(Today, Tues., is the annual appearance of the Attorney General before the Commerce, Justice and State (CJS) Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as the subcommittee begins its work on the appropriations bill for FY2003 that includes the Justice Department's annual budget. Senator Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is also a member of the Appropriations Committee and the CJS Subcommittee.)

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming Attorney General Ashcroft to the Subcommittee today.

During the past year the Justice Department has confronted the unprecedented and daunting challenge of protecting the United States against international terrorism in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent anthrax attacks. The Justice Department, under the leadership of the Attorney General, deserves credit for sustaining the confidence of the American people in the government’s ability to assure their safety.

I want to congratulate the Attorney General and the vast array of law enforcement and other officials, for the completion of a peaceful and secure Winter Olympics. I know that the Attorney General was personally involved in making sure that security was strengthened for public events away from the Olympics facilities.

While the Attorney General and I have not always agreed on particular actions, I respect the strength of his commitment. We worked together on the USA PATRIOT Act last year and demonstrated that the Congress and the Executive Branch can work together to combat terrorism and protect individual rights.

Today the Attorney General seeks to describe and justify a $30.2 billion budget request for the Department of Justice in FY 2003, which includes $539.2 million to continue on-going initiatives funded in the FY 2002 Counterterrorism Supplemental. I support the Administration’s decision to give high priority to combating terrorism, including border security. We have a duty, however, to take a closer look at details that may not have been considered when the Supplemental was adopted last year.

In addition, just in the last day, I have received seven responses from the Department to outstanding requests for information about the activities of various Department components. These hearings are very useful in prompting responses, and I thank the Chairman for convening the hearing and the Attorney General for his attention to my questions.

Border Security

The Justice Department’s budget calls for increased spending on border security, and that proposal is a step in the right direction. I am confident that the Congress will continue on its path toward fulfilling the goal that we included in the USA PATRIOT Act of tripling the number of Border Patrol agents, INS Inspectors, and Customs Service officers, and I am grateful that the Administration appears supportive of that goal. The security of our borders is not and should not be a partisan issue. We must all recognize that our northern border needs to be made dramatically more secure, and we must be willing to provide the necessary funding. This budget is a good start, and I hope we do more to make sure that the Northern Border gets the additional personnel and equipment it needs.

The Northern Border provisions added to the anti-terrorism bill, enacted last October, authorize a tripling of border security on the U.S.-Canada boundary. Efforts since then to begin implementing the Northern Border provisions have originated in Congress and have met resistance from the White House. The President’s new budget plan is the first movement by the Administration toward those goals. The budget calls for a $1.2 billion increase for INS law enforcement efforts, from $4.1 billion in 2002 to $5.3 billion in 2003. That increase would more than double the number of Border Patrol agents and INS inspectors. In his budget, the President has also said that new hiring should focus particularly on the Northern Border.

The President also proposes a $300 million increase in the Customs budget for staffing and technology. The President’s focus on Northern Border needs applies here as well and this subcommittee may want to provide more direction to the Customs Service on where to display new staff.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Justice Department component with plans to grow most sharply is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Over a two-year period the FBI budget will increase from $3.25 billion in FY 2001 to $4.32 billion in FY 2003. The Judiciary Committee held FBI oversight hearings last year at which some members raised the questions about whether the FBI needed more money or just better management.

Director Robert Mueller is making management reforms. He announced the first phase of his FBI reorganization in December. I praised his action as responding to the need to strengthen FBI intelligence, security, and information management. He and Deputy Attorney General Thompson are now taking a wider look at ways to streamline the FBI responsibilities to enable greater focus on detecting prevention and the investigation of terrorists. This may require a shift of certain types of criminals to be handled by other federal agencies and state law enforcement. The Judiciary Committee will hear from Mr. Mueller and Mr. Thomson on their plans and the realignment of criminal law enforcement tasks.

One of the most important FBI initiatives is the TRILOGY program for upgrading the Bureau’s information technology. The Counterterrorism Supplemental for FY 2002 included $237 million for advanced computer equipment and software under the TRILOGY program, and the FBI requests another $109.4 million in FY 2003 for information technology projects including TRILOGY. I support these investments. From an oversight perspective, however, I am disappointed that the Justice Department and the FBI have failed to submit quarterly status reports on TRILOGY as required in the Appropriations Act for FY 2001. Such reports are especially important to monitor the effectiveness of planning and testing for new software. I urge the Attorney General to provide a current status report on TRILOGY to the Congress as soon as possible.

Over the past seven years, the growth of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) has strengthened national counterterrorism efforts with full-time participation by other federal agencies and state and local police personnel, co-located at dedicated facilities with support funding in 36 FBI field offices. Director Mueller plans an increase in these task forces to all 56 offices, and I support this plan. After the September 11^th attacks, you formed separate Anti-Terrorism Task Forces in each U.S. Attorney’s office. Former FBI executives have publicly raised serious concern that the new Task Forces would "undermine the capabilities of the nation’s primary agency responsible for the prevention and investigation of terrorist activity." Although a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Thompson, dated October 25, 2001, indicates that FBI JTTFs retain primary authority for operational and investigative matters not related to prosecutions, the concern expressed by these former FBI executives about the divided responsibility for investigations through duplicative task forces should be addressed.

For example, the U.S. Attorneys’ Anti-Terrorism Task Forces are coordinating the current program for interviews of 5,000 nonresident aliens using state and local law enforcement personnel. The results are to be compiled in a new database for U.S. Attorneys being designed by the Justice Management Division. The development of a new database suggests a long-term investigative role for the U.S. Attorneys-led Task Forces using state and local law enforcement personnel. The potential for divided leadership and accountability is troubling. Moreover, it is not clear whether the Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI investigations would apply to the investigative activities of the U.S. Attorneys’ Anti-Terrorism Task Forces. These are all questions which I look forward to discussing with the Attorney General.

The Community Oriented Policing Services ("COPS") Program has been a resounding success – since its inception in 1994, the COPS Program has awarded over $7 billion in grants to law enforcement agencies, putting more than 114,000 new law enforcement officers on the street, and is credited for reducing the crime rate and getting more police officers on the street. I support the full funding of the program to keep COPS on course to fund an additional 36,000 law enforcement officers by the end of 2005 to help maintain communities and reduce crime.

The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget cuts COPS by almost $500 million. Congress appropriated $1,050,440,000 for the COPS program for FY02. Enactment of this budget would mean an end to police hiring grants and school resource officers; and drastic reductions in technology, equipment, and support staff grants – on which State and Local law enforcement agencies heavily rely. The request proposes to cut the Universal Hiring Program by 100 percent, cut the COPS in Schools program by 100 percent, and cut the COPS technology program by 67 percent.

The overall budget for COPS does not increase, as the Administration claims. It proposes to cut more than $1.6 billion from the $2.5 billion appropriated for FY2002 for state and local law enforcement grants, and, in an accounting shift, combines what is left into a new $800 million Justice Assistance Grant program. The budget request places that new grant under the COPS account, making it appear as if overall COPS funds increase, when, in fact, they do not. The Administration merely repackages many of DOJ grant programs, and then cuts their funding.

Grant programs targeted for elimination include the State and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG), which received $400 million this year; Byrne law enforcement block grants for efforts to improve state and local courts, which received $500 million for FY02; and aid for states incarcerating illegal aliens, which got $565 million this year.

I also support full funding of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program to make grants to states, for use by states and local units of government, to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce state and local laws that establish offenses similar to those in the Federal Controlled Substances Act. It has proven to be a highly effective and widely praised grant program to state and local law enforcement agencies. For FY02, Congress authorized $594,489,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, of which $94,489,000 was for discretionary grants and $500,000,000 was for formula grants under this program.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) makes Byrne Program funds available through two types of grant programs: discretionary and formula. Discretionary funds are awarded directly to public and private agencies and private nonprofit organizations; formula funds are awarded to the states, which then make subawards to state and local units of government. I support maintaining the discretionary grant component of the program.

The President’s budget proposes to level-fund the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Program at $25.4 million, even though, through the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, Congress authorized $50 million for FY 2003 for the successful program that protects the lives of local and state law enforcement officers.

To better protect our nation’s law enforcement officers, Senator Campbell and I introduced the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act which became law in 1998. That law created a $25 million, 50 percent matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor for fiscal years 1999-2001. Senator Campbell and I sponsored the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 to build upon the success of this program by doubling the annual funding to $50 million for fiscal years 2002-2004. It improves the program by guaranteeing jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents receive the full 50-50 matching funds because of the tight budgets of these smaller communities. For larger jurisdictions with populations at or over 100,000, the program pays up to 50 percent of each applicant's total vest costs, based upon any remaining funds. Specific funding levels for larger jurisdictions are determined once all applications have been submitted. Given the projected number of eligible jurisdictions and the limited funds available, the BVP already may not have sufficient funds to provide 50 percent for applications from larger jurisdictions. The law also allows for the purchase of stab-proof vests to protect corrections officers and sheriffs who face violent criminals in close quarters in local and county jails. I support for the full funding of $50 million for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2003.

Protecting Civil Rights

In contrast to the President’s proposed budget, I support an increase in funding for our nation’s essential civil rights enforcement agencies. This funding would allow the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to add positions to prosecute hate crimes, deter the victimization of migrant workers, combat police misconduct, fight housing discrimination, eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities, and protect fundamental opportunities.

I am also disturbed by what could be interpreted as a shift in focus away from effective civil rights enforcement. Immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the President addressed the nation and reminded us all that racially, ethnically, and religiously motivated violence would not be tolerated. I commend the President for his public words on this critical issue. It is important that the President and Department of Justice match this admirable rhetoric with real enforcement and maintain the Department’s longstanding leadership role in national civil rights enforcement during these difficult and eventful times.

The President’s proposed budget appears to fall short of the rhetoric. While that budget calls for increased funding for many components of the Department of Justice, these increases do not reach the Civil Rights Division, the chief federal body charged with actually enforcing U.S. civil rights laws. While I support efforts to fund election reform in the states and provide education on hate crimes enforcement to state and local authorities, these efforts are simply no substitute for maintaining a vibrant federal enforcement role in securing our most basic civil rights. These rights, all protected by the enforcement efforts of the Civil Rights Division, include voting, employment, housing, and disability rights as well as the rights of institutionalized persons, protection against police abuse and corruption, protection for victims of trafficking, and hate crimes enforcement.

As one example, the problems of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, and religious discrimination and violence, unfortunately, stubbornly persist within our borders. We were reminded of these problems by the rash of crimes against Arab and Muslim Americans after the September 11 attacks. These acts, and indeed all acts of discrimination, cut at the very heart of what the terrorists hope to destroy in the United States – our tolerance and our diversity.

In recent answers to questions which you provided based upon you December 6, 2001, appearance at the Senate Judiciary Committee, you note that the FBI has commenced approximately 300 federal criminal investigations involving post-September 11 attacks on Arab or Muslim Americans, or others, based upon their actual or perceived ethnicity. You indicate, however, that to date there have only been eight federal cases resulting from these approximately 300 investigations. In short, there has been no federal prosecution in over 97 percent of these investigations. I would be remiss if I did not point out this significant gap between the President’s admirable rhetoric and the enforcement actions of the Justice Department since September 11 and ask why is it that the Department is prosecuting so few of these violent crimes?

A second example where rhetoric has outstripped enforcement involves the protection of voting rights. During your confirmation hearing, you recognized that "[v]oting is a fundamental civil right" and pledged if confirmed that you would "work aggressively and vigilantly to enforce federal voting rights laws." You assured this Committee that "[i]t will be a top priority of a Bush Department of Justice, part of what I hope would be its legacy." Unfortunately, the President’s budget request did not call for any additional resources for the Department’s Voting Rights Section, even though there have been recent press reports critical of the Department’s role in delaying a redistricting plan for congressional seats in Mississippi are disturbing.

Technology has ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential for commerce and communications. But the Internet age has also ushered in new challenges for federal, State and local law enforcement officials. These challenges were clearly evident as our nation’s law enforcement officials investigated the recent cyber hacker attacks. Congress and the Administration need to work together to meet these new challenges while preserving the benefits of our new era.

The Leahy-Dewine Computer Crime Enforcement Act, which authorized a $25 million Department of Justice grant program to help States prevent and prosecute computer crime, is intended to help States and local agencies in fighting computer crime. Grants under the bipartisan law may be used to provide education, training, and enforcement programs for local law enforcement officers and prosecutors in the rapidly growing field of computer criminal justice. All 50 States have now enacted tough computer crime control laws. They establish a firm groundwork for electronic commerce, and protecting this part of our critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, too many State and local law enforcement agencies are struggling to afford the high cost of training and forensic work needed to realize the potential of State computer crime statutes. I support funding for these important initiatives.

Drug use and abuse is a contributing factor to spousal and child abuse, property and violent crime, the spread of AIDS, workplace and motor vehicle accidents, and absenteeism in the workforce. The Senate has already passed a version of S. 304, the Hatch- Leahy Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act to aid States and local communities in their efforts to prevent and treat drug abuse. It establishes drug treatment grants for rural States and authorizes money for residential treatment centers for mothers addicted to heroin, methamphetamines, or other drugs. This legislation also will help States and communities reduce drug use in prisons through testing and treatment. It will fund programs designed to reduce recidivism through drug treatment and other services for former prisoners after release. In addition, this bill will reauthorize drug courts and authorize juvenile drug courts. Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to review and amend penalties for a number of drug crimes involving children. The bill will authorize $1.4 billion in appropriations over four years. I hope that the Congress will send this bill to the President soon and that the Justice Department will work with us for full funding of the programs it authorizes.

Forensic science is widely accepted as a key to effective administration of justice, but State crime laboratories are now seriously bottlenecked. Backlogs in many laboratories have impeded the use of new technologies, such as DNA testing, in solving cases without suspects – and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence – as laboratories are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Timeliness and quality concerns in the forensic science services threaten the administration of justice in the United States.

Two years ago, Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act, which authorizes the appropriation of $134.7 million for Fiscal Year 2003 to improve State forensic science services for criminal justice purposes. Congress also passed the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, which authorizes the appropriation of $40 million for Fiscal Year 2003 to reduce the backlog of untested DNA samples in our nation's crime labs. I support full funding of each of these programs.

# # # # #