Threats to federal law enforcement officers : hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, second session, May 16, 2000.

Description

iii, 42 pages ; 24 cm.

Core Metadata

identifier	https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg73137/html/CHRG-106shrg73137.htm
blake2b	47df5973041013ccc8865ca7e5d066c1737d2dc9eca0f5b3593584738587528706c8745dd5c41d4c7674505892111864fbf3bdb227303d3698cf4c05fbfbbc16
id	lps15598/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg73137/html/CHRG-106shrg73137.htm
format	text/html; charset=UTF-8
size	148418
dataset_id	fdlp
meta_url	/document/view?identifier=fdlp/lps15598/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg73137/html/CHRG-106shrg73137.htm.json
download_url	/document/download?identifier=fdlp/lps15598/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg73137/html/CHRG-106shrg73137.htm.json

Additional Metadata

JSON

              {
  "additional form": "Also available via Internet from the GPO Access web site. Addresses as of 11/2/01: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106s\u0332enateh\u0332earings\u0026docid=f:73137.wais (text version), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106s\u0332enateh\u0332earings\u0026docid=f:73137.pdf (PDF version); current access is available via PURLS.",
  "author": "United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight.",
  "cgp record link": "https://catalog.gpo.gov:443/F/?func=direct\u0026doc_number=000537654\u0026local_base=GPO01PUB",
  "content type": "text",
  "description": "iii, 42 pages ; 24 cm.",
  "format": "volume",
  "general note": "\"Serial no. J-106-84.\"\nDistributed to some depository libraries in microfiche.\nShipping list no.: 2002-0013-P.",
  "holdings": "All items\n",
  "internet access": "Text version: https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/LPS15598\nPDF version: https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/LPS15599",
  "isbn": "0160661285",
  "item number": "1042-A\n1042-A (online)\n1042-B (MF)\n1042-B (online)",
  "lc number": "KF26 .J8377 2000f",
  "oclc number": "(OCoLC)48156253\nocm48156253",
  "published": "Washington : U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., [Congressional Sales Office], 2001.\n",
  "series": "(United States. Congress. Senate. S. hrg. ; 106-1009.)",
  "subject - lc": "Police -- Protection -- United States.\nUnited States -- Officials and employees -- Protection.\n",
  "sudoc number": "Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.106-1009",
  "system number": "000537654",
  "title": "Threats to federal law enforcement officers : hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, second session, May 16, 2000."
}

Would you train on this document?

Document Viewer

text/markdown

```

[Senate Hearing 106-1009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 106-1009

THREATS TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT

of the

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

MAY 16, 2000

__________

Serial No. J-106-84

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-137 WASHINGTON : 2001

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
------

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
Garry Malphrus, Chief Counsel
Glen Shor, Legislative Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page
Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 31
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 23
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Ledwith, William E., Chief, Office of International Operations,
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of
Justice, prepared statement.................................... 10
Saleeba, David A., Special Agent in Charge, Intelligence
Division, U.S. Secret Service, prepared statement.............. 15
Stephens, Andreas, Section Chief, Violent Crime and Major
Offenders Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared
statement...................................................... 3
Varrone, John C., Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Investigations, U.S. Customs Service, prepared statement....... 18

APPENDIX
Additional Submissions for the Record

Calloway, Mark T., U.S. Attorney, Western District of North
Carolina, letter............................................... 39
DEA Agents and Employees Killed in the Line of Duty.............. 41
Letter to Attorney General Reno from Senators Sessions and
Thurmond....................................................... 39
Raben, Robert, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, letter and attachment................... 37

THREATS TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:56 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Strom
Thurmond (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Also present: Senator Sessions.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator Thurmond. The subcommittee will come to order.
Only a few blocks from here, a solemn annual ceremony is
taking place this week. Local, State and Federal law
enforcement officials are gathering at the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial to pay tribute to 280 individuals
who lost their lives in the line of duty since last year's
ceremony. In total, there are more than 14,000 names on the
memorial, a sad reminder of just how dangerous the law
enforcement profession is.
I think it is safe to say that most people associated
violence against law enforcement officials as attacks on
uniformed personnel of police departments, sheriffs' offices,
State police departments, and highway patrols. Unfortunately, I
believe that there is a commonly held belief that the risks
Federal enforcement personnel face is minimal. This is simply
not correct.
To begin with, few realize that the U.S. Government has a
significant number of uniformed officers that serve with
agencies including the Border Patrol, Park Police, Bureau of
Prisons, and Customs Service. These men and women expose
themselves to risk day in and day out as they conduct their
duties.
I have heard reports that it is considered sporting--I
repeat, sporting--to sit on the Juarez side of the Rio Grande
River and take pot shots at Border Patrol agents protecting the
sovereign boundary of the United States. Earlier this spring, a
U.S. Park Police officer was seriously wounded when a routine
traffic stop performed in the District of Columbia became a
firefight. And Bureau of Prisons officers are routinely
assaulted, hardly unexpected given the population with whom
they are dealing.
Additionally, Federal agents are facing increasing risks as
they become more involved in fighting crimes where violence is
just part of a criminal's way of doing business. I doubt that
any Federal agent has forgotten the cold-blooded abduction,
torture, and execution of Kiki Camarena by Mexican
narcotraffickers. Sadly, the potential for that to happen again
today is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Drug dealers have little regard for the lives of anyone
other than themselves and willingly use violence as a method of
discipline, enforcement, and retribution. Outside the United
States, criminal enterprises are forming alliances with
terrorist groups, paramilitaries, and outlaw governments, all
of which significantly increase the dangers our agents face
when they are attempting to battle international crime.
Given that this is Police Week, this hearing on threats
against Federal law enforcement officials is especially timely.
The men and women who serve in Federal law enforcement have
chosen an unsung career path, and it is important that we let
the public know the sacrifices and dangers being borne by these
dedicated and selfless individuals.
Furthermore, I hope that through actions such as this
hearing, those who do serve in federal law enforcement
recognize that they have friends and supporters in Congress.
Finally, as a matter of oversight, this subcommittee must
ensure that agencies are doing all they can to train their
personnel in officer safety tactics, as well as to protect
these men and women when they are serving in the field.
When attacks against federal enforcement officials do take
place, those responsible must be prosecuted by the U.S.
attorney's office. We should leave no question in the minds of
criminals as to the consequences of committing an act of
violence against a Federal agent. To do otherwise is to send a
signal that is unacceptable in this era of escalated violence
and threats to those who work as enforcement officials.
Now, I am pleased to welcome each of our witnesses: Mr.
Andreas Stephens, Section Chief, Violent Crime and Major
Offenders Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Mr. William
E. Ledwith, Chief, Office of International Operations, U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration; Mr. David Saleeba, Special
Agent in Charge, Intelligence Division, U.S. Secret Service;
and Mr. John C. Varrone, Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service.
The agencies that these gentlemen represent are involved in
fighting crime both domestically and abroad, and are well
qualified to paint a picture of the challenges, threats, and
dangers that Federal enforcement officers face in discharging
their duties.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your taking the time to appear
before us this afternoon. As I am eager to get to our rounds of
questioning, I ask each of you to please limit your opening
statements to as brief as possible. We are, of course, more
than happy to enter your entire statement into the record.
Thank you, and we will start with the testimony of Mr.
Stephens.

PANEL CONSISTING OF ANDREAS STEPHENS, SECTION CHIEF, VIOLENT
CRIME AND MAJOR OFFENDERS SECTION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, DC; WILLIAM E. LEDWITH, CHIEF,
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC;
DAVID A. SALEEBA, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, INTELLIGENCE
DIVISION, U.S. SECRET SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC; AND JOHN C.
VARRONE, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

STATEMENT OF ANDREAS STEPHENS

Mr. Stephens. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the Federal Bureau of Investigation's role in
investigating assaults, threats, and the killing of Federal
employees.
The men and women who enlist in Federal law enforcement are
exceptional and dedicated individuals who bring unique skills
and diverse life experiences. Many have foregone the potential
benefits of private sector employment in order to pursue the
path of public service. They have chosen this career
recognizing the inherent risks involved in law enforcement.
We as agencies highly value their commitment and service,
and endeavor to adequately prepare them for law enforcement by
providing the tools and support they need to do the job and by
giving them the skills and training necessary to minimize and
manage the risks. Unfortunately, we are not able to eliminate
all risks associated with law enforcement, but we will continue
to strive for that goal.
The scope of the FBI's investigative responsibility is
broad. Historically, the delegation of investigative
responsibilities by the Department of Justice has delegated to
the FBI the investigative responsibility in the assaults,
threats, and killings of all Federal employees and immediate
family members, unless the victim is employed by the Department
of the Treasury or the U.S. Postal Service.
The safety and security of all Federal employees and their
family members is a top priority of the FBI. Each reported
incident is aggressively pursued and referred to the Department
of Justice for prosecutive consideration. In those instances
where the FBI acts as the primary investigative agency,
coordination is closely established with the victim employee's
agency. The FBI recognizes that each threat creates tremendous
strain on the victims and their families, and therefore
requires and receives appropriate attention.
The number of assaults against Federal officers has
remained relatively constant over the past few years. Between
1994 and 2000, the FBI initiated 4,234 investigations involving
threats or assaults of Federal officers and employees. On
average, the FBI investigates 650 violations per year regarding
the threats. The majority of the threats that are investigated
involve law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges.
Since 1994, the FBI has investigated 916 cases in which a
Member of Congress was threatened or assaulted.
According to the Uniform Crime Reports, Federal officers
are most likely to be assaulted while encountering crimes in
progress, conducting investigations, or making arrests. In the
majority of instances, Federal officers are assaulted with
personal weapons, such as hands, fists or feet, and in 14
percent of all cases a firearm was used.
When a Federal employee is assaulted or killed, it is
imperative that the case be aggressively and expeditiously
investigated. Coordination is immediately established with the
appropriate Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, in
addition to the U.S. attorney's office. The victim and any
witnesses are immediately interviewed for relevant information.
Where appropriate, crime scene investigators are dispatched to
collect evidence. The FBI employs its full arsenal of
investigative techniques, including electronic and physical
surveillance, search warrants, and Federal grand jury
subpoenas. The case is ultimately presented to the Department
of Justice for prosecutive opinion.
When the FBI receives information that a Federal employee
has been threatened, the victim is immediately notified of the
threat. In instances where the threat is reported by a
cooperating defendant or an informant, a polygraph examination
is often considered to determine the credibility of the threat.
The victim employee's agency is notified, as is any agency
having protective responsibility; for example, the U.S.
Marshals Service and the U.S. Secret Service. Similarly, any
investigation regarding threats against a Member of Congress is
closely coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police.
The FBI does not have protective responsibility, except for
the Attorney General and cases where the victim is an FBI
employee. Various security measures are taken as the
circumstances dictate and a threat assessment is immediately
conducted. In order to prepare our people to resolve these
threats, we have provided a wide range of training and tactical
skills for our agents during their new agent training. These
include firearms offensive tactics; interview techniques;
arrest, search and raid planning; cultural awareness; and legal
issues.
After attending the FBI Academy, in order to increase
safety awareness we train agents in techniques designed to
avoid assaults, and the FBI has developed the Law Enforcement
Training for Safety and Survival Program. It is noted that this
training is provided for field investigators, as opposed to the
highly specialized training provided to tactical operators,
such as our SWAT and Hostage Rescue Team.
