcotics. The original indictment, obtained in the District of Columbia in March, charged FARC 16th Front Commander Tomas Molina Caracas and six additional individuals with conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. In June, FARC member Carlos Bolas was located in Suriname and expelled to U.S. custody. In November, the indictment was superseded to include Jorge Birceno Suarez, a member of the controlling 'secretariat'' and who is generally considered to be the second-in-command. These defendants have been involved in all aspects of the drug trade, from protecting coca fields and labs, to taxing the movement of cocaine base within areas under their control, to selling cocaine to international dealers in exchange for money and arms.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In addition to the FARC indictment, in September 2002, NDDS indicted AUC leader Carlos Castano Gil and two others with various drug trafficking offenses stemming from the shipment of approximately 17 tons of cocaine to the United States. The AUC is a violent right-wing paramilitary organization which, according to Castano Gil, derives 70% of its income from drug trafficking.

    The Office of International Affairs (OIA) has also provided substantial assistance in terrorism-related matters. Since September 11, 2001, the Division has made over 75 treaty or letters rogatory requests involving Al Qaeda and other terrorism matters to countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. These requests sought everything from physical evidence, such as box cutters and computer hard drives, to documentary evidence, such as bank and immigration records to witness interviews. OIA also has assisted in the execution of dozens of terrorism-related requests from prosecutors and investigating magistrates in eight foreign countries seeking evidence in the United States for their own investigations.

    We have also reorganized by splitting the Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section (TVCS) into two separate sections. The reorganization created the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) to leverage the Division's considerable expertise in investigating and prosecuting terrorists. We also created the Domestic Security Section (DSS) to lead the prosecution of international smuggling operations, along with other responsibilities. This reorganization enabled the Division to shift resources internally, combine similar functions, and re-position the Division to handle the challenges brought by the Department's focus on counterterrorism and national security.

 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In all our anti-terrorism efforts, we have been aided greatly by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. By way of example, one of the most powerful tools against terrorist financing has proven to be the crime of ''providing material support'' to terrorists, 18 U.S.C. §2339B. As a result of the legislation, this crime now carries a penalty of up to 15 years and, in some instances, life imprisonment. This statute allows law enforcement to act early, during the stages of planning and development, rather than waiting for terrorist attacks to occur.

ENHANCING NATIONAL SECURITY AND PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY

    The newly-created Domestic Security Section (DSS) has been instrumental in obtaining convictions involving international alien smugglers suspected of having links to terrorists. The Section also is engaged in an ongoing project targeting international smuggling organizations suspected of presenting special national security threats to the United States.

    DSS also continues to play a leading role in the Department's efforts to combat violent crime, including overseeing the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative, now being implemented throughout the country, and in prosecuting violent offenders. Pursuant to the Attorney General's recent directive, DSS is helping to enhance PSN efforts nationwide to combat gun trafficking. This will be accomplished by coordinating interstate gun trafficking cases and vigorously prosecuting those who illegally divert guns to criminals.

    As part of the Division's significant national security role, the Counterespionage Section (CES) is responsible for many of the Criminal Division's most important and sensitive national security cases and matters. CES has participated in the successful prosecution of several major espionage cases, including Brian Patrick Regan, a twenty year veteran of the Air Force and contract employee of TRW, who attempted to communicate classified information to China and Iraq. Regan was sentenced to life imprisonment.
 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

FIGHTING CORPORATE FRAUD

    The Division plays a key role in combating corporate fraud. For example, after the collapse of Enron amid allegations of widespread fraud and corruption, the Criminal Division created the Enron Task Force in January 2002. The Task Force's extremely complex investigation has been progressing steadily and has produced significant results. To date, charges have been filed against 17 individuals, three of whom have been convicted, and one organization—Arthur Andersen LLP, which was convicted of obstruction of justice after a jury trial. In addition, two former officers of Enron pleaded guilty to charges in a matter connected to the California energy crisis. Most recently, the former Enron CEO and Treasurer were charged with 109 counts of criminal conduct.

    In addition to the Enron criminal proceedings above, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) has brought a number of civil and criminal asset forfeiture and money laundering actions related to Enron, including the criminal forfeitures of $4,000,000 belonging to former Enron executive Michael Kopper and approximately $20,000,000 in assets belonging to former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

    Beyond the Task Force, the Fraud Section currently has 74 corporate fraud investigations and 49 corporate fraud cases (where charges have been brought) pending. Twenty-six of the 49 cases were opened since the beginning of FY 2003. We think this work is critical to the nation. Our FY 2004 budget request include a request for additional positions to bolster our efforts.

 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The Department's ability to address corporate fraud has been substantially strengthened by recent legislation and in particular, by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Act adds new tools to hold white collar criminals accountable and imposes tough, consistent penalties for those who would threaten the integrity of our financial markets. Among other important provisions, the Act imposes new and substantial criminal penalties for securities fraud, attempts or conspiracies to commit fraud, certifying false financial statements, document destruction or tampering, and retaliating against corporate whistleblowers. We have already used one provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in recently obtaining guilty pleas from HealthSouth executives for filing with the SEC a certification that a 10-Q filing was accurate, knowing that it did not fairly represent the financial condition and results of HealthSouth operations. We are confident that the increased penalties will help ensure that white collar thieves will pay appropriately for their actions.

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

    Another top priority of the Department is protecting and safeguarding children. Here, the Division's efforts have expanded dramatically through the efforts of the Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). CEOS serves a unique and critical function in the enforcement of the Nation's obscenity laws and the laws protecting children from sexual predators.

    Currently, CEOS has 84 active ongoing investigations and 40 active indicted cases. One case that warrants particular mention is Operation Hamlet, in which the Section cooperated with the former U.S. Customs Service, now part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP), to target, dismantle and prosecute an international ring of child molesters. Seventy-three child victims were rescued. Thirteen of the 20 active molesters that were identified are in the United States. All but one, who committed suicide, have been indicted and six of those have already been convicted.
 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In addition to active case work, this past year CEOS enhanced its efforts to deter crime through new and effective use of technology. The Division created the High Tech Investigative Unit, staffed with computer forensic experts, who bring special technological expertise to bear against Internet-based child pornography and obscenity offenders. The Unit is already receiving and reviewing an average of 120 tips per month and has direct access to the Federal Trade Commission's complaint database.

    As you know, just a few weeks ago, Congress passed the important new PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003), which the President signed into law on April 30, 2003. We believe this Act will lead to greater deterrence, and greater detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes against America's children. The PROTECT Act created a new provision that defines child pornography to include computer-based depictions that are indistinguishable from those involving real children. We are grateful to Congress for this new provision, and look forward to using it and other PROTECT Act tools.

ENSURING PUBLIC INTEGRITY

    Just as fighting fraud in the private sector is important, it is equally critical to combat corruption in the public sector. The Division's Public Integrity Section is charged with combating corruption at all levels of government and has recently implemented two important enforcement initiatives: visa fraud and campaign financing fraud.

    To help protect our borders, the Section actively investigates and prosecutes U.S. Government officials and foreign nationals who illegally issue visas for entry into the United States. Thus far, the Section has secured the conviction of a Foreign Service Officer for taking bribes, and in concert with the Division's Domestic Security Section and the U.S. Attorneys, secured convictions in a visa fraud scheme at the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Section has vigorously prosecuted substantial violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The Section has also worked with the U.S. Sentencing Commission to implement the recent FECA amendments, including increased penalties for campaign finance crimes. This spring, the Section convicted an Oklahoma State Senator and a former State Senator running for Congress of illegally funneling more than $200,000 into the campaign and obstructing the Federal Election Commission's investigation into these illicit contributions.

COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES

    The Criminal Division's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) coordinates the Department's programs to combat organized crime and labor racketeering. In addition, the Section is assisting with the war on terrorism and the rapidly growing and evolving transnational organized crime threats to the United States.

    During the past year, the Division has overseen the re-tooling of the Department's organized crime program to make it more nimble, intelligence-oriented and international in outlook. One change includes a more aggressive use of the RICO statute as a key weapon in the fight against terrorism.

FIGHTING CYBERCRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ABUSES

    The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) plays the lead role in countering terrorism and other crime in cyberspace. In areas involving both domestic policy and investigations, the Section works with other offices and the private sector, in keeping with the President's recently-published National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, to protect the cybersecurity of the United States. This year, the Section has worked with the FBI's newly-created Cyber Division, the Secret Service, and other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies on multi-district and international investigations involving attacks against computer networks, including the October 2002 Denial of Service attack on the root servers that help the Internet to function and the January 2003 SQL Slammer worm which affected thousands of computers worldwide.
 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    CCIPS has also substantially increased its domestic and international prosecution efforts against Internet copyright piracy, aggressively attacking the high-level suppliers that each day distribute millions of copies of pirated software, games, movies, and music to Internet sites worldwide. Internet copyright piracy costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars each year, and the technological sophistication of the organized pirate groups make these some of the most challenging cases to prosecute.

    The cornerstone of the Section's current initiative is Operation Buccaneer, a joint undercover investigation with the BCBP that constitutes the largest international crackdown on Internet software pirates ever achieved by U.S. law enforcement. To date, 22 members of the world's leading Internet piracy groups have been convicted of felonies; a majority have been sentenced to the longest prison terms ever imposed for online copyright infringement; and millions of illegal copies of copyrighted movies, games, software, and music have been permanently removed from the Internet.

PRESENTING EFFECTIVE APPEALS

    Our Appellate Section leads the Division's litigation in the circuit courts of appeals and coordinates the Department's criminal appellate practice. Recently, it has successfully appealed the dismissal of an indictment charging the President and the Vice-President of the Salt Lake City Bid Committee for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games with bribery and related offenses. The defendants will now face trial on the reinstated indictment. The Appellate Section also persuaded the Fifth Circuit to overturn an order suppressing the confession of Ernest Avants for the 1966 murder of an African-American sharecropper in Mississippi. Following our successful appeal, Avants was convicted by a jury on civil rights charges.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

TRACKING WORLD WAR II CRIMINALS

    The primary mission of the Division's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) is to detect, identify, and take legal action against persons who participated in acts of persecution sponsored by Nazi Germany and its allies before and during World War II. Last year OSI set a new record by commencing 10 new prosecutions against alleged Nazi persecutors who fraudulently gained citizenship to the United States. Since OSI began operations in 1979, 71 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. citizenship and 57 such individuals have been removed from this country.

PROVIDING LITIGATION AND OTHER SPECIALIZED SUPPORT

    In addition to the work of litigating sections discussed above, the Criminal Division provides specialized and essential support to the law enforcement community through technical advice, training, essential authorizations, policy guidance and development, and other critical services.

Coordinating International Affairs

    Through the Office of International Affairs (OIA), the Criminal Division works with its foreign counterparts to develop legal assistance relations and partnerships, as well as to strengthen foreign law enforcement institutions. OIA provides assistance to Federal, state and local prosecutors in obtaining evidence from foreign governments and works to bring terrorists, violent drug traffickers, and other criminals who seek refuge abroad back to the United States to face justice.
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    OIA's efforts to expand the United States' network of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and MLAT cases have directly led to the recovery significant drug proceeds, fraud proceeds, and other dollars, most of it either going to the Asset Forfeiture Fund or directly to victims. Once in place, these MLATs, agreements, conventions and policy initiatives form the basis for exchanging evidence and witnesses that lead to successful prosecutions.

    Similarly, the expanding network of extradition treaties forms the basis for retrieving or returning criminal defendants to the country where they can be most effectively prosecuted. In the first seven months of FY 2003, OIA obtained the surrender of 141 fugitives to the United States, and 70 fugitives from the United States; handled over 800 new extradition and mutual legal assistance cases on behalf of Federal, state, and local U.S. prosecutors.

International Development and Training

    In addition to coordinating relationships between our foreign counterparts, the Criminal Division also administers specialized training and assistance programs throughout the developing world. Recently, the Criminal Division's International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) and the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training (OPDAT) have been active in reconstruction programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Iraq. ICITAP and OPDAT have sent a team to conduct an assessment of the Iraqi justice sector. Working under the auspices of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the team will examine the judicial sector, including the laws and institutions, and will develop a plan for long term assistance. ICITAP recently completed a design of an Iraq National Police Assistance Program to implement a decentralized, community-based law enforcement function which will effectively serve and protect the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people.
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    ICITAP and OPDAT work closely together to provide extensive and integrated assistance programs throughout the Balkans and as part of Plan Colombia. Other criminal justice assistance programs include institution building assistance to the police in Indonesia, Nigeria, and El Salvador, and institution building assistance to prosecutors in Russia, South Africa and Uzbekistan. The Division implements these international development programs and assessments, funded by the Department of State, to promote police and judicial reform and foster the rule of law in these strategic countries.

Office of Enforcement Operations

    Each year, the Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) handles thousands of requests from the U.S. Attorneys' Offices and Federal law enforcement agencies to review and approve the use of a variety of sensitive investigative techniques and programs, with many of these techniques instrumental in the successful investigations and prosecutions discussed above. During FY 2002, OEO reviewed over 1,470 requests from the United States Attorneys' Offices to apply for the court-authorized interception of wire, oral, and/or electronic communications. OEO also reviewed close to 300 requests for witnesses to enter the Federal Witness Security Program; processed over 1,800 requests to grant witnesses immunity; and reviewed approximately 1,500 requests from prisoners seeking transfer to their home countries pursuant to the International Prisoner Transfer Program.

CONCLUSION

    To support its broad mandate, the Criminal Division currently operates on a Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation of $129 million. For Fiscal Year 2004, the President's budget requests a total of 805 permanent positions, including 477 attorneys, and $135.8 million. The budget also includes an enhancement request of four positions to expand corporate fraud investigations and prosecutions.
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee—I hope this overview is helpful to your understanding of the important work of the Criminal Division. We are well positioned to continue pursuit of the Department's priorities and to allocate our limited resources as wisely and effectively as possible. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

    Mr. COBLE. Thanks to all the witnesses.

    I believe, in view of the significance of this hearing, we probably will have a second round of questions. I think we have many questions to put to you all. We comply with the 5-minute rule against ourselves as well.

    Ms. Daniels, the Administration proposed to consolidate several grant programs into the JAG program. Some local enforcement agencies back in our respective districts have expressed some concern about this consolidation for fear that these grant monies will go directly to the States, and then the locals will be left holding the bag. Can you say anything that would assuage their concern?

    Ms. DANIELS. Yes, sir. I am happy to.

    The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program was created in 1996 after those concerns were expressed in light of the fact that the Byrne Block Grant Program went to the States and local law enforcement didn't feel it was getting sufficient funding directly. We strongly believe that that is very important. So, in developing the concept of JAG, the Justice Assistant Grants, while we want to streamline the process, we also want to respect the need for local law enforcement to receive funding in much the same way they did before. We simply want to make the process easier.
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We want to actually expand their latitude, because one of the drawbacks is that the purposes for which they can use the funds are so limited. So Greensburg, North Carolina, Newport News, Virginia, will have a much broader latitude in their use of the funds and we will respect what has been done before and continue to make sure that local law enforcement——

    Mr. COBLE. I am glad to hear that, and I want you to be aware of the anxiety that exists back in the local areas.

    Mr. Lappin, we conducted a hearing recently regarding assault and rape in prison. I don't think your group was represented at that hearing, but does the BOP collect statistics on prison rape within Federal institutions and what standards does BOP employ for addressing prison rape?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Well, sir, we do collect information on a case-by-case basis regarding assaults and rape and physical assaults of a variety of natures; and we can provide that information to you. I don't have the numbers here with me today but certainly can provide that to you subsequent to the hearing.

    Our obligation is to provide a safe environment for all inmates. So, in our opinion, one rape, one assault is one too many. So we have to employ strategies and we do so each and every day to preclude that in the prison setting.

    Mr. COBLE. Your predecessor told me you all have a system—apparently, a sophisticated system—that is online whereby vulnerable inmates can be protected from assault.
 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. Through staff training and development, we work with our staff in identifying inmates who may be seen as assault victims as well as inmates who are predatory in nature so we can remove those predators from the general population to protect the rest of those individuals.

    Mr. COBLE. I made the statement at the hearing to which I refer that I am very concerned about overcrowding, and I think that is probably a more severe problem at the local and State level than it is in the Federal system. But this overcrowding in prisons is a time bomb ticking that I feel will explode one of these days. Do you want to be heard on that?

    Mr. LAPPIN. We continue to successfully manage prisons even though we have more inmates in them than they were designed to hold. I think we have done that because of the deployment of a variety of programs like Federal Prison Industries, education to keep those inmates that we determine can function appropriately in a general population active and participating in worthwhile, productive programs; and I think we can continue to do that to a certain degree. We appreciate the fact that the Administration and Congress has afforded us additional funding to build—bring on beds, new institutions, I guess, certainly due to that growing population over the next years.

    Mr. COBLE. Are there procedures in place for the marshals to share information or intelligence gathered in the performance of your duties with other DOJ counterparts and the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Reyna?

    Mr. REYNA. Mr. Chairman, the United States Marshal has several members of the Marshal Service and several task forces that share information. In addition to that, obviously every time we have information that comes to our attention we are able to disseminate it to the appropriate agency. As a consumer of information, every time we have submitted a request to our Federal colleagues we have received adequate results and information to support our mission.
 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COBLE. My time in the first round has expired. We are glad to welcome the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, to join us; and I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Virginia.

    Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Daniels, what is the status of the reorganization of your department?

    Ms. DANIELS. Thank you for asking us that, Mr. Scott.

    Actually, we have made great progress in our reorganization. We took to heart the comments of this Subcommittee and others over the years about the level of duplication and overlap and difficulties in management at OJP.

    We have at this point—one of the most important things we have done is to begin automating our processes to a much greater degree than ever before. It is part of our reorganization plan that we submitted to the Congress. One of those factors was the creation of an Office of the Chief Information Officer.

    We have made great strides. We have 84 percent of our grants actually online now through the grant award process. We are now going to be able to monitor them progress-wise online, and we are starting to roll that out. So we are doing a number of things in that area.

 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We have combined offices that are similar in nature, such as taking the Drug Courts Office and the Corrections Office and putting those into BGA because they already do similar work.

    In other areas, we work together. For example, the Office of Victims of Crime needs to defer to the Office on Violence Against Women on issues that are particular to that office.

    Mr. SCOTT. I think it is going to take longer. If we could get a statement from you after the hearing, I would appreciate it.

    What is done to make sure that juvenile justice—specifically, juvenile justice research gets the priority it deserves?

    Ms. DANIELS. We have spent quite a bit of time on this very issue, and we have spent a lot of time talking to organizations like the Juvenile and Family Court judges because we feel that it is critical that we serve our constituency and make sure that juvenile justice research continues to enjoy a high priority.

    As you know, we are looking at making sure that all our research is carefully coordinated; and so, in doing that, though, we want to make sure that everyone is well aware we will continue to give high priority to juvenile justice research and give great respect to the independence of that research, which is critical, of course, to findings in our objective.

    Mr. SCOTT. Are you familiar with the Abt research?
 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. DANIELS. I became familiar with it in the car on the way here, that there was a report turned into NIJ, but I have not yet seen it.

    Mr. SCOTT. Do you know when the results will be available? Because I understand they sent the document to you. It is not public until somebody has been able to review it. Do you know when it is going to be available?

    Ms. DANIELS. I do not, but we will figure that out and report back to you.

    Mr. SCOTT. I am delighted to see that you are following through on the DNA analysis. That is something that Virginia takes great pride in being a leader in. So if there is anything we can do to promote that effort, particularly getting rid of the backlog in many States in DNA analysis——

    I know New York has a particular problem where they have a lot of samples that have not been analyzed and you have a lot of cases that should be solved, a lot of cases that you can coordinate—you know, that are related to each other. That work is not being done merely because of a backlog in DNA analysis. Anything we can do to help you in that we would be delighted to.

    Ms. DANIELS. We appreciate that, sir; and Virginia has been a leader in that regard.

 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have a second round, I will yield back at this time.

    Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Wisconsin.

    Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Lappin, myself and a number of other Members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee have a great interest in prison industries. Section 811 and 819 of the Defense Authorization Act has generated a lot of confusion out there, and it appears as though the Department of Defense has not uniformly applied its requirements. Results of comparability studies are not being provided to Federal Prison Industries, and there is a lot of confusion out there, to the point where we are seeing factories closing down and jobs being lost and all the benefits that Federal Prison Industries can provide being lost. What are your plans to try to deal with these problems?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Well, sir, I would agree with your assessment in that regard. Federal Prison Industries is one of our most important inmate programs as it certainly teaches job skills and work habits that improve that individual's ability to retain and certainly gain employment upon release.

    We have felt the impact of 811 and 819. In part, we believe, as you mentioned, some confusion exists because rules have not yet been issued which has resulted in that confusion, confusion for what contracting officers are obligated to do. In fact, in some cases, the impression that mandatory source has actually been eliminated.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As you mentioned, the result, the—as a result of those changes, we have had to close four factories, four textile—I am sorry, four furniture and one textile. Absorbed the staff jobs into the Bureau, but we lost about 400 inmate-related jobs. We continue to see the impact because through April this year our net corporate earnings for FPI are 62 percent below plan.

    We believe that if the rules are published that a lot of that confusion will go away; and, in fact, once they are published and understood by the contracting officers, we will then be able to see a shift in the way FPI is going at the present time, because we will be offering more opportunity to compete for jobs that currently we don't believe we are competing for.

    Mr. GREEN. Do you have any sense of when those rules are going to be published?

    Mr. LAPPIN. It is my understanding it is in the not-too-distant future. It should be fairly soon. It is my understanding that we are currently working on them and hopefully published in the near future.

    Mr. GREEN. Any guidance as to what the near future means?

    Mr. LAPPIN. No, sir. I certainly don't know.

    Mr. GREEN. Ms. Daniels, what steps are being taken by OJP to ensure that ineffective grant projects do not continue to be funded?
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. DANIELS. I appreciate the question, Congressman.

    Our ability to evaluate programs is somewhat limited, unfortunately, just by the nature of the appropriations process and the limits on the dollars that we are permitted to spend on evaluation. Nonetheless, we are doing everything we can through partnerships with other agencies of Government, working with the Council on Excellence in Government, working with private foundations to try to do as much as we can in the way of identifying of what really works and what we have in the way of scientific evidence. We want to make that information available. And to the extent that we are funding anything of a discretionary nature and we get evidence that it doesn't work, one of my top priorities is to stop doing it. So we are committed toward that end.

    Mr. GREEN. Speaking of your discretionary programs, every year, of course, Congress passes a lot of earmarks. What impact are earmarks having on your discretionary programs?

    Ms. DANIELS. Well, Congressman, to be frank, the evaluation is just one aspect of the limitations on our ability to exercise discretion. We are limited in our ability to respond to emerging issues. We have had many requests for assistance we have not been able to grant, in fact, because at this point there is $150 million in Byrne discretionary money and about $89 million in juvenile justice discretion money for 2003, 200 percent of which is earmarked. So it is very difficult for us to respond at all. However, we at least try to work with those recipients to use those funds for the most useful purposes that will further justice.

    Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman.

    The gentlelady from Texas.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and the Ranking Member as well and for the presence of the Ranking Member of the full Committee.

    Let me thank the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and I have a series of questions. I understand that there will be a second round.

    But I do appreciate you returning my call last week, and I hope we will be able to pursue the issues that we raised, and I will raise some others as well.

    Let me thank the other witnesses.

    I would like to pursue a line of questioning that has come to my attention and is extremely serious in our State; and I would ask two things, Mr. Chairman. I would ask to submit into the record an article that says, DeLay Backs Federal Aid to Track Down Walkouts, dated May 13, 2003. Ask unanimous consent for submission of this article into the record.

    Mr. GREEN. [Presiding.] Without objection.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much.
 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    [The information referred to follows:]

Houston1.eps

Houston2.eps

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I would like to submit a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft dated May 13, 2003, sent by a number of Members of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to ask unanimous consent to have that submitted into the record.

    Mr. GREEN. Without any objections.

    [The information referred to follows:]

Letter1A.eps

Letter1B.eps

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me cite for the witnesses statements made in a Houston Chronicle article dated May 13, 2003, and I have a line of questioning.

    Washington dateline: House majority leader Tom DeLay said Monday he wants Federal authorities to pursue Texas Democrats dodging a vote on a plan he authored to increase Republican seats in Congress. The Sugar Land Republican told reporters that bringing in either U.S. Marshals or FBI agents is justified because redistricting is a Federal issue involving congressional seats.
 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    His further quote says, if it is legal for them to do so, I think it would be nice to help out the Texas rangers and Texas troopers.

    Let me pose first a question to Mr. Reyna. Do you have directions to go to any part of Texas or any other State to secure the arrest and to put in custody any members of the Texas legislature?

    Mr. REYNA. Congresswoman, the United States Marshals Service is not involved with any of that matter going on in Texas.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have any instructions to engage in any Federal intervention on that matter?

    Mr. REYNA. No, ma'am, we do not.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you know if any of your marshals have been dispatched in that direction for the purposes of securing the arrest and/or custody of these individuals?

    Mr. REYNA. No, ma'am. The United States Marshals Service is not involved with that matter in Texas.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would it be within your authority to do so?

 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. REYNA. We would get direction from the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice would have to give us guidance on that, and we have not been given any guidance on it and received no word from the Department of Justice. So we are not involved in that process.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you familiar with any of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act? Do you know whether or not you have any directions under the PATRIOT Act to arrest these particular members?

    Mr. REYNA. No, ma'am. We have no instructions or directions in that process—to be involved in that process.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. We have a letter that was submitted as indicated, and I would appreciate your response in writing. We asked for the Attorney General to provide us with an immediate response today. We have not heard from him, and so you can consult with his office. We would like to have an appropriate response, because certainly your office was suggested as one of those that might be so engaged.

    I appreciate your answers here on the record, but I am concerned, and I want to make sure that we have gotten the full response, and I appreciate your kindness in your answers.

    Ms. Myers, let me raise these questions with you. I recognize that we do not have a representative here from the FBI, but I want to pose the question whether any jurisdiction would ensue under the PATRIOT Act or do you have any knowledge of any instructions through the Criminal Justice Division to intervene in a State action in Texas to secure the arrest and/or custody of these 53 Texas Democratic legislators.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I am not aware of any such involvement and certainly the Criminal Division has not had any involvement.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you know if you have any direct requests from any majority leader of the House of Representatives on this issue?

    Ms. MYERS. I am not aware of any.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you have any knowledge of any inquiry to any U.S. Attorneys that may be in the State of Texas and elsewhere to provide assistance in the arrest of these individuals?

    Ms. MYERS. I do not. But let me say I am the Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division, so I am most knowledgeable about things involving the Criminal Division, and to that I am sure there is not.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying this. I would appreciate we will have a second round to be able to pose to Ms. Myers any justification under the PATRIOT Act that might reach into domestic Texas legislators who have not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing as to whether the PATRIOT Act would be legitimate criminal jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction for intervention.

    Finally, I would just say that we don't have any knowledge of the misuse of Federal law enforcement officials being utilized like this since Nixon when he tried to utilize the FBI and CIA for political purposes. We would appreciate a response. I understand that you have not directly been posed the question by this letter, but I think it is appropriate to be able to get this information on the record.
 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I thank the distinguished Chairman for yielding to me.

    Mr. COBLE. [Presiding.] The gentlelady's time has expired.

    The gentleman from Michigan.

    Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I welcome our witnesses today. We have the leader from the Criminal Division, the Marshals, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs; and they make a request, total of $7.3 billion for this authorization. The total Department of Justice request is $23.3 billion, and there is—means that there is a considerable amount of money, $16 billion, that is not accounted for. Could I ask my friend, Mr. Coble, Chairman, how we exert your authorizing inquiry over the other agencies and this amount of money?

    Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman would yield, I don't have an answer to that.

    Mr. CONYERS. Then could we—let us see—this is $23 billion here. We will meet on that. We don't want to take up your valuable time, ladies and gentlemen. Are these increases in authorization requests? Are they decreases? Are they what you had in the previous year? Can each of you explain which direction we are going to in this regard?

    Ms. DANIELS. Congressman, if you want to take us in chronological order, ours is a decrease from our existing—not authorization, but our existing appropriation.
 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. CONYERS. How much?

    Ms. DANIELS. Our appropriation for 2003 is about $4.3 billion, and we are requesting $2.185 billion for the Office of Justice Programs in 2004. Part of that is because the Office for Domestic Preparedness has moved to the Department of Homeland Security.

    Mr. CONYERS. So that has taken some of your jurisdiction and personnel resources.

    Ms. DANIELS. Correct.

    Mr. CONYERS. How much did you ask for?

    Ms. DANIELS. That is what we asked for, sir—oh, you mean in 2003?

    Mr. CONYERS. What are you seeking—what was your—this is what you are asking for right here. You don't really know what you are going to get.

    Ms. DANIELS. Correct. In the President's budget 2004, we are asking for $2.185 billion.

    Mr. CONYERS. And you are at $135 million now.

 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. DANIELS. No, sir.

    Mr. CONYERS. $2.1 billion.

    Ms. DANIELS. In 2003 enacted, I guess we ended up with—they are excluding the crime victims fund. I think we are at about $3 billion.

    Oh, I know what it was. The difference there is the Homeland Security Office for Domestic Preparedness. So, without that, in 2003, we are at about $3.2 billion.

    Mr. CONYERS. All right.

    Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. The Bureau of Prisons is requesting 4.7 billion, which is an increase over fiscal year 2003. I don't know the exact number for FY 2003, but it is probably about the $4.2 billion range. This is solely driven by the increase or additional beds coming on line in the Bureau of Prisons. We anticipate about 9,500 inmates in 2004.

    Mr. CONYERS. Is it true that you are at record highs of people that are incarcerated in our Federal prison systems?

    Mr. LAPPIN. We just hit 169,000 inmates this year. This is certainly the most inmates we have ever had incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Mr. CONYERS. And are there any plans or projections for additional buildings?
 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, there is. We have funding for the activation of four institutions in the 2004 budget.

    Mr. CONYERS. Four?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Four. And are requesting funding for another seven. Actually, we are bringing on four this year, sir, and another seven—requesting funding for another seven next year. Those are not new facilities. Those are facilities that have completed construction and will be in the activation phase.

    Mr. CONYERS. So, you could provide us the names of those facilities and locations, and the amounts you have set aside for each one?

    Mr. LAPPIN. We can provide you an activation update of facilities that are going to activate this fiscal year and next fiscal year and a timeline for those, sir.

    Mr. CONYERS. What about the U.S. Marshals? What is your direction in terms of funding?

    Mr. REYNA. Thank you, Congressman. Our total request for fiscal year 2004 is for a total of 4,592 positions and $720.8 million. We are requesting additional positions to do protective operation within the judiciary. And that is our——

 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. CONYERS. But is that more or the same or less?

    Mr. REYNA. We have—our total program change equals to 1,473,000.

    Mr. CONYERS. You are asking for $1.3 million additional?

    Mr. REYNA. Well, our requested total is for 720.8 million, although our base for 2004 was $719,333,000.

    Mr. CONYERS. So you are only asking for a little bit more——

    Mr. REYNA. We have some base reductions to that, sir, yes.

    Mr. CONYERS.—am I right?

    Mr. REYNA. Yes. Our total is $720,806,000.

    Mr. CONYERS. And that is just only a little bit more from the last authorization.

    Mr. REYNA. Well, our appropriations for 2003, which is direct appropriations, only were $676,051,000.

 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. CONYERS. So you are asking for that much more? You subtract the 6—156 million figure from the 720.8 million, we would know how much more you are asking for, right?

    Mr. REYNA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. CONYERS. Okay.

    Mr. COBLE. The gentleman's time has expired.

    And I didn't respond specifically to your question as far as dollars and cents. Other Subcommittees are conducting hearings with other components of justice, and you will recall at our first hearing we had ATF, DEA, and FBI, which is probably a good portion of it. So I don't think any of us will know until probably all of these hearings have been concluded.

    But let us start a second round, if we may.

    And, Ms. Myers, let me ask you. You indicated that, in your testimony, you mentioned that the Counterterrorism Section of the criminal division helps with the war on terrorism by disrupting the flow of money. In disrupting the flow of money to terrorists, does your section work with Treasury Department and the State Department? And what other agencies or departments, if any, are involved? (A), and (B), explain how this section works with the FBI and other Federal agencies to disrupt terrorism.

    Ms. MYERS. Thank you, Chairman. The Counterterrorism Section works with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in its terrorist financing program. Within the Counterterrorism Section, there is a terrorist financing task force, a group of dedicated prosecutors who are knowledgeable about the way that terrorist financing works, and they serve as the lead on these terrorist financing prosecutions. They also approve nationwide all the terrorist financing prosecutions.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Of course, the Counterterrorism division, in conjunction with the FBI, works with other agencies such as the Treasury Department, the Department of State, and the new Department of Homeland Security. And just recently, for example, we found some new energies in working with the new Department of Homeland Security; in that, the Operation Greenquest is going to merge into the work that's done by the FBI and the JTTFs. And we think that this is a great success and allows us to really coordinate things much better as we are trying to do all the time.

    Mr. COBLE. I thank you.

    Mr. Lappin, I represent a district that is heavily concentrated in textiles and furniture, and I have always had the fear that your group cuts into that private enterprise in an obvious way. I am not adverse to rehabilitation, I am not adverse to training inmates, but I like to strike some sort of balance whereby the private furniture and the private textile manufacturers don't suffer detriment. Do you appreciate my concern?

    Mr. LAPPIN. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. And I think you used the perfect word, and that is, we need to strike a balance. We are and will continue to be very sensitive to the impact the Federal Prison Industry has on small businesses. Obviously, we realize when we get business, it takes business away from somewhere else, but hopefully we can find that balance to allow us to continue to employ inmates in the Federal Prison Industry, along with improving their skills and abilities, and hopefully in the end, reducing recidivism and their success upon return to the community.

    I think the Federal Prison Industry Board is also very sensitive to this issue, and in fact, if you are not aware, recently passed six resolutions to help strike that balance. Those six resolutions will have some negative impact on the Bureau of Prisons; however, we feel as though it allows us time to reprogram our existing factories which as we have mentioned, many of which are predominantly furniture, textile, and electronics, to other program or other product lines. What we need, sir, is time to make that shift.
 Page 181       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We will continue to be sensitive to small businesses. But I would also like to mention that as part of the Federal Prison Industry, they spend about $500 million a year on products and services, and 62 percent of that is spent or our customers certainly are small businesses. So we are returning to the community, too, in regard to supporting small businesses through where we purchase from and who we purchase from in the Federal Prison Industry.

    Mr. COBLE. Okay. I thank you for that. Let me ask you one more question before my time expires. And you may want to respond to us in writing, Mr. Lappin. I am concerned about the utilization of private prisons. I am told that many private prisons have vacant spaces that are probably not being utilized. And I would be glad to hear from you even—well, my time is about to expire, but initially now and then in writing if need be. And I realize you don't have jurisdiction over the State facilities, but what would you think about expanding that proposal to the State and local institutions?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir, we can respond in writing. But let me just first say that we are probably the largest customer of private beds. We have 16,000 inmates in private correctional facilities, and we anticipate in the next few years we will continue to utilize those individuals for housing detention inmates primarily and low security criminal aliens, as we have in the past.

    We feel that is a perfect option to assist us in balancing our growing population. We also have done a survey of the States to see if there are beds available. A few States have contacted us. Unfortunately, many of the institutions they offer up to us are rather old and in disrepair, and we really have to do an assessment if that is really the best deal for the taxpayers. But we will follow up with you.
 Page 182       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COBLE. And respond to us.

    Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely.

    Mr. COBLE. And I see my time has expired. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia.

    Mr. SCOTT. Thank you.

    Mr. Lappin, we are releasing a lot more prisoners now than we have been in the past. I think about 10 or 20 years ago we were releasing about 200,000,and now it is up to about 600,000 in the United States, State, Federal, and local prisoners being released. What difference does a provision of transitional services make on the rate of recidivism?

    Mr. LAPPIN. We believe it has a critical impact, Congressman. As I mentioned earlier, or as the Chairman mentioned, our mission in the Bureau of Prisons is to safely house inmates. But, in addition to that, our mission is to provide opportunities for inmates to grow, to learn job skills, educate themselves. And certainly the research we have done have shown a significant impact, positive impact on recidivism rates as it applies to inmates participating in Federal Prison Industry, which as I mentioned in my testimony, 24 percent reduction.

    Mr. SCOTT. Have you done a cost benefit analysis to see whether or not you save so much that you save more than the cost of the program on education and some of the other transitional services?
 Page 183       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LAPPIN. We may have those figures, sir. I don't have them with me. We have done some research on, as you mentioned earlier, drug treatment where we are seeing very positive results as a result of inmates participating in drug treatment. And you also mentioned, sir, our dilemma with PELL grants and education. And we realize the dilemma the Congress went through in restricting that for prisoners, especially when law-abiding citizens have difficulty of their own gaining those resources. But we continue to see great benefits from that. We have focused more so on occupation.

    Mr. SCOTT. For those who have had an opportunity to get a college education when they were in prison, did their recidivism rate go down?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Sir, I don't have those statistics with me, but if we do, we can certainly provide them to you after the hearings.

    Mr. SCOTT. The numbers that I saw were, those who had access to a PELL grant virtually never came back; and obviously those that did come back at a rate of about 50 percent, which has a huge cost benefit.

    You changed the rules recently on halfway houses. How has that affected your ability to provide transitional services?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we certainly continue to see that as a high priority in transitioning inmates into the community. Reentry is critical, and halfway houses are an important aspect of that. The impact on us is that we have just been sending inmates for less time than we have in the past. We are still sending about 70 to 75 percent of the inmates who are eligible to the community through a halfway house. Our focus now is to target on that little 25 percent who are a little tougher to place because of personal—because of violence in their background, because of mental health issues. But those are truly the ones we need to focus on more because their entry needs are as great.
 Page 184       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    So it has impacted us a little bit in that we are sending inmates for a little shorter time, but we are still sending the same percentage of inmates.

    Mr. SCOTT. The Chairman asked you about the prison rape bill. Has the Department taken a position on that?

    Ms. DANIELS. I would be happy to respond to that, Congressman. Actually, my principal deputy testified before this Subcommittee last week on that, or 2 weeks ago, I think, on that subject. And our position is of course that this is a critical problem within prisons and something that we want to work diligently on, and we have pledged to work very closely with members of the advocacy community as well as Members of the Subcommittee, and to try to develop something. This impacts our JP in one way. One is the statistical end of things, and we are already developing a way to collect baseline data and then be able to measure changes.

    And we also want to try to develop a workable incentive program and a way to help, at least from our standpoint, the State prisons. We don't obviously fund anything in the Federal system, but the State prisons, in resolving these problems.

    Mr. LAPPIN. And, sir, we too agree that some assessment of the issue would be helpful. We only caution that how that assessment takes place be looked at very carefully so that we don't come back maybe with some recommendations and send us in the wrong direction at greater expense to the taxpayer.

    Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I just have a few seconds left. I would like to ask Ms. Myers, are you familiar with the Feeney amendment to the Protect Act?
 Page 185       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. MYERS. Yes, Congressman.

    Mr. SCOTT. Does that de novo review on the appellate level apply to all sentences, or just to the child and sex abuse context?

    Ms. MYERS. Congressman, it is my understanding that the de novo review provision that you are referring to does apply in certain instances to kinds of appeals on certain kinds of departures across a wide spectrum of cases.

    Mr. SCOTT. All cases ?

    Ms. MYERS. Yes. In all types of certain departure cases. So it wouldn't be all appeals or all—it is my understanding that even all departure appeals. But it would be certain types of departure appeals that are specifically enumerated within the amendment.

    Mr. SCOTT. Namely, downward departures.

    Ms. MYERS. And upward departures, Congressman, yes.

    Mr. SCOTT. Would be reviewed de novo?

    Ms. MYERS. Congressman, it is my understanding, although I am not an expert on the Feeney amendment, that it applies to just those instances where there is either a departure that is not specifically enumerated or there is an issue about the extent of the departure. Just one moment.
 Page 186       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Congressman, I have just been refreshed by my counsel here. In all departure cases, the decision would be reviewed de novo, but both up and downward departures. So if a judge departed upward a particularly violent criminal, the defendant would then be able to appeal that.

    Mr. SCOTT. Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, I think there was some confusion during the consideration of the bill that the Feeney amendment only applied to child sex abuse cases, and now we are hearing that it applies to all sentences. Thank you.

    Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman.

    The gentlelady from Texas.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I am going to pose some questions that I am going to ask kindly for them to be responded to in writing, unless I have some time afterwards.

    Specifically to Ms. Daniels, again, thank you for your testimony. We, over the years on this Committee, have worked very extensively on juvenile justice issues, prevention of juvenile crime. I am concerned about the fact as to whether or not your aid department under the Department of Justice will put in place sufficient resources to continue research and maintain the priority status on the issue of juvenile justice research. And, will it be done by qualified experts in the field?
 Page 187       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would like to see whether or not there is an opportunity to include research on the literal collapse of Children's Protective Services around the Nation. This is not to say that we don't have some very hard-working individuals in the Children's Protective Services, but I think from New Jersey to Florida to Texas and other places we have seen some tragic incidences occurring. I would like to see whether we and the Justice Department and the Justice Judiciary Committee can be helpful in those areas. And so I am going to leave that with you.

    With respect to Mr. Lappin, let me explore this question of a shorter period of time in the halfway houses, and how that has negatively impacted the transition that we would like. If you could quickly give me that answer, as well as one of the criticisms in both State and Federal prison has been the lack of professional development for the Federal corrections officers and/or State corrections officers. What have you done to enhance professional development and compensation for those correctional officers? Can you give me two quick answers on that, please?

    Mr. LAPPIN. Well, let me take the enhancement of the professionalism of the correctional officers in the Bureau of Prisons. We take training very highly. Our staff receive enormous training each and every year, and it is not just one-time training. There is a mandatory requirement of 40 hours of training each and every year above and beyond some other developmental training geared toward dealing effectively with inmates, certainly on code of conduct issues and treatment and so forth. So we pride ourselves on the fact that our employees are well aware of how to manage themselves within the correctional setting, how to deal effectively with inmates. And we continue to provide that training on a daily basis.
 Page 188       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. So that is in-house. Do you provide outside professional development opportunities?

    Mr. LAPPIN. There are outside professional development opportunities. Of course, with close to 35,000 employees, it reduces the amount of that we can provide. But whenever opportunities are available, we certainly try to provide outside training for our employees.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about compensation? How have you kept up with compensation as it relates to inflation, as it relates to cost of living, as it relates to the need to be competitive?

    Mr. LAPPIN. For our employees?

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. And particularly those corrections officers that are maintaining the order in the prison and detention centers.

    Mr. LAPPIN. We continue to look at career development paths that progress employees up through the GS scale. We also certainly utilize the increased funding and high cost of living areas to try and compensate our employees. And again, hopefully by our additional training and the opportunity to get additional skills, they will qualify for higher paying jobs as they move through their career in the Bureau of Prisons.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me encourage you to be as supportive of this concept as possible. And if you could give me in writing sort of a 5-year look of where compensation was 5 years ago and where it is today.
 Page 189       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LAPPIN. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Might I conclude on your questions by simply saying, I have a great interest in making sure that we rehabilitate prisoners, no matter what system they are in. And I might encourage you to look for opportunities when inmates are trying to be closer to family members; or inmates, unfortunately, may have an inmate relative; that any time we can encourage inmates to look to the future and rehabilitate themselves, that it is a positive action that the Bureau can take as long as it is within the context of keeping order.

    And I would encourage that kind of cooperative spirit. Tragically, there are relatives in the system, and there are times when those relatives can be helpful to each other in a positive way. And I thank you very much.

    Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, ma'am.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Reyna, let me pursue quickly the professional development issue with respect to you. Let me say that we have had great pleasure in the U.S. Marshals in the State of Texas, the last one I worked with Art Contreras and certainly the one now. Could you just quickly say, are you working on professional development for the U.S. Marshals encouraging retention, better retention?

    Mr. REYNA. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, we are obviously very interested in developing a career path and certainly professional development for our employees. And it is accomplished through a series of things. First of all, this year I am pleased to report that we have promoted a significant number of personnel into supervisory positions. We also are in the process of increasing our level of training, and certainly the United States Marshal Service obviously follows the grade pay scale within the Department of Justice. And——
 Page 190       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Reyna, that bell is a frightening bell. May I get you to respond with the rest of it in writing, please, so that I can get to Ms. Myers before my time is out? I apologize for that, but I see the Chairman moving up in his seat.

    Let me just—Ms. Myers, how much of the $135.8 million is for terrorism fight that you are requesting?

    Ms. MYERS. Well, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, a significant portion of the money is for our activities that involve terrorism. Every section works on terrorism activities. I would be happy to respond in more detail in writing to you on that particular——

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. In terms of the percentage?

    Ms. MYERS. In terms of the percentage.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then let me finish this line of questioning as I said I would pursue. Would any of the $135.8 million, in your estimation, be utilized to pursue State legislators who are in the process of acting out a civil action of not having a quorum in the State legislature?

    Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I have no knowledge of the Criminal Division having any involvement in that or being instructed in any way.

 Page 191       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you have any knowledge of the PATRIOT Act again being utilized in that instance with Texas State legislators?

    Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I have no knowledge of the PATRIOT Act being utilized in that way.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would appreciate it if I could also get that in writing. And if I would—knowing that you are representative, but just to put on the record again that I have—we have written the Attorney General to get a direct response on those questions.

    Ms. MYERS. We look forward to providing a full response in writing with the other components outside the criminal division.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.

    Mr. COBLE. Mr. Green, any questions for you, sir? I thank you, sir.

    I thank the witnesses for your contribution and your testimony today. The Subcommittee very much appreciates it. This concludes the oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice criminal law enforcement agencies. The record will remain open for 1 week. Thank you again for your cooperation. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
 Page 192       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

A P P E N D I X

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I am eager to hear testimony from representatives of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Each of these federal agencies shoulders an enormous burden, a unique burden, to prevent crime and keep Americans safe from foreign and domestic threats.

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

    The FBI is on the front lines of investigating possible terrorist activity. After the events of 9/11, and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, the FBI has been given additional powers to conduct its investigative efforts. Those powers include the authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications, the authority to conduct roving surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the authority to seize voice mail messages, and the authority to obtain additional intelligence information from internet service providers.

    All of these additional powers are useful tools in our efforts to achieve national security and to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, these additional powers grant FBI agents broad discretion in their investigations and open the door to potential abuses of discretion. It is unacceptable for FBI agents, or any law enforcement agent, to engage in discrimination, racial profiling, or violations of civil liberties in the name of investigating possible terrorist activity. I am adamantly opposed to any FBI agent violating the rights and/or civil liberties of American citizens or lawful immigrants.
 Page 193       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Since 9/11 we have seen a drastic increase in racial profiling of individuals of Arab or South Asian descent, Muslims, and Sikhs. While national and local statistics are scarce, there are numerous anecdotal accounts show how Arabs, Muslims, and Sikhs have endured racial profiling. For example, in the months following September 11th, a new type of racial profiling has developed: ''driving while Arab.'' Arabs, Muslim, and Sikhs across the country were subjected to traffic stops and searches based in whole or part on their ethnicity or religion.

    For example, on October 4, 2001 in Gwinnett, Georgia an Arab motorist's car was stopped, he was approached by a police officer whose gun was drawn, and he was called a ''bin Laden supporter'' all for making an illegal U-turn. In another example, on October 8, 2001, two Alexandria, VA police officers stopped three Arab motorists. The officers questioned the motorists about a verse of the Koran hanging from the rear view mirror, and asked about documents in the back seat. The police officer confiscated the motorists' identification cards and drove off without explanation. He returned 10 minutes later, and claimed be had had to take another call.

    While these incidents were by police officers and not FBI agents, they are indicative of the type of discrimination and violations of rights that can occur when law enforcement authority is unchecked. We must be certain that the FBI protects the lives of American citizens without infringing on the rights of Americans. I hope that the testimony by the FBI's representative will put my concerns to rest.

THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

 Page 194       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    While the DEA's mission is not directly related to homeland security and preventing terrorist attacks, their responsibility to control drug trafficking is equally important to the safety and stability of all American communities. The United States is still faced with heavy drug importation. Furthermore, there are growing concerns that the purity of available narcotics is getting worse, a situation that will contribute to higher rates of addition. The DEA must also deal with decreased assistance from other federal law enforcement agencies as approximately 400 FBI narcotics agents are reassigned to fight the war on terrorism

    While I acknowledge the additional pressures on the DEA in the post 9/11 era, it is still critical that the agency operate efficiently and professionally. I am concerned by recently accounts that the DEA has been criticized for lack of management, failure to report its progress in reducing illegal drug availability, and failure to develop reasonable long-term goals. The war on drug trafficking and drug use by American citizens, particularly our children, must be waged with the same passion as our war on terrorism. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the DEA on their progress in fighting the war on drugs.

THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS

    The ATF, like the DEA, has a critical role in ensuring the safety of American citizens. Gun trafficking plagues our streets and jeopardizes the lives and safety of our communities and our children. I recently opposed legislation in the full Judiciary Committee that grants immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers when weapons they manufactured or sold are used in criminal acts. I offered amendments to the gun liability bill to exempt from the scope of the bill those lawsuits brought by or on behalf of minors who were injured or killed by negligently transferred guns, and lawsuits against the sellers of machine guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
 Page 195       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Children are likely to play with guns and assault weapons have been banned by Congress because they are inherently dangerous. For these reasons and many others, I strongly believe that the ATF has perhaps the most important law enforcement role when it comes to protecting the American public. I am very interested in hearing the testimony from the representative from the ATF to hear more about their efforts to control the illegal distribution of guns in our communities.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.

RESPONSE FROM RICHARD J. HANKINSON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

RESPONSE FROM ROGELIO E. GUEVARA TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Guevara1.eps

Guevara2.eps

Guevara3.eps

Guevara4.eps

Guevara5.eps

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
 Page 196       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Thank you, Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for convening today's oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice's Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Marshals Service, and Criminal Division.

    I firmly believe that the Department of Justice should receive the full support of Congress and should be properly funded to provide essential protection for the American people. The missions of the various branches of the Department of Justice are even more important since September 11, 2001. This important federal agency must have our full support to adequately carry out its mission.

    My support of the Department of Justice, and all agencies that are part of homeland security and public safety, does not mean that I believe these agencies should not adhere to strict standards and be asked to live up to lofty goals. The Bureau of Prisons, the Office of Justice Programs, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Criminal Division must comport themselves with expert efficiency.

BUREAU OF PRISONS

    According to their website, the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) mission is, ''. . . to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.''

 Page 197       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I applaud the BOP for setting such high goals but I am concerned about whether those goals are actually being attained. For example, this subcommittee recently held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003. We heard accounts of the scourge of rapes in our federal prisons, the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, and the physical and psychological impact on inmates in particular minors.

    We are all aware that America's prisons are dealing with an overpopulation problem that has reached epidemic proportions. As of May 8, 2003, in the 102 BOP institutions alone there were 169,572 inmates. One reason why the prison population is high is recidivism caused by failure to rehabilitate offenders. We need reform of our prisons and justice system to vastly increase the numbers of one-time offenders. If our goal is truly rehabilitation, we must do more to treat the root of the problem, and not just the symptoms.

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

    The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is responsible for a variety of criminal justice programs including several that are of particular interest to me: juvenile justice, violence against women and crime prevention related to homeland security. OJP assumes the important responsibility of preventing and controlling crime. I am a firm believer in eliminating crime before it starts. I applaud OJP's efforts to cooperate with many federal agencies to rebuild neighborhoods, control gang activity, and prevent drug trafficking.

    With these objectives are commendable there is a need to get results. There is still high incidence of drug trafficking, gang membership, juvenile crime, and violent crime. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics in my home state of Texas in 2000, there were 122,155 violent crimes. Of which, 77,306 were aggravated assaults, 35,348 were robberies, and 8,169 were forcible rapes. These numbers need to decline. I look forward to hearing the testimony from the Office of Justice Programs to hear we can reduce these high crime rates.
 Page 198       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE

    The U.S. Marshals Service also serves a vital and multi-faceted role in crime prevention. Although primarily responsible for protecting the Federal courts and ensuring the effective operation of the judicial system, the U.S. Marshals also transport, apprehend, and arrest federal prisoners. The Marshals Service pursues and arrests 55 percent of all federal fugitives. Given this expertise, the U.S. Marshals may also be relied on to protect our homeland. I look forward to the testimony from the U.S. Marshals service in that regard.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE—CRIMINAL DIVISION

    Finally, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice is also a multi-faceted criminal justice organization with a homeland security segment. Within the many organizations of the criminal division is a counterterrorism and domestic security section. The Criminal Division also handles cases related to child obscenity and international crime.

    The many criminal areas investigated by the Department of Justice Criminal Division and the other agencies we are hearing testimony from today are prime possibilities for discrimination and violations of civil liberties. For example, within each of these organizations there are disparities in minority hiring.

    In the U.S. Marshal, for instance, 35 of the current 94 Marshals are women or minorities, and there are currently lawsuits pending against the Marshals regarding discrimination, although women and minorities do comprise a substantial portion of the leadership committees within the Marshals. There also needs to be a greater effort in racial sensitivity training.
 Page 199       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We also need to do more to hire more minorities and women in the Department of Justice. For example, a recent OPM study found that while African-Americans generally exceeded their relevant civilian labor force representation in 16 federal executive departments, less than 16% of those employed by the DOJ were African-American. And while the DOJ consisted of 37.7% women, that number was over 9% unrepresentative of what it should have been based on hiring practices of women in the civilian work force.

    As we consider reauthorizing these various agencies, we must ensure they are not guilty of violating civil liberties in the course of their duties. Racial profiling is one example of an unacceptable criminal investigation technique. Racial profiling is a very serious problem in our criminal justice system. Although African-Americans make up only 14% of the population nationwide, they account for 72% of all routine traffic stops.

    An ACLU analysis of Maryland State Police data showed that 73% of cars stopped and searched on Interstate 95 between Baltimore and Delaware from January 1995 through September 1997 were those of African-Americans, despite the fact that only 14% of those driving along that stretch were Black. Moreover, police found nothing in 70% of those searches. Similarly, in Florida, 70% of the persons stopped on I–95 were African-American, even though they made up less than 10% of the driving population. Data also shows that Hispanics are similarly targeted disproportionately by law enforcement agencies across the nation.

    Once again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this important oversight hearing. Likewise, I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for their testimony.
 Page 200       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE DEBORAH DANIELS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Daniels1.eps

Daniels2.eps

Daniels3.eps

Daniels4.eps

Daniels5.eps

Daniels6.eps

Daniels7.eps

Daniels8.eps

RESPONSE FROM HARLEY G. LAPPIN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Lappin1.eps

Lappin2.eps

 Page 201       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
Lappin3.eps

Lappin4.eps

Lappin5.eps

Lappin6.eps

Lappin7.eps

Lappin8.eps

Lappin9.eps

Lappin10.eps

Lappin11.eps

Lappin12.eps

RESPONSE FROM BENIGNO G. REYNA TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Reyna1.eps

Reyna2.eps
 Page 202       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Reyna3.eps

Reyna4.eps

Reyna5.eps

RESPONSE FROM JULIE L. MYERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Myers1.eps

Myers2.eps

Myers3.eps

Myers4.eps

Myers5.eps

Myers6.eps

Myers7.eps

SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
 Page 203       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

BPPS10.eps

BPPS11.eps

BPPS12.eps

BPPS13.eps

BPPS14.eps

BPPS15.eps

BPPS16.eps

BPPS17.eps

BPPS18.eps

BPPS19.eps











(Footnote 1 return)
This report, entitled ''The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime'' is not reprinted here. It is available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/crime/pdf/costbenefit.pdf.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list