The law enforcement training survival program provides an
excellent opportunity for us to introduce new safety
techniques, as well as to reinforce traditional concepts to
experienced investigators, Federal and local alike. The funding
for tactical training of street agents is through the Safe
Streets and Safe Trails Task Force initiatives. The FBI
sponsors 174 Safe Streets and Safe Trails Task Forces in 54 of
our 56 field offices. The task forces include approximately
1,000 State and local law enforcement officers, 805 FBI agents,
and 251 law enforcement officers from other Federal agencies.
All State and local task forces are deputized Federal officers
under Title 18 or Title 21 of the United States Code.
This training that I previously mentioned is afforded to
violent crimes task force investigators only. During fiscal
year 1999, the FBI through this initiative provided survival
training to 715 Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officers. The FBI encourages aggressive Federal prosecution of
those who threaten Federal employees. Generally speaking, these
cases are considered on a case-by-case basis, and Federal
prosecutors may require actual injury or substantial overt acts
before prosecuting a case in which a law enforcement officer is
a victim. Agents and officers who carry firearms and possess
arrest powers are often viewed as somewhat less vulnerable than
prosecutors, judges, and elected officials.
Although the number of investigations has remained
relatively constant, the nature of these incidents has changed
in recent years. Some of the factors from the FBI's perspective
include the expanded role in anti-violence initiatives,
international investigations, and the increasing use of the
Internet in furtherance of criminal activity.
Regarding international investigations, the FBI's
involvement in international investigations has brought
credibility to complicated multi-national investigations, with
many successes. Unfortunately, these investigative successes,
along with world events, have increased the risk of harm to FBI
agents by criminal elements.
In order to address these increased risks, the FBI's
International Operations Section has designed a briefing
program to inform employees about security related to
international assignments. One of our responsibilities is to
respond to extraterritorial terrorist incidents. Our evidence
response teams and rapid deployment teams are dispatched to
critical events when directed by the Attorney General in
furtherance of that extraterritorial jurisdiction. As these
deployments continue, the likelihood and potential of assaults
on FBI employees overseas increases.
The same thing happens with the anti-government groups and
militia efforts that have been occurring domestically. These
incidents reflect the types of threats that are more and more
being encountered by agents in our domestic terrorism
investigations. The subjects in these cases are clearly
motivated by a desire to discourage law enforcement from
continuing its investigations.
The FBI's violent crimes program has been closely
coordinating with our technical components regarding threats
conveyed via the Internet. Although this is a recent initiative
and statistical data has not been compiled, our preliminary
review of FBI field office statistics revealed a total of 22
investigations initiated in fiscal year 2000.
Senator Thurmond. Could you wrap up your statement, the
remainder of which will be put in the record?
Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir.
I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity
to testify here today. The increased risk of assaults on
Federal officers is real and growing, and I welcome any
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephens follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andreas Stephens

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am
very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Bureau
of Investigation's (FBI's) role in investigating assaults, threats and
the killing of federal employees. Through the delegation of
investigative responsibilities by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
FBI has primary jurisdiction in all assaults, threats and killings of
federal employees, unless the victim is a member of the Department of
the Treasury (DOT). Pursuant to an October 2, 1956, agreement, the DOT
has investigative jurisdiction over assaults, threats and killings of
its personnel. Additionally, pursuant to a Department of Justice (DOJ)
policy directive dated 3/5/74, the United States Postal Service (USPS)
has primary jurisdiction for assaults, threats, and killings of its
employees if the offender is also employed by the USPS.
The FBI investigates assaults, threats and killings of federal
employees pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111 (Assaulting,
Resisting or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees); 115 (Influencing,
impeding, or retaliating against a Federal Official by threatening or
injuring a family member); 1111 (Murder); 1112 (Manslaughter); 1114
(Protection of officers and employees of the United States); 1116
(Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or
internationally protected persons); 1117 (Conspiracy to murder in
violation of Section 1114); 2231 (Assault or resistance); and
1201(a)(5) (Kidnapping in violation of 1114). Additionally, U.S.
Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress, and the heads of executive
branch departments are afforded protection under Title 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 351 (Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court Assassination,
Kidnapping, and Assault).
The safety of all federal employees and their family members is a
top priority of the FBI. For the purposes of this hearing, the term
``federal employee'' includes the class of employees defined by Title
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1114, ``any officer or employee of the United States or
of any agency branch of the United States Government (including any
member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is
engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.'' Each
reported incident is aggressively pursued and referred to the
Department of Justice for prosecutive consideration. In those incidents
where the FBI as the primary investigative agency, coordination is
closely established with the victim employee's agency. Nevertheless,
each threat creates tremendous strain on the victims and their
families, and therefore requires and receives appropriate attention.
number of assaults on federal officers investigated by the fbi
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) 1994 through 1998 reflect that
federal agencies reported assaults against 3610 employees, resulting in
1033 injuries. During this same period, 24 federal law enforcement
officers were slain in the line of duty, as follows:

INS Agent......................................................... 5
FBI Agents........................................................ 4
Secret Service Agents............................................. 4
Bureau of Indian Affairs Officers................................. 4
DEA Agents........................................................ 2
U.S. Customs Agents............................................... 2
Capitol Police Officers........................................... 2
National Park Service Ranger...................................... 1
Housing and Urban Development..................................... 1

In 1999, the FBI initiated 585 investigations regarding assaults
against federal employees. During that year, two officers were slain in
the line of duty. These cases involved the 12/9/1999 murder of a Bureau
of Indian Affairs Officer, in Whiteriver, Arizona and the 12/12/1999
murder of a Department of the Interior, National Park Service Officer,
in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.
During the first half of fiscal year 2000, the FBI has initiated
286 Assault on a Federal Officer (AFO) investigations. Since 1994, the
FBI has initiated 4,234 investigations that involved a federal officer
being assaulted, threatened or killed. Federal officers were killed in
26 of these cases. To date, 675 individuals have been convicted as a
result of these investigations.
Since 1994, the FBI has investigated 916 cases in which a member of
Congress was threatened or assaulted. These investigations have
resulted in 25 convictions.
The FBI currently employs 11,583 Special Agents. Since 1997, FBI
Agents have occasionally been confronted with circumstances requiring
the use of deadly force. Since 1997, FBI Agents discharged their
firearms during 52 incidents involving an adversarial contact with a
subject. The numbers are set forth below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SA injured/ Subject injured/
Year Number killed killed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997...................................................... 16 0 12
1998...................................................... 10 0 6
1999...................................................... 11 0 5
2000...................................................... 5 0 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following a shooting, the FBI requires the involved Special Agent
to attend a critical incident stress debriefing with a trained Special
Agent counselor who has been involved in a similar incident.

ACTIVITY RESULTING IN ASSAULTS AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS

According to the Uniform Crime Reports, federal officers aremost
likely to be assaulted while encountering crimes in progress,
conducting investigations, or making arrests. In the majority of
incidents, federal officers are assaulted with personal weapons such as
hands, fist or feet. In fourteen percent of all cases, a firearm was
used. Since 1989, 682 state, local and federal law enforcement officers
have been killed in the line of duty. Of these officers, 239 were slain
during arrest situations, a total of 35 percent. Ninety-two percent
were killed with firearms.

FBI RESPONSE TO ASSAULTS AGAINST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

When a federal employee is assaulted or killed, it is imperative
that the case be aggressively and expeditiously investigated.
Coordination is immediately established with appropriate state, local
and federal law enforcement agencies, in addition to the United States
Attorney's Office. The victim and any witnesses are immediately
interviewed for relevant information. Where appropriate, crime scene
investigators are dispatched to collect evidence. The FBI employs its
full arsenal of sophisticated investigative techniques, including
electronic and physical surveillance, search warrants and Federal Grand
Jury Subpoenas. The case is ultimately presented to the Department of
Justice for prosecutive opinion. The Department of Justice's general
policy, as stated in the United States Attorney's Manual, is to
federally prosecute cases in which the victim is an officer or employee
with law enforcement duties which regularly exposes him/her to the
public. This policy, with respect to assaults and other forms of
forcible resistance, provides these employees with a measure of
security which helps them in the performance of their duties. By
contrast, unless the circumstances are aggravated, offenses against
other federal employees are generally referred to a local prosecutor.
When the FBI receives information that a federal employee has been
threatened, the victim is immediately notified of the threat. The
victim employee's agency is notified as is any agency having protective
responsibility. For example, the United States Marshals Service has
protective responsibilities with respect to federal judicial officials,
while the FBI is responsible for the criminal investigation. Similarly,
any investigating regarding threats against a member of Congress is
closely coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police. In order to assist
the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) in its statutory protective functions,
the FBI notifies the USSS in cases in which federal employees are
assaulted or killed.
The FBI does not have protective responsibility, except for the
Attorney General and cases in which the victim is an FBI employee. A
threat assessment is immediately conducted. The threat assessment
includes a comprehensive background investigation regarding the subject
or organization that issued the threat. When the identity of the
offender is unknown, a review is conducted of cases in which the victim
has participated. Additionally, coordination is established with the
FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC). The
FBI closely coordinates these investigations with local, state and
federal law enforcement agencies.
In cases in which the victim is an FBI employee, a threat
assessment is conducted and a decision is made whether an immediate
relocation of the victim is necessary. When necessary, the victim
employee is relocated to a temporary covert location, while further
investigation is conducted. Other security measures may include
installation of security equipment, surveillance, and coordination with
local law enforcement. Additionally, the victim and his family are
afforded a security awareness briefing and referred to the Employee
Assistance Program for necessary support. The FBI submits an Annual
Expenditure Report to the Office of the Comptroller, Justice Management
Division, regarding expenses paid for threatened employees.

FBI'S ASSISTANCE IN POLICE KILLINGS

At the request of fellow law enforcement agencies, the FBI
investigates felonious or accidental deaths of local, state, and
federal law enforcement officers having full arrest powers, who are
killed during the performance of their official duties. The FBI
initiates an investigation to obtain additional details concerning the
circumstances surrounding the incident. Additionally, the FBI furnishes
the agency with information concerning two federal programs which
provide benefits to survivors of law enforcement officers killed in the
line of duty. The two federal programs include the U.S. Department of
Labor and the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program administered by
the Department of Justice. The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Sections
publishes statistics regarding police killings.
In 1999, 42 federal, state and local law enforcement officers were
feloniously slain in the line of duty. This is a significant decrease
from 1998, in which 61 officers were slain, and 1997, in which 70
officers were slain. In 1999, twelve officers lost their lives during
arrest situations. Six were serving arrest warrants; three were
investigating robberies; two were investigating drug-related incidents;
and one involved a burglary suspect. Additionally, eight officers were
murdered while enforcing traffic laws, seven were investigating
suspicious circumstances, seven were answering disturbance calls, six
officers were ambushed, and two were handling prisoners. Forty-one of
the 42 officers murdered were slain with firearms.

TRAINING

In order to increase safety awareness, and train agents in
techniques designed to avoid assaults, the FBI Practical Applications
Unit, located at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, has developed
the Law Enforcement Training for Safety and Survival (LETSS) program.
It is noted that this training is provided for field investigators, as
opposed to the highly specialized training provided to tactical
elements such as SWAT and the Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). This program
is structured on three essential elements:
(1) Concepts in Survival.This element introduces and reinforces the
fact that survivability requires a will to survive. In April, 1986, two
FBI agents were killed in a shootout with subjects who continued to
fight long after receiving fatal injuries. The concept in survival
element establishes that law enforcement officers have the same
capacity to survive, despite being injured.
(2) Basic Tactics. Agents are trained in techniques to limit the
risk of violent encounters. These techniques include methods to
recognize and approach high risk areas, as well as approach subjects.
(3) Advanced Techniques. Agents are trained in high risk tactics
including felony vehicle stops and diffusing violent encounters.
In addition to presenting schools at the FBI Academy, the Practical
Applications Unit has trained 300 tactical instructors from the 56
field offices. These instructors are a crucial resource to the field
investigators in preparing for high risk encounters. The LETSS program
provides an excellent opportunity to introduce new safety techniques,
as well as reinforce traditional concepts to experienced investigators.
Although this training is essential to the safety of agents, funding
remains a critical issue. Unlike basic training for new agents, and
advanced tactical training for SWAT elements, training for street
agents is not independently funded. In fact, the only funding for
tactical training of street agents is through the Safe Streets and Safe
Trails Task Force budgets. The FBI sponsors 174 Safe Streets and Safe
Trails Task Forces, in 54 of its 56 field offices. The Task Forces
include 1096 state and local law enforcement officers, 805 FBI Special
Agents and 251 officers from other federal agencies. All state and
local Task Force officers are deputized federal officers under Title 18
and Title 21 of the United States Code. The training is limited to
violent crime task force investigators.

PROSECUTION OF SUBJECTS WHO ASSAULT FEDERAL OFFICERS

The FBI encourages aggressive Federal prosecution of those who
threaten federal employees. Generally speaking, Federal prosecutors
require actual injury, or substantial overt acts before prosecuting a
case in which a law enforcement officer is the victim. Agents and
officers who carry firearms and possess arrest powers are viewed as
somewhat less vulnerable than prosecutors, judges and elected
officials.
Unfortunately there have been instances in which FBI agents were
assaulted and prosecution was not authorized. For example, on April 5,
1999, Special Agents of the FBI and other law enforcement officers
sought to effect the arrest of a convicted felon. Two marked
Indianapolis Police Department cruisers activated their emergency
flashers as an FBI SWAT team approached the house. As agents, armed
with a warrant, attempted to enter the house, the subject fired two
rounds, nearly striking one of the agents in the head. The United
States Attorney's office declined prosecution contending that the
government could not disprove the defendant's claim of self-defense
because the defendant allegedly did not realize that law enforcement
officers were attempting to enter the house. In a letter to the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, FBI Deputy
Director Thomas Pickard described the decision as ``a failure to
vindicate the principle that criminals may not use deadly force to
avoid arrest without facing the severest of consequences.''
Although the number of investigations has remained relatively
constant, the nature of these incidents has changed in recent years.
Some of the apparent factors include the FBI's expanded role in
international investigations, the proliferation of anti-government
groups, and the increasing use of the Internet in furtherance of
criminal activity.

FBI'S EXPANDED ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

The FBI's involvement in international investigations has brought
credibility to complicated multi-national investigations, with many
successes. Unfortunately, these investigative successes, along with
world events, have increased the risk of harm to FBI Agents by criminal
elements. In order to address these increased risks, the FBI's
International Operations Section has designed a briefing program to
inform employees about security risks related to international
assignments. The training includes an intensive one week school at the
FBI Academy regarding surveillance detection, cultural awareness,
vehicle control, attack recognition, and escape maneuvers.
Additionally, employees attend a security awareness school sponsored by
the Department of State regarding environmental hazards, evacuation
procedures, crisis management, and hostage survival.
The FBI's Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) has initiated
security surveys of the residences and work environment of FBI
employees assigned to legal attache posts. These surveys include
analysis of the location, construction, and relative security of
structures utilized by FBI employees. The CIRG consolidates the FBI's
crisis management expertise by combining both the tactical and
negotiations components of an FBI rapid response to a critical
incident. One of the responsibilities of the CIRG is to respond to
terrorist incidents. Evidence Response Teams and Rapid Deployment Teams
are dispatched to critical events when directed by the Attorney
General, in furtherance of extraterritorial jurisdiction. For example,
in 1998, the CIRG responded to the U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania
and Kenya. In 1999, the CIRG responded to Kosovo to assist with the war
crimes investigation by processing alleged mass grave sites for items
of evidentiary value. As these deployments continue, the likelihood of
assaults on FBI employees overseas increases.
On 11/9/1999, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent and a DEA Special
Agent were assaulted in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico. The Agents were
confronted by a group of armed men who pointed weapons at the agents,
attempted to remove the agents from their vehicle and threatened to
kill them. During this confrontation, both agents displayed their
diplomatic passports, and the FBI Agent displayed his FBI credentials.
After several minutes, the Agents convinced the subjects to let them
leave. The FBIinitiated an Assault Against a Federal Officer
investigation. The case is being closely coordinated with the DEA, the
United States Attorney's Office and Mexican authorities. The FBI is
confident that the investigation will be brought to a successful
conclusion.

INCREASED ACTIVITY OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT GROUPS

On January 30, 1998, Eric Robert Rudolph fled into the wilderness
area of Western North Carolina. Rudolph has been charged with four
bombings, including the July 27, 1996 Centennial Olympic Park Bombing
in Atlanta. The four bombings resulted in three deaths and over 125
injuries. The Southeast Bomb Task Force (SBTF) established a command
post to investigate the bombings, and search for Rudolph. On November
11, 1998, Veteran's Day, eight shots were fired at the SBTF Command
Post in Andrews, North Carolina. One round went through an interior
door and passed over the head of an FBI Agent as he was leaning forward
in a chair.
This incident reflects the type of threat confronted by Agents
involved in Domestic Terrorism investigations. The subjects in this
case were clearly motivated by a desire to discourage law enforcement
from continuing its investigation regarding the bombings. In addition
to acts of violence, several Domestic terrorist groups have purported
to create their own ``judicial system'' which they use to oppose and
circumvent lawfully constituted institutions and authorized processes
in the United States. These ``Common Law Courts'' or ``People's
courts'', are often used mechanism to impede legitimate law enforcement
activity by attaching liens against the property of law enforcement
officers.

INCREASED USE OF INTERNET IN AFO'S

The FBI's Violent Crime Major Offenders (VCMO) Program
investigators have been coordinating closely with the Computer
Investigations Unit and National Infrastructure Protection and Computer
Intrusion (NIPCI) Squads, regarding threats conveyed via the Internet.
Although this is a recent initiative, and statistical data has not been
compiled, a preliminary review of FBI Field Office statistics revealed
a total of 22 investigations initiated in fiscal year 2000, in which
NIPCI Squads are assisting violent crime investigations. The increase
in the level of assistance to the (VCMO) Program appears to relate
specifically to the transmission of threatening communications over the
Internet, which include threats directed toward government officials.
This trend has resulted in a barrage of requests from the field offices
for additional training in responding to threats communicated over the
Internet. The Violent Crimes/Fugitive Unit is coordinating with the FBI
Academy to design a training program to train investigators involved
not only in AFO investigations, but kidnapping, extortions, and murder
for hire investigations in which the Internet is used.

CONCLUSION

I want to thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to
testify here today. The increased risk of assaults on federal officers
is real and growing. The FBI is moving to aggressively meet this
challenge by training FBI agents and investigators from other agencies
not only on how to investigate these offenses, but also how to avoid
becoming a victim. We have already had significant successes in the
fight. I look forward to working with Congress to ensure that we
continue to be able to meet the threat as it evolves and grows. Thank
you.

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Ledwith.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. LEDWITH

Mr. Ledwith. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear today to speak briefly on
the threats posed to Federal law enforcement officers. I would
like first to thank the subcommittee for its continued support
of the Drug Enforcement Administration and overall support of
drug law enforcement.
Drug enforcement is an extremely hazardous occupation. This
is due to the fact that drug traffickers have no regard for
civil order, justice, or human life. Their goal is to amass
large sums of money in order to maintain their obscene and
lavish lifestyle, free from the boundaries and confines of the
law. U.S. law enforcement poses the greatest threat to the drug
traffickers' ability to operate unabated. We have become the
major stumbling block to them and have therefore voluntarily
become targets of their criminal violence and ruthlessness.
Nowhere has this violence become more prevalent than along
the Southwest border and in Mexico at the hands of Mexican drug
trafficking organizations. For decades, a number of threats
have been made against U.S. law enforcement personnel stationed
in Mexico by Mexican drug traffickers. Some of these threats
and assaults resulted in serious injury and death.
One of the most heinous acts of narcoterrorism against DEA
was the 1985 kidnapping, torture, and murder of DEA Special
Agent Enrique Camarena. On February 7, 1985, Special Agent
Camarena and Mexican Captain Alfredo Zavala were kidnapped by
Mexican drug traffickers from two separate locations in
Guadalajara, Mexico. On March 5, 1985, the bodies of S/A
Camarena and Captain Zavala were found in plastic bags lying in
a field adjacent to a busy road.
Tape recordings seized by the Mexican military from a
notorious Mexican drug trafficker confirmed that S/A Camarena
had been brutally beaten and tortured while being interrogated
about his knowledge of Mexican drug traffickers and the
identity of DEA sources of information. Special Agent
Camarena's brutal murder captured worldwide attention and
subsequently sparked an international investigation in order to
bring to justice those individuals responsible for his death.
The investigation ultimately revealed the involvement of
corrupt Mexican law enforcement elements, military, and public
officials.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations routinely rely on
violence as an essential tool of the trade. Much of the drug-
related violence which has become commonplace in Mexico has
spilled over into the United States. Many of these acts of
violence have been aimed at U.S. law enforcement personnel
working along or in close proximity to the Southwest border.
Drug traffickers believe that escape into Mexico represents
safe refuge from the U.S. law enforcement community, regardless
of their crime.
On June 30, 1994, DEA Special Agent Richard Fass of the
Phoenix Field Division was killed by Mexican drug traffickers
during an undercover operation in Glendale, AZ. The subsequent
investigation revealed that Augustin Vasquez-Mendoza,
identified as the leader of this drug trafficking group,
orchestrated a plan to steal $160,000 from the undercover
agent. During the attempted rip-off, S/A Fass was murdered
while attempting to defend his life and the life of a DEA
informant. Although four other members of this organization
were captured and prosecuted, Vasquez-Mendoza fled to the
mountainous regions of Mexico before he could be apprehended.
Although drug-related violence in Mexico has been
historically commonplace, within the last year drug-related
violence has increased exponentially. Daily newspaper articles
have memorialized the recent rash of kidnappings and executions
of Government of Mexico officials assigned to investigate
narcotics-related crimes.
Since January of this year, numerous Mexican officials
assigned to anti-narcotics operations have been murdered and
several others have been seriously injured. The trail of
violence continues, as evidenced by the recent ambush
andsubsequent torture and murder of two Mexican law enforcement
officials assigned to a border task force just days before this
hearing.
DEA remains gravely concerned about the more recent threats
and assaults directed against U.S. Government personnel. Of
particular concern was an incident occurring in Matamoros,
Mexico, on November 9, 1999. A DEA special agent and an FBI
special agent were traveling in a vehicle while debriefing a
cooperating source in Matamoros, Mexico. They were surrounded
and physically threatened by a Mexican drug trafficker and
approximately 15 of his bodyguards who were brandishing
automatic weapons.
The Tampaulipas State Police commander who was aware of the
situation as it was happening did nothing to assist the two
agents. The traffickers demanded that the two agents turn over
their source, the cooperating source, certainly to face death
at their hands. To their credit, the agents refused to turn him
over. During the confrontation, the drug trafficker ordered his
henchmen to shoot the agents and the source. However,
displaying calm control of an explosive and deadly situation,
the two agents were able to talk their way out and made their
way safely to the United States with the cooperating source and
his family.
Many of the threats or assaults on our personnel have been
subsequent to or while executing major enforcement operations.
As an example, in January of this year the FBI advised DEA that
the Amado Carillo-Fuentes drug trafficking organization had
offered a $200,000 bounty to anyone who murdered a U.S. law
enforcement agent in Mexico or on the border.
In addition, in February of this year DEA was again advised
that a major drug trafficker threatened retaliation against
U.S. law enforcement and/or U.S. facilities located within
Mexico and along the U.S. Southwest border. The DEA regards
these threats as extremely serious and has taken immediate
action to ensure the safety or our personnel.
Mr. Chairman, the safety and security of DEA personnel and
their families is a priority within our agency. The DEA has and
will continue to utilize every means available to ensure their
safety and security. We do, however, remain extremely concerned
regarding the Government of Mexico's ability to effectively
respond to these incidents in a timely manner.
In addition, in virtually every incident involving a
narcoterrorist threat against our agents or personnel in
Mexico, Mexican police officials, acting as enforcers for the
drug traffickers, were involved. This fact alone speaks to the
continued ability of the heads of these criminal drug
trafficking organizations to corrupt Mexican law enforcement
officials.
However, we are encouraged regarding the recent arrests of
key members of the Amado Carillo-Fuentes drug trafficking
organization by the Government of Mexico. We are hopeful that
the recent events are a sign of renewed commitment of our
cooperative counter-drug investigations.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the brave men and women of the
Drug Enforcement Administration, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee today. At
this time, I would be glad to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ledwith follows:]

Prepared Statement of William E. Ledwith

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear today to speak briefly on the threats posed to
federal law enforcement officers. I would first like to thank the
Subcommittee for its continued support of the Drug Enforcement
Administration and overall support of drug law enforcement.
Because DEA is the only single-mission federal agency dedicated to
drug law enforcement, the agency has, over the years, developed the
ability to direct resources and manpower to identify, target and
dismantle drug organizations headquartered overseas and within the
United States. DEA's strategy to successfully accomplish these goals is
straightforward, requiring that the agency's resources and manpower be
focused on all three levels of the drug trade: the international,
national/regional and local levels. Each of these categories represents
a critical aspect of the drug continuum, which affects communities
across the nation.
The 9,000 dedicated men and women of the DEA are committed to
improving the quality of life of the citizens of the United States. The
agency directs and supports investigations against the highest levels
of the international drug trade, their surrogates operating within the
United States, and those traffickers whose violence and criminal
activities destabilize towns and cities across the country. These
investigations are intelligence-driven and frequently involve the
cooperative efforts of numerous other law enforcement organizations.
Drug enforcement is an extremely hazardous occupation. This is due
to the fact that drug traffickers have no regard for civil order,
justice or human life. Their goal is to amass large sums of money in
order to maintain their obscene and lavish life style, free from the
boundaries or confines of the law. U.S. law enforcement poses the
greatest threat to the drug traffickers ability to operate unabated. We
have become the major stumbling block to them and have therefore,
voluntarily, become targets of their criminal violence and
ruthlessness. Nowhere has this violence become more prevalent than
along the Southwest border and in Mexico at the hands of Mexican drug
trafficking organizations.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations pose the greatest challenge
to law enforcement agencies in the United States. For years, we have
watched with concern as powerful organized crime syndicates based in
Mexico began to dominate the distribution of drugs throughout our
country. Through the dedicated efforts of Federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies, we now have a clear picture of how these drug
lords direct the sale of drugs within the U.S., how they collect their
billions of dollars in drug profits, and how they arrange for the
assassination of witnesses in both Mexico and the United States.
We have not only identified the drug lords themselves, but in most
cases, the key members of their command and control structure. The
combined investigations of DEA, FBI, the U.S. Customs Service and
members of state and local police departments have resulted in the
seizure of hundreds of tons of drugs, hundreds of millions of dollars
in drug proceeds and the indictment of virtually every one of the
leading drug lords. However, despite the evidence against these
powerful drug traffickers, they have been able to evade arrest and
prosecution. The primary reason they have been able to avoid arrest and
continue to ship drugs into the United States is attributable to their
ability to intimidate witnesses, assassinate public officials and their
ability to corrupt many of the civilian law enforcement agencies in
Mexico, often at the command level.
The violence that is an essential part of the operations of these
ruthless and powerful organizations, has a deadly effect on innocent
citizens and law enforcement officers across the United States as well
as those federal law enforcement agents stationed in Mexico. The
trafficker's willingness to murder and intimidate witnesses, public
officials as well as law enforcement officers has allowed them to
develop into the present day threat they have become.
For decades, a number of threats have been made against U.S. law
enforcement personnel stationed in Mexico by Mexican drug traffickers.
Some of these threats and assaults resulted in serious injury and
death. One of the most heinous acts of narco-terrorism against DEA was
the 1985 kidnapping, torture and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique
Camarena. On February 7, 1985, Special Agent Enrique Camarena and
Mexican Captain Alfredo Zavala, a DEA confidential source of
information, were kidnapped by Mexican drug traffickers from two
separate locations in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. On March 5, 1985,
the bodies of S/A Camarena and Captain Zavala were found in plastic
bags lying in a field adjacent to a busy road. Tape recordings seized
by the Mexican military from a notorious Mexican drug trafficker,
confirmed that S/A Camarena had been brutally beaten and tortured while
being interrogated about his knowledge of Mexican drug traffickers and
the identity of DEA sources of information. Special Agent Camarena's
brutal murder captured worldwide attention and subsequently sparked an
international investigation in order to bring to justice those
individuals responsible for his death. The investigation ultimately
revealed the involvement of corrupt Mexican law enforcementelements,
military and public officials, in the execution of S/A Camarena's
murder.
Just over a year later, DEA would again realize the ruthless and
bold tactics of Mexican drug traffickers and their corrupt
counterparts. In August of 1986, DEA Special Agent Victor Cortez and
DEA informant Anton Garate-Bustamante were kidnapped in Guadalajara,
Mexico by corrupt Mexican police officers. S/A Cortez and Garate-
Bustamante were interrogated, beaten and tortured at a local Mexican
police station for four hours. The corrupt police officers, who were
obviously acting on behalf of a Mexican drug trafficking organization,
attempted to learn the names and locations of other DEA Agents, their
families and cooperating individuals who were working with DEA
personnel in country. S/A Cortez and Garate-Bustamante were released
only after the DEA Resident Agent in Charge arrived at the police
station and relentlessly demanded their release. Six individuals were
eventually arrested by Mexican authorities and charged with this
heinous act of narco-terrorism.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations routinely rely on violence
as an essential tool of the trade. Much of the drug-related violence
which has become commonplace in Mexico, has spilled over into the
United States. Many of these acts of violence have been aimed at U.S.
law enforcement personnel working along or in close proximity to the
Southwest Border. Drug traffickers believe that Mexico represents safe
refuge from U.S. law enforcement, regardless of their crime.
On June 30, 1994, DEA Special Agent Richard Fass of the Phoenix
Field Division, was killed by Mexican drug traffickers during an
undercover operation in Glendale, Arizona. The subsequent investigation
revealed that Augustin Vasquez-Mendoza, identified as the leader of
this drug trafficking group, orchestrated a plan to steal $160,000.00
from the undercover agent. During the attempted rip-off, S/A Fass was
murdered while attempting to defend his life and the life of a DEA
informant. Although four other members of this organization were
captured and prosecuted, Vasquez-Mendoza fled to the mountainous region
of Apatzingan, Michoacan, Mexico before he could be apprehended.
Mexican drug traffickers have adopted a strategy of taking
increasingly confrontational and defensive actions when moving drug
loads across the U.S./Mexico border. During 1998, a relatively new
trend involving armed attacks by Mexican traffickers on U.S. law
enforcement officers continued with fatal consequences. These armed
encounters always developed during the drug trafficker's attempts to
avoid arrest while fleeing back to Mexico. One such attack took place
on June 3, 1998, along the Mexican border near Nogales, Arizona. U.S.
Border Patrol Agent Alexander Kirpnick and a fellow agent were
attempting to arrest five Mexican males who were transporting marijuana
north across the border when he was shot and killed.
Although drug related violence in Mexico has been historically
commonplace, within the last year, drug related violence has increased
exponentially. Daily newspaper articles have memorialized the recent
rash of kidnappings and executions of Government of Mexico (GOM)
officials assigned to investigate narcotic related crimes. Since
January of 2000, numerous Mexican officials assigned to anti narcotics
operations have been murdered and several others were seriously
injured.
Of note, Tijuana Police Chief, Alfredo de la Torre-Marquez was shot
and killed by two carloads of assassins on February 27, 2000. On March
28, 2000, former Director of Investigations for the Organized Crime
Unit (OCU), Cuauhtemoc Herrera-Suastegui, was shot in an ambush--one
day before he was set to testify before the Mexican Attorney General in
an investigation of the Carrillo-Fuentes Organization.
In perhaps the most heinous recent incident, on April 10, 2000
Mexican Attorneys Jose Luis ``Pepe'' Patino and Oscar Pompa, and Army
Captain Rafael Torres Bernal, who were working closely with DEA and FBI
Special Agents assigned to San Diego, were murdered. The three were en
route from San Diego to the PGR (Mexican Attorney General's Office)
Headquarters in Tijuana, Mexico. The three never arrived as planned.
They were apparently intercepted on the way, and brutally beaten to
death. Their bodies were discovered two days later. Investigations are
underway on both sides of the border to bring to justice the
perpetrators of this savage act.
The trail of violence continues as evidenced by the ambush and
subsequent torture and murder of two Mexican law enforcement officials
assigned to a Border Task Force which occurred just days before this
hearing.
DEA remains gravely concerned about the more recent threats and
assaults directed against U.S. Government personnel. Of particular
concern was an incident occurring in Matamoros, Mexico November 9,
1999. A DEA Special Agent and an FBI Supervisory Special Agent were
travelling in a vehicle, while debriefing a Cooperating Source in
Matamoros, Mexico. They were surrounded and physically threatened by a
Mexican drug trafficker and approximately 15 of his bodyguards,
brandishing automatic weapons. The Tampaulipas State Police Commander,
who was aware of the situation as it was happening, did nothing to
assist the two agents. The traffickers demanded that the two agents
turn over the source--certainly to face death at the traffickers hands.
To their credit, the agents refused to turn over the source. During the
confrontation the trafficker ordered his henchmen to shoot the agents
and the source. However, displaying calm control of an explosive and
deadly situation, the two were able to talk their way out, and made
their way to safety in the United States.
Many of the threats or assaults on our personnel have been
subsequent to or while executing major enforcement operations. As an
example, in January of this year, the FBI advised DEA that the Amado
Carillo-Fuentes Drug Trafficking organization offered a $200,000.00
bounty to anyone who murdered any U.S. law enforcement agent in Mexico
or the U.S. In addition, in February of this year, DEA was again
advised by the FBI, that a major drug trafficker identified as Juan
Jose Esparragosa-Moreno, threatened retaliation against U.S. law
enforcement and/or facilities located within Mexico and along the U.S.
southwest border. The DEA regards these threats as extremely serious
and has taken immediate actions to ensure the safety of our personnel.
Mr. Chairman, the safety and security of DEA personnel and their
families is a priority within our agency. The DEA has, and will
continue to utilize, every means available to ensure their safety and
security. We do, however, remain extremely concerned regarding the
Government of Mexico's ability to effectively respond to these
incidents in a timely manner. In addition, in virtually every incident
involving a narcoterroristic threat against our agents or personnel in
Mexico, Mexican Police officials, acting as enforcers for drug
traffickers, were involved. This fact alone speaks to the continued
ability of the heads of these criminal drug trafficking organizations
to corrupt Mexican law enforcement. However, we are encouraged
regarding the recent arrests of key members of the Amado Carillo-
Fuentes drug trafficking organization. We are hopeful that the recent
events are a sign of renewed commitment of our cooperative counter-drug
investigations.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the brave men and women of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. At this time I
will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much.
We would be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. SALEEBA

Mr. Saleeba. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. It is a pleasure to testify before you today.
The U.S. Secret Service is not unlike any other local,
State or Federal law enforcement agency in that inherent in our
mission is an understanding that to effectively fulfill our
responsibilities, there exists the real probability of being
within harm's way.
Since 1997, there have been 81 assaults against Secret
Service special agents or Uniformed Division officers, 4 of
which involved a firearm and 14 involved other weapons. During
the same time period, there were 55 threats made against our
law enforcement personnel by what we refer to as protective
intelligence subjects. While some of the assaults and threats
directed against Secret Service personnel occurred during non-
protective criminal investigations, a significant percentage
involved subjects who were investigated due to their interest
in our protectees.
The subjects had either made a direct threat against, or
shown an inappropriate interest toward one of our protectees. A
large and significant percentage of those subjects that
threaten the President or others we protect are mentally ill.
Consequently, during the course of our interaction with these
individuals, they often develop an obsession, animosity, or
both, toward the agent or officer.
What makes the aforementioned cases unique is the very
thing that makes the Secret Service's mission unique--our duty
to protect the President, Vice President, presidential
candidates, and foreign heads of state. Our high-profile
mandate, as well as the status of those we protect, attracts a
variety of people with varying levels of animosity or
inappropriate interest directed toward both our protectees and
our personnel.
Individual agents, selected field offices, and the Secret
Service in general have been the targets of bomb threats,
stalking behavior, threatening letters, e-mail, and entire Web
sites. With the advent of the Internet, our agents have been
intimidated and have had their names, addresses, vehicle
descriptions, and even family members names' posted in
cyberspace.
Secret Service law enforcement personnel are encouraged to
protect their privacy and identities by following basic,
common-sense guidelines. Our field offices work with local
municipalities to delete agents' names and identifiers from
publicly available rosters, tax rolls, or Web sites.
Two defining moments in Secret Service history and
procedure occurred in the early 1980's. A mentally ill subject,
of record with the Service, appeared at the Denver Field
Office, confronted an agent with whom he had become familiar,
produced a handgun, and shot and killed Special Agent Perry
Watkins in the lobby of our field office. The subject was
subsequently shot and killed by another agent. In 1981, John
Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity after he
shot and wounded President Reagan and others, including a
Secret Service agent, in Washington, DC.
As a result of the Watkins case, all Secret Service offices
were equipped with secure entrances and bullet-resistant glass
barriers, and our policies and procedures were reviewed
regarding approaching and dealing with mentally or emotionally
unstable subjects.
The Hinckley case highlights how we, as law enforcement
professionals, greatly benefit by increasing our understanding
of and appreciation for the implications of mental illness on
our protective responsibilities. Therefore, the Secret Service
initiated an active and working relationship with the mental
health community. We also undertook an aggressive program to
train our agents to better understand, deal with, and assess
the mentally ill, and at the same time develop a cadre of
contracted mental health professionals in various regions of
the country to assist us in our protective intelligence
mission. This has been the genesis of our threat assessment
process for identifying, confronting, and managing potential
assassins.
Many times, a threat against the President is a cry for
help. Often, it is one of several threats made against other
public officials or even celebrities. How we as an agency
respond can range from arrest and prosecution to finding
psychological intervention for the subject.
When a special agent or Uniformed Division officer is the
target of a threat, the individual agent or officer is
notified, along with their supervisor, and if they are
currently assigned to a protective detail, the operational
detail is well briefed and alerted to the threat. In view of
our agency's mission, the response to a threat made against one
of our own is met with serious consideration and is fully
investigated.
In those instances wherein the subject's animosity is
broader or less focused, our notification process can be
expansive. We become responsible for alerting others whose
safety is potentially threatened and removing them from harm's
way, be they family, co-workers, acquaintances, or even public
officials. What is critical in the final analysis is
safeguarding our public officials, the men and women tasked
with this responsibility, and the public in general.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the
men and women of the Secret Service, I would like to express my
appreciation to you and the committee for the years of support
you have given to us and the law enforcement community.
This concludes my statement. I will now be available to
answer any questions that you or the committee may have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saleeba follows:]

Prepared Statement of David A. Saleeba

Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to testify before you today.
The United States Secret Service is not unlike any other local,
state, or federal law enforcement agency in that, inherent in our
mission, is an understanding that to effectively fulfill our
responsibilities, there exists the real probability of being within
harms' way.
Since 1997, there have been 81 assaults against Secret Service
special agents or Uniformed Division officers, 4 of which involved a
firearm, and 14 involved other weapons. During the same time period,
there were 55 threats made against our law enforcement personnel, by
what we refer to as protective intelligence subjects. While some of the
assaults and threats directed against Secret Service personnel occurred
during non-protective criminal investigations, a significant percentage
involved subjects who were investigated due to their interest in our
protectees. The subject had either made a direct threat against, or
shown an inappropriate interest towards, one of our protectees. A large
and significant percentage of those subjects that threaten the
President or the others we protect, are mentally ill. Consequently,
during the course of our interaction with these individuals, they often
develop an obsession, animosity, or both towards the agent or officer.
What makes the aforementioned cases unique is the very thing that
makes the Secret Service's mission unique, our duty to protect the
President, Vice President, presidential candidates, and foreign heads
of state. Our high profile mandate, as well as the status of those we
protect, attracts a variety of people with varying levels of animosity
or ``inappropriate interest'' directed towards both our protectees and
our personnel.
Individual agents, selected field offices and the Secret Service in
general, have been the targets of bomb threats, stalking behavior,
threatening letters, e-mail, and entire web sites. With the advent of
the Internet, our agents have been intimidated and have had their
names, addresses, vehicle descriptions, and even family members' names
posted in cyberspace.
Secret Service law enforcement personnel are encouraged to protect
their privacy and identities by following basic common sense
guidelines. Our field offices work with local municipalities to delete
agents' names and identifiers from publicly available rosters, tax
rolls, or web sites.
Two defining moments in Secret Service history and procedure
occurred in the early 1980's. A mentally ill subject, of record with
the Service, appeared at the Denver Field Office confronted an agent
with whom he had become familiar, produced a handgun, and shot and
killed Special Agent Perry Watkins in the lobby of our field office.
The subject was subsequently shot and killed by another agent. And in
1981, John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity after he
shot and wounded President Reagan and others, including a USSS agent,
in Washington, D.C.
As a result of the Watkins case, all Secret Service offices were
equipped with secure entrances and bullet resistant glass barriers, and
our procedures and policies were reviewed regarding approaching and
dealing with mentally or emotionally unstable subjects. The Hinckley
case highlights how we, as law enforcement professionals, greatly
benefit by increasing our understanding of, and appreciation for, the
implications of mental illness on our protective responsibilities.
Therefore, the Secret Service initiated an active and working
relationship with the mental health community. We also undertook an
aggressive program to train our agents to better understand, deal with
and assess the mentally ill, and, at the same time, develop a cadre of
contracted mental health professionals in various regions of the
country to assist us in our protective intelligence mission. This has
been the genesis of our threat assessment process for identifying,
confronting and managing potential assassins.
Many times, a threat against the President is a cry for help;
often, it is one of several threats made against other public officials
or even celebrities: How we as an agency respond can range from arrest
and prosecution, to finding psychological intervention for the subject.
When a special agent or Uniformed Division officer is the target of
a threat, the individual agent or officer is notified, along with their
supervisor, and if they are currently assigned to a protective detail,
the operational detail is well briefed and alerted to the threat. In
lieu of our agency's mission, the response to a threat made against one
of our own, is met with serious consideration and is fully
investigated. In those instances wherein the subject's animosity is
broader or less focused, our notification process can be expansive. We
become responsible for alerting others whose safety is potentially
threatened and removing them from harms' way, be they family, co-
workers, acquaintances or public officials.
What is critical in the final analysis is safeguarding our public
officials, the men and women tasked with this responsibility, and the
public in general.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will now be available
to answer any questions that you or the committee may have.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. VARRONE

Mr. Varrone. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. OMB has not had a chance to review our statement
yet. Can I ask that the record remain open until such time?
Senator Thurmond. Yes, we will keep the record open for a
reasonable time.
Mr. Varrone. Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
On behalf of Commissioner Kelly and the U.S. Customs Service,
it is my pleasure to appear before this committee to discuss
the law enforcement activities of the Customs Service, and in
particular our efforts regarding the critically important
subject of assaults and threats against Customs officers in
both our domestic and foreign offices.
As the Federal Government's primary law enforcement agency
charged with the protection of our land borders and ports of
entry, the U.S. Customs Service is responsible for the daily
processing of travelers, conveyances, and commercial cargo. On
a typical day, U.S. Customs officers process 1.3 million
passengers, over 341,000 vehicles, 45,000 trucks and
containers, 2,500 aircraft, and 550 vessels. This high volume
of activity results in daily interaction with numerous suspects
and/or criminal organizations who attempt to violate the laws
of the United States.
While the vast majority of commercial activity and law-
abiding travelers get processed without incident, there is a
small percentage who routinely attempt to violate our laws. On
an average day, Customs arrests 67 violators, effects of 115
narcotics and 12 currency seizures, and performs 143 other
enforcement actions. This enormous volume results in the daily
seizure of 3,925 pounds of narcotics and $1.2 million in U.S.
currency.
Over the past 5 years, our daily law enforcement
interaction has led to an increase in physical acts of violence
and threats to our officers. The increase in physical assaults
and unpredictability of these events is of paramount concern to
all Customs officers as well as the collective law enforcement
community.
As you are aware, the majority of our officers are both
uniformed and armed. Customs officers and agents represent the
first line of defense at our Nation's borders, and we should
not accept any level of violence directed at them. Together, we
must have zero tolerance for those who disregard the laws of
the United States.
Our mission requires that we must always be prepared for a
wide range of enforcement challenges that may occur at any
given moment during the course of our daily operations. The
range of activities can be anywhere from physical confrontation
pursuant to arrest, to bomb threats, or to the seizure of
highly volatile explosives, such as the recent case in Seattle,
WA. Customs field officers have reported 38 such bomb threats
thus far in fiscal year 2000.
Our officers must always remain vigilant against any person
or persons willing to inflict bodily harm in the pursuit of
their criminal activity. Our officers face the two-fold
challenge of protecting the American public while also
protecting themselves.
In addition to our work at the borders and ports of entry,
our agents routinely perform thousands of enforcement actions
pursuant to our investigative responsibilities, such as drug
control deliveries, arrests, and search warrants. Throughout
all of our enforcement endeavors, acts of violence against our
officers and agents have occurred with such increasing
regularity that very few situations are still being viewed as
routine.
In recent years, assaults and threats against our officers
have increased at an unprecedented rate. Since 1995, the number
of assaults against our officers has increased 33 percent,
while the number of threats received has increased 38 percent.
While these are the recorded events, we believe that that
number is even higher because many of our officers accept these
threats as part of their duty as law enforcement officers.
Since 1997, there have been more than 200 Federal arrests
for assaults on Customs officers. While many prosecutors have
vigorously pursued these cases, some have not. In response to
this less than 100-percent effort, Commissioner Kelly recently
forwarded a letter to the chairman of the U.S. Attorneys
Advisory Committee requesting their full cooperation in
pursuing Federal prosecution against those who attempt to do
physical harm to any Customs personnel. We believe that a more
consistent approach and commitment to these cases will also
have a deterrent effect.
As recently as March 9 of this year, Customs inspectors
shot and killed a drug smuggling suspect who was armed and
attempted to run down officers at a truck inspection station at
the Otay Mesa border crossing. We were all reminded just a few
weeks ago in Oklahoma City of the gravity of physical threat
and tragic death of law enforcement officers and innocent
civilians who suffered and died in the bombing of the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building. Among those who sacrificed their lives
there were Customs Special Agents Claude Medaris and Paul Ice.
The video which you will be seeing shortly graphically
depicts two very serious incidents. The first involves the
shooting of two of our inspectors at the Calexico port of entry
by an assailant, who in turn was shot and killed. The second
involves port runner activity along our Southwest border which
clearly places our employees and the traveling public in
extreme danger.
In response to this increasing threat, Commissioner Kelly
has undertaken proactive measures to ensure the operational
safety of all of our officers. Specifically, we have recently
transitioned to a lighter, more efficient pistol, have adopted
a national body armor policy to direct the procurement of body
armor for all our armed officers, have amended internal policy
to authorize our inspection officers to carry firearms while
off duty, and have recently issued shotguns along the Southwest
border where, as you are aware, cross-border violence is
escalating.
Lastly, we are currently modifying our in-service firearms
and tactical training program to allow for comprehensive
scenario-based training to better prepare our armed workforce,
as well as developing a 40-hour confrontational safety
awareness course for our foreign assigned personnel.
Customs officers know full well that they are very visible
along the borders and do stand in harm's way. Our concerns are
for the safety of the American public, the millions of people
that cross our borders each year, and our employees who are
America's front line. On behalf of the men and women of the
U.S. Customs Service, I wish to thank you for all your past
support and the opportunity to present to this committee a
brief overview of the increasing assaults and threats which
confront our law enforcement officers on a daily basis.
This concludes my remarks. With your permission, sir, I
would like to offer a short video presentation, after which I
would be glad to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Varrone follows:]

Prepared Statement of John C. Varrone

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. On behalf
of Commissioner Kelly and the United States Customs Service, it is my
pleasure to appear before this Committee to discuss the law enforcement
activities of the Customs Service, and, in particular, our efforts
regarding the critically important subject of assaults and threats
against Customs Officers in both our domestic and foreign offices.
As the Federal government's primary law enforcement agency charged
with the protection of our land borders and ports of entry, the U.S.
Customs Service is responsible for the daily processing of travelers,
conveyances and commercial cargo. On a typical day, U.S. Customs
officers process 1.3 million passengers, over 341,000 vehicles, 45,000
trucks and containers, 2,500 aircraft, and 550 vessels. This high
volume of activity results in the daily interaction with numerous
suspects and/or criminal organizations that attempt to violate the laws
of the United States. While the vast majority of commercial activity
and law abiding travelers get processed without incident there is a
small percentage who routinely attempt to violate our laws. On an
average day, Customs arrests 67 violators, effects 115 narcotics and 12
currency seizures, and performs 143 other enforcement actions. This
enormous volume results in the daily seizure of 3,925 pounds of
narcotics, 1.2 million in U.S. Currency, $368,000 in conveyances,
$24,000 in arms and munitions and $554,000 in commercial merchandise.
As my testimony today will demonstrate over the past 5 years, our
daily law enforcement interaction has led to an increase in physical
acts of violence and threats to our officers at an alarming rate. The
increase in physical assaults and unpredictability of these events is
of paramount concern to all Customs officers, as well as the collective
law enforcement community. As you are aware, the majority of our
officers are both uniformed and armed. Customs officers and agents
represent the first line of defense at our nation's borders and we
should not accept any level of violence directed at them. Together, we
must have ``zero tolerance'' for those who disregard the laws of the
United States.
U.S. Customs officers understand and accept that violent acts can
and do occur while carrying out their sworn duties. We are currently
developing a rigorous program aimed at providing our inspectors and
agents a high level of proficiency in law enforcement techniques. Such
training is critical not only for our Customs officers but also to the
men and women passing through our Ports of Entry. We are constantly
working on evaluating and improving our national enforcement training
programs.
Our mission requires that we must always be prepared for a wide
range of enforcement challenges that may occur at any given moment
during the course of our daily operations. The range of activities can
be from physical confrontation pursuant to arrest, bomb threats, or the
seizure of highly volatile explosives. Last December, Customs
inspectors in Port Angeles, Washington, seized large quantities of bomb
making materials including nitro glycerin and timing devices being
smuggled into the United States from Canada by Ahmed Ressam, an
individual with ties to an Algerian organization suspected of planning
terrorist attacks on millennium celebrations in the United States. One
can only speculate as to how many innocent lives would have been lost.
Recent activity indicates the stakes are rising. Customs field offices
have reported 38 bomb threats in this fiscal year. Our officers must
always remain vigilant against any person or persons willing to inflict
bodily harm in the pursuit of their criminal activity. Our officers
face the twofold challenge of protecting themselves while they protect
the American public.
In addition to our work at the borders and ports of entry, our
agents routinely perform thousands of enforcement actions, pursuant to
our investigative responsibilities, such as drug controlled deliveries,
arrest and search warrants. Throughout all of our enforcement
endeavors, acts of violence against our officers and agents have
occurred with such increasing regularity that very few situations are
still being viewed as routine.

ESCALATION OF THREATS OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS

In recent years assaults and threats against our officers have
increased at an unprecedented rate. Alarmingly, since 1995, the numbers
of assaults against our officers have increased 33%, while the number
of threats received has increased 38%. While these are the recorded
events, we believe that the number of events is higher, because many
officers accept that threats from those who we arrest is part of the
criminal culture, and that we are trained to handle any actual
occurrence; therefore many officer's may not report casual or routine
threats subsequent to arrest.
Customs enforcement personnel include, Inspectors, Special Agents,
Air Interdiction Officers, Marine Enforcement Officers, Customs Patrol
Officers, and Canine Enforcement Officers, all of whom have experienced
this rise in physical violence and related threat. There has even been
an increase in assaults on our contraband-detector dogs.
Since 1997, there have been more than 200 federal arrests for
assaults on Customs Officers. While many prosecutors have vigorously
pursued these cases, some have not. In response to this less than 100%
effort, Commissioner Kelly recently forwarded a letter to the Chairman
of the U.S. Attorneys advisory committee requesting their full
cooperation in pursuing Federal prosecution against those who attempt
to do physical harm to any Customs personnel. We believe that a more
consistent approach and commitment to prosecuting these cases is
critical to ensure the safety of Customs officers and will have a
deterrent effect on future acts of violence against them.

VIOLENT ASSAULTS

Our officers have been assaulted while inspecting the holds of
commercial vessels, when conducting interviews and interrogations, and
in performance of undercover, and drug enforcement operations. Port
running, is still a grave threat. As recently, as March 9, 2000 Customs
Inspectors shot and killed a drug-smuggling suspect who was armed and
attempted to run down officers at a truck inspection area at the Otay
Mesa border crossing.
In perhaps the worst example in the history of the United States of
violence against law enforcement personnel, two Customs officers were
killed. Just a few weeks ago in Oklahoma City, we were all reminded of
the tragic death of law enforcement officers and innocent civilians who
died in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building. Among
those who sacrificed their lives were Customs Special Agents Claude
Medaris and Paul Ice.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide you with two examples of
recent incidents where assaults of our officers took place. In the
first example, a routine undercover money laundering operation suddenly
went awry when the primary suspects, who were in the process of
delivering a large amount of drug money to our undercover agents,
orchestrated a robbery attempt of the drug proceeds. A brief gun battle
ensured on a busy street corner in New York City, which resulted in our
undercover agent getting shot. When it was over, one Customs undercover
agent lay wounded, and one of the suspects lay dead in the parking lot.
The second incident occurred at an Inspection Station at a Port of
Entry located at Calexico, California. An Inspector brought an
individual into the office for what he believed was going to be a
routine pat down search. That person, who was in his seventies,
suddenly drew a 9mm pistol, and shot one Inspector in the chest and
another in the face. Incredibly, our officers who were fired upon
without warning were able to return fire, killing the suspect. The
subsequent search of the suspect's vehicle disclosed approximately 100
pounds of marijuana.

EFFORTS TO STEM VIOLENCE

In response to this increasing threat, Customs has under taken
proactive measures to ensure the operational safety of our officers.
Specifically, we have recently transitioned to a lighter, more
efficient pistol, which offers enhanced magazine capacity and
reliability. We have adopted a National Body Armor Policy to direct the
procurement of body armor for all our armed officers. We have amended
internal policy to authorize our inspectional officers to carry
firearms while off duty, and have recently issued shotguns along the
Southwest Border where as you are aware cross border violence is
escalating. Lastly, we are currently modifying our In-Service Firearms
and Tactical Training program to allow for comprehensive, scenario-
based training to better prepare our armed workforce.
In response to the increasing threat of physical violence to our
officers who are based at foreign posts, we are developing a 40-hour
Confrontational Safety Awareness course. This training will be provided
to our personnel before they depart for their foreign post, to prepare
them for the potential threats that they may encounter while overseas.
We have also developed new policy guidelines to coordinate with the
respective United States Attorney on each and every incident of
assaults on Customs officers.
Please allow me to reiterate, it's a top priority to U.S. Customs
to have these assault cases prosecuted to ensure the safety of Custom's
officers and the traveling public.

EFFECT OF OVERSEAS ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON ASSAULTS/THREATS ON OUR
AGENTS/INSPECTORS

Because so many of our officers work and live on our nation's
borders, we must be concerned about the alarming number of threats
directed against law enforcement as a result of our international
efforts to stem the flow of narcotics across our nations borders.
The U. S. Southwest border and by association, U.S. Customs, is
being subjected to spillover incidents associated with the violence in
Mexico. While many of these incidents are random, we are increasingly
concerned that there may be a more concerted, organized and systematic
attempt at targeting the U.S. Customs Service and intimidating our
officers. Recent anti-terrorism enforcement efforts along the Northern
Border create similar concerns there.
We are cognizant that threats directed at U.S. Customs and other
law enforcement officers are occurring with increasing frequency and
regularity. The United States Customs Service is in continuous contact
with other federal law enforcement and intelligence community agencies,
maintaining constant communication in an effort to detect any evidence
of threats against Custom's officers.
Whenever a suspected threat is made regarding any law enforcement
officer--whether it be a Federal, State or local office along the
borders of the United States, the information is distributed to all
Customs Officers, Inspectors, Special Agents, Canine Officers, and
employees. Many times, this information has come from the Drug
Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and numerous other intelligence
sources. We in turn, notify the rest of the federal law enforcement and
intelligence community agencies should we discover any information
concerning such threats.

CLOSING

Our Customs Officers know, that because they are visible along the
border, they stand in harms way. Changes we have made to our firearm
policy, our use of force continuum, our defensive tactics training, and
our equipment, reflect the emphasis we place on officer safety.
On behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Customs Service, I thank
you for all your past support, and the opportunity to present to this
Committee a brief overview of the increasing assaults and threats which
confront our law enforcement officers on a daily basis.
This concludes my remarks. With your permission, I would like to
offer a short video presentation, after which I will be glad to answer
any questions you may have.

Senator Thurmond. I am going to call on Senator Sessions
next, but we have a video first I would like to show.
[Videotape shown.]
Senator Thurmond. Senator Sessions, do you have a statement
you want to make?

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA

Senator Sessions. Well, I just want to say that film was
silent, but that was a very, very important video and I thank
you for sharing it with us because I believe it shows, Mr.
Chairman, how a routine event can turn in a split second into
an event in which death can occur. Everyday, our law
enforcement officers are out on the scene dealing with people,
statistically speaking, who are far more dangerous than the
people we go to church with or work with every day. They are
out by themselves. They are subjected to the risk of serious,
life-threatening injuries and death, and we need to back them
up.
I will just say this. The thing that disturbs me most about
what I have seen in the hearing so far is the lack of
prosecution that sometimes occurs. I was a Federal prosecutor,
a U.S. attorney for 12 years, and I took the view that anybody
who physically assaulted or threatened a law officer, if they
were prosecutable under law, they were prosecuted.
I think we need to send a message to that effect that
nobody is going to assault Federal law enforcement officers
doing their duty under the law. They are out by themselves
frequently, just one or two. They are outnumbered, and we
cannot allow that to happen. So I think we need to look at that
pretty seriously and maybe demand, Mr. Chairman, ultimately
that the Department of Justice do a review of this and report
to us, because there are some indications that I have seen here
that the Department is not prosecuting them.
Thank you for calling this hearing and for letting these
great Federal investigative agents testify about this important
subject.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, you can answer this starting on this end going
down. Are threats and assaults against Federal law enforcement
officials on the rise? If so, would you say that criminals are
becoming more violent in their actions and more willing to use
force against law enforcement officials?
Mr. Stephens. The FBI views it that the threats are on the
rise and that there is a sense that the criminals are more
prone to use violence against our agents and against Federal
law enforcement in general.
Senator Sessions. Even though general crime is down, the
threat against agents----
Mr. Stephens. Even though general crime is down. Although
crime is down, we are out there responding everyday. Our
mission has broadened somewhat. I mentioned earlier about the
extraterritoriality, also our anti-violence initiatives,
participating with local officers in non-traditional FBI-type
investigations, which provides more opportunity for us to
confront desperate people who do desperate things.
Mr. Ledwith. Yes, sir, and DEA would concur with that
assessment both in the international area, where we see many
countries in which DEA agents serve as increasingly violent,
and there is an increase domestically in violence against
police. Only last night, in Texas, DEA agents working
undercover were confronted by an armed defendant, and the
surveillance team entered the room and shot the defendant to
death to protect the other agents. So, yes, we see an increase
in violence against Federal law enforcement and against law
enforcement in general.
Mr. Saleeba. Yes, I would concur with my colleagues. We are
seeing an increase in assaults and general resistance to arrest
against our Federal agents and officers, I think, reflecting an
arrogance, if not a lack of respect on the part of the public
toward Federal law enforcement.
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, I completely agree with my
colleagues here. I believe statistically the numbers are up,
but I also believe that there is a large percentage that goes
unreported. I believe that there are many instances where, just
by being a law enforcement officer, you believe that you will
be subjected to some type of resistance from arrestees, and
there seems to be some tolerance for that.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Ledwith, has the rise of violent drug
cartel organizations in Mexico led to an increase in threats
against Federal law enforcement officials here in the United
States?
Mr. Ledwith. Yes, sir, particularly along the Southwest
border. In fairness to the Government of Mexico, it has led to
significant threats and violent acts against government
officials of Mexico also, sir.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Ledwith, what sorts of threats and
dangers do Federal agents working in foreign countries face and
which nations are the most dangerous?
Mr. Ledwith. Well, sir, we, working alongside our
colleagues in these countries, face particularly different
threats. Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey come to mind in that part
of the world; in this part of the world, particularly, Mexico
and Colombia, sir. The brave police officers of those
particular countries face threats every day, and DEA agents
working alongside of them are equally threatened.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Ledwith, what, if any, protections
are we giving personnel posted overseas and howquickly can we
come to their aid should they be threatened?
Mr. Ledwith. Well, sir, we are in the process of drawing up
additional plans to come immediately to their aid, with the
assistance of my colleagues, some of whom are at this table. We
are in the process of developing better plans to do that.
One of the principal things that governments in which
Federal law enforcement personnel work overseas would be to
assist with appropriate levels of diplomatic immunity. In
Mexico, for instance, only our country attache is given full
diplomatic immunity. The rest of our agents who work in the
field everyday alongside their Mexican colleagues are only
afforded consular protection, which is the lowest level of
diplomatic immunity available and does not adequately protect
our people.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Ledwith, I am very concerned about
the ability of agents who are posted overseas being able to
protect themselves. More specifically, there are nations which
are uncooperative when it comes to allowing our agents to carry
weapons for protection.
Are your agents given diplomatic immunity and allowed to
carry weapons in countries like Mexico?
Mr. Ledwith. No, sir, they are not. Of particular concern
is Mexican diplomatic immunity, in which, as I just previously
mentioned, Senator, we are afforded only the very least, the
minimal protection available under the diplomatic immunity
laws.
Senator Thurmond. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
I believe, Mr. Varrone, you said there was a 33-percent
increase in assaults or threats on your agents last year?
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, 33 percent in assaults, 38 percent
in threats.
Senator Sessions. And that is 1 year's time?
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, 1 year.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Stephens, do you have any numbers
overall on the increase of assaults on Federal law officers?
Mr. Stephens. No, sir, I do not, not overall.
Senator Sessions. What about the FBI? Do you know what they
are this year?
Mr. Stephens. They have been fairly constant this year.
Some of the incidents involving the use of deadly force have
increased. Fortunately, in the past 3 or 4 years, of the 52
incidents where we deployed deadly force, no FBI agent were
injured. Only the subjects were injured.
Senator Sessions. Now, I believe it was Mr. Varrone that
indicated, or Mr. Saleeba, that there was a lack of respect for
the office of a law enforcement officer; I guess that is State
and Federal. Do you think aggressive prosecutions help
establish that, and that the word goes out eventually in the
criminal community that if you threaten or harm a law officer
that you are going to face big time in jail and a serious
prosecution? Do you think that is a factor in protecting law
officers?
Mr. Stephens. Absolutely. I believe also the agency's
concern and support for its personnel out there doing the job
is equally important.
Senator Sessions. What about you, Mr. Ledwith? Do you think
aggressive law enforcement is a factor in helping the word get
out in the criminal element that one thing you don't do is to
harm a law officer?
Mr. Ledwith. Yes, sir, I enthusiastically endorse that, and
in the United States that is a very accurate threat against the
crooks who would consider this kind of activity. I am far more
concerned with it in the international arena, where our ability
to extradite or our ability to effectively prosecute is
diminished. And I think that U.S. Government needs to be
prepared to speak with as many voices as possible in the
international community that we will not condone that kind of
violence against our men and women stationed overseas either.
Senator Sessions. Well, it seems to me that if the country
welcomes these agents and allows them to be there and asks for
them to be there, they have an obligation to protect them.
Mr. Saleeba, do you agree on the question of aggressive
prosecution?
Mr. Saleeba. Yes, Senator, I do. I feel that with more
aggressive prosecution, you would see a greater respect and
less resistance to arrest. I think the expectation of a
criminal or a subject that is confronted on the street that he
will not ever see the inside of a courtroom is very real, so it
lends itself toward that arrogance.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Varrone, would you comment on that?
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, I do. The example I would use is
that I don't think anywhere in this country you could push a
local police officer, put your hands on a local police officer
and push him or her and not expect to be arrested. I think that
is a pretty fair standard and I think that should be the
Federal standard as well.
Senator Sessions. I am sure that is true in some areas. I
remember one time a Corps of Engineers resource manager who
managed a park way away from everybody, a rural area park, and
a person got drunk and hit him. It wasn't serious, but I
prosecuted that. I wanted them to know. Some people said, oh,
he didn't mean that. I said, well, I have these people a
hundred miles from the nearest Federal law officer. They are
out there by themselves. Nobody is going to push them around
that doesn't go to court in my district. I really believe that
and I think it does make a difference.
I was interested, Mr. Varrone, in the Commissioner's
message. This is what I have, and I believe this was done March
31 of this year. He wrote this: ``Since 1997, there have been
more than 200 arrests for Federal assaults on Customs officers.
In some districts, assaults are vigorously prosecuted. In
others, they are not, and prosecutions are routinely declined.
Our record of pursuing felony charges against those who have
assaulted Customs officers has been uneven. This is
unacceptable. Our officers today are striving to enhance the
level of professionalism with which they interact with the
traveling public. Likewise, the traveling public must respect
the authority vested in our officers.''
He goes on to say, ``I recently sent a letter to the
chairman of the U.S. Attorney General's Advisory Committee.''
That is 94 U.S. attorneys and they have a committee they elect
called the Advisory committee. So he sent a letter to the
chairman of that committee, and he said, ``asking for their
cooperation in pursuing prosecution against those who attempt
to do physical harm to our personnel. I requested that the
Attorney General's office join with us in sending a strong
message that violence against Customs officers will not be
tolerated.''
Are you aware, Mr. Varrone, of what action may have been
taken to date on that?
Mr. Varrone. I am generally aware that our prosecutions are
up. I don't know case by case, but I know internally we have
created a tracking system to track each and every case, even if
it gets referred for State prosecution, to ensure that if we
are dissatisfied with any of those lack-of-action type
activities that the Commissioner will go on record.
I also have a copy with me of the letter that the
Commissioner has sent to the Honorable Mark T. Calloway, who is
the chairman of the U.S. attorneys, sir.
Senator Sessions. Would you offer that for the record?
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, I would be glad to.
[The letter referred to follows:]

U.S. Customs Service,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2000.
Hon. Mark T. Calloway,
U.S. Attorney, Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte, NC.
Dear Mr. Calloway: Customs Inspectors and Special Agents constitute
law enforcement's frontline at the Nation's borders. Their hard work in
investigating and interdicting the flow of illegal drugs makes them
daily targets for smugglers, and potential smugglers, at every one of
our 301 air, sea, and land ports.
Since 1997, there have been more than 200 federal arrests for
assaults on Customs employees. In some districts, assaults on Customs
officers are vigorously prosecuted. Unfortunately, other districts
attach little importance to these cases; and prosecutions are routinely
declined.
I appreciate the wide discretion traditionally given to the United
States Attorneys in establishing prosecution guidelines. I also
understand that busy districts may hesitate to use scarce prosecutive
resources on such assault cases. In districts where assault cases are
accepted or declined by the duty Assistant United States Attorney,
moreover, the decision may be made without clear guidelines or a full
understanding of a adverse impact the declination will have on the
Customs workforce.
I ask that you place the issue of prosecuting assaults on Customs
officers on the agenda of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee and
bring this matter to the Attorney General's attention at your earliest
opportunity. In our view, there should be uniform treatment of these
cases: an assault on a Customs Inspector in Blaine, Washington, should
be prosecuted by the same standard as an assault in Miami, Florida.
Moreover, we believe that the decision to accept or decline prosecution
should be made by the criminal chief or first assistant, not the duty
assistant. Adopting these measures will go far towards supporting the
Customs workforce in its difficult and dangerous job.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. My staff and I stand
ready to provide you with any information or assistance you may need.
Yours truly,
Raymond W. Kelly,
Commissioner.

Senator Sessions. What about the Attorney General? Do you
know if there has been a response received from the Attorney
General yet on that?
Mr. Varrone. I believe there have been discussions. There
were discussions and the Commissioner has let it be known of
his position on these issues. I don't know the specific
response, sir.
Senator Sessions. Well, isn't it true with regard to
Customs officers particularly, and INS officers, Border Patrol,
that they are particularly vulnerable? They are on ships or
docks one or two at a time and could easily be overwhelmed by
numbers and are pretty vulnerable. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, very much.
Senator Sessions. And would you agree that it would be a
very bad thing if we ever were to leave the impression that
violence against Federal officers would be treated anything
other than with the most vigorous prosecution?
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to work on
that. Maybe some of these U.S. attorneys just are not
experienced in law enforcement, and I know a lot of them
aren't, as a matter of fact, and don't understand this
principle very well. I think we need to make sure the Attorney
General is exerting her leadership to ensure that these cases
are prosecuted. I am very troubled by that.
I have to mention one more, if you will give me 1 second. I
was late coming in, Mr. Stephens. Did you read the example in
your written remarks of the assault on the FBI agent that did
not get prosecuted? It is on page 10, I believe, or 11.
Mr. Stephens. The Indianapolis incident?
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. That is a troubling thing to me. Has
anything happened to date since you have written this about
that case?
Mr. Stephens. We issued a strong letter to the U.S.
attorney regarding his opinion as to whether he could sustain a
prosecution for assault. I don't think we prevailed on that.
Senator Sessions. So they still have declined to prosecute
a case in which agents armed with a warrant--two rounds were
fired at them, almost striking one of them in the head.
Mr. Stephens. Well, the U.S. attorney's opinion was that
the subject was acting in self-defense, protecting his home
from unknown people.
Senator Sessions. Well, the FBI announces what it is doing
before it enters.
Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. That is standard procedure. I don't
believe there is any FBI agent or any other Federal or State
officer that would enter without announcing who they are on a
search warrant.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Thurmond. Gentlemen, can any of you think of a
nation where the danger posed to the safety of an agent
outweighs the benefits of having them posted there?
Mr. Stephens. No, sir.
Mr. Ledwith. No, sir, I would not say that.
Mr. Saleeba. No, sir.
Mr. Varrone. No, sir.
Senator Thurmond. You have all answered no.
Gentlemen, I have heard reports of bounties being offered
for Federal agents serving on the Southwest border. I have also
heard reports of bounties being offered for canines that are
particularly effective in detecting narcotics. Are these
allegations true, and do bounties offered for canines include a
bounty for the dog's handler?
Mr. Stephens. From the FBI's perspective, I have heard, and
we have collected intelligence, that there are bounties or
incentives offered to people. To date, nobody has acted on it.
We have taken some very strong preemptive measures to prevent
that, but we are concerned that the Southwest border escalation
of violence internally in the northern portion of Mexico
against their own law enforcement people bodes ill for
potential ramifications for our personnel working hand-in-hand
with these people.
Mr. Ledwith. Sir, from DEA's perspective, the answer is
yes, there have been bounties offered for Federal law
enforcement people. But as my colleague just stated, it is
particularly germane to the Southwest border area, and we are
increasingly concerned about the boldness of the traffickers
and the violence and the fact that they are able to so
successfully utilize this violence to intimidate Mexican
federal law enforcement officials and kill those who are not
cooperative. So, yes, sir, we are generally concerned.
Mr. Saleeba. Yes, sir, I agree with that. The Secret
Service and the intelligence community in general has been
aware for some time of an existing bounty directed against
Federal law enforcement officers doing work along the Southwest
border and in Mexico. And that information has been passed
along to all our agents and other agencies.
Mr. Varrone. Yes, sir, we routinely share the information
if it is threats against Federal officers or State and local on
the Southwest border. And by virtue of having a large workforce
on the Southwest border, Customs officers and canine officers--
and, in fact, in one case theyput a bounty on one of our
canines, named Crowbar, who had much success in identifying shipments
of marijuana that were coming through San Ysidro, CA.
So, yes, we do experience it and we do respond to each one
of these threats seriously. Some of the counter-measures, if
you will--the shotguns, the pistol changes, and the internal
policies--are some of the measures which the Commissioner has
implemented to address them.
Senator Thurmond. Mr. Varrone, would a law criminalizing
the injuring or killing of police animals be helpful in
protecting your canines?
Mr. Varrone. Well, I don't think at this time it is
necessary because we haven't had one instance of it. I can say
that we take all those threats seriously, whether it be against
our officers or canines, and when it is proven, substantiated,
we either move them to another area or provide them additional
protection. I don't know that we necessarily need a law to
protect the dogs.
Senator Thurmond. Now, I have a question for all of you.
How does your agency keep track of assaults and threats made
against your personnel, and is any part of the Government
responsible for keeping statistics concerning assaults against
Federal law enforcement personnel?
Mr. Stephens. We don't do an adequate job of keeping track
of assaults on our own personnel. We have had some internal
reorganization regarding privacy issues and the employee
assistance program which in the short term has kind of
prevented our ability to specifically track assaults on our
personnel. But we do track serious assaults, use of deadly
force, armed confrontations, and we track those for training
purposes to adjust the techniques we use and the tools we use
and to make modifications and changes along those lines.
Mr. Ledwith. Yes, sir, DEA does track assaults against its
agents or any other personnel employed by DEA. Our Inspections
Service does that, and we also track assaults against our
cooperating sources, our informants.
Senator Thurmond. Senator Sessions, I am in full agreement
with your active interest in this hearing, and thank you for
it. U.S. attorney should prosecute assaults against Federal
officers, and I intend to write a letter to Attorney General
Reno regarding this matter.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I think that would be a good
idea, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thurmond. And thank you for your fine
participation.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask one more question. Could I do that before we finish?
Senator Thurmond. Sure.
Senator Sessions. I appreciate the comments about police
officers, Mr. Ledwith, in Mexico and Colombia. Do you have the
numbers of how many of those have been killed in recent years,
any numbers in Mexico and Colombia, out trying to enforce drug
laws in those countries?
Mr. Ledwith. Well, sir, during the 3 years that I spent in
Colombia from 1992 to 1995 during the Pablo Escobar-Cali cartel
time, the Colombian National Police lost in excess of 300 men
and women per year, many of whom were hunted down and actually
assassinated. The government of Mexico is suffering terrible
losses at this time with their federal officials being
assassinated and murdered.
There is a difference that I should point out. In the
United States, many times we do lose police officers and we do
lose agents, usually in an armed confrontation, very seldom in
a cold, calculated assassination, and this is what we see
occurring in Mexico, Colombia, and many other nations
throughout the world.
Senator Sessions. Well said. Have you seen anything that
would indicate to you that that might be spreading across the
border?
Mr. Ledwith. Sir, there is intelligence indicating that
that may very well spread across the border from Mexico.
Senator Sessions. I guess the bounties, in a way, are
similar to that kind of circumstance.
Mr. Ledwith. Yes, sir, and the increasing boldness with
which the traffickers in that part of Mexico are operating, the
frequency with which they are assassinating police officers who
are attempting to investigate them--I am deeply concerned that
this may spread across the border.
Senator Sessions. Well, I believe that a number of things
have been done that have been effective. I know the violent
crime task forces, Mr. Stephens--the FBI, with DEA and Customs
and the Secret Service in Mobile, AL, has participated in
those. I believe those help break up violent gangs. I believe
the tough Federal drug laws have allowed us to prosecute and
collapse whole organizations.
Would you agree, Mr. Ledwith, based on your experience,
that if you allow a drug-dealing gang to continue unmolested
for years, it gets bigger, wealthier, and more violent and more
dangerous?
Mr. Ledwith. There is absolutely no question. If allowed to
operate with impunity, they become exceptionally dangerous,
powerful, and are something we have to prevent no matter how we
do it.
Senator Sessions. I was reading an article recently about
an individual involved in 14 murders as part of a gang. That
was here in Washington, was it not?
Mr. Ledwith. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. I remember a major cocaine distribution
ring that was arrested in Mobile, AL, and I believe six or more
had been involved previously in murders and were out on parole
or had served their time. DEA is confronting that pretty
directly on a daily basis. The people that are serious, big-
time drug dealers often have a history of violent crime,
wouldn't you agree, Mr. Ledwith?
Mr. Ledwith. Absolutely. This is my 32nd year in this
business. In the old days, the method of violence was a
beating. Today, the method of violence is murder. We have seen
a significant escalation and we have seen many, many criminal
enterprises, both within the United States and external to the
United States, utilize murder, cold-blooded assassinations, as
a method of enforcing their will.
Senator Sessions. Would you agree that, for example, when
Miami had gotten so out of control and they were using the MAC-
11's and automatic weapons, that intensive and aggressive
investigation and prosecution of that violence in Miami and
making it clear that any kind of shooting like that was going
to be aggressively prosecuted--people would receive life
without parole type sentences--that that helped break the back
of the violence in Miami?
Mr. Ledwith. Absolutely, sir. There is no question that
effective law enforcement and swift and severe prosecutions are
the best way to deal with that kind of violence.
Senator Sessions. I say that because sometimes people don't
think that what we do in law enforcement makes any difference,
but there are examples after examples after examples where
effective teamwork of Federal, State and local agencies have
changed the climate of criminality in a community.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that we have got
twice as many people in jail today as we did in 1990 is a major
factor in the declining murder rate. If you allow these people
that are out shooting people to continue to be on the street,
they are going to continue to shoot people. I think every State
in America is toughening up their laws with regard to violent
crime, and we certainly need to be particularly vigilant in
protecting our law enforcement officers.
I know you respect them. There is no Senator in this body
who has done more--as a matter of fact, you have done more to
protect and enforce the laws in these United States than any
Senator I know.
The chairman was the leading spokesman for the Sentencing
Guidelines and the mandatory sentences. Senator Thurmond led
the battle for that and helped that commission get started. He
was a leader in the tough Federal bail laws which makes the
Federal system in many ways superior to others. The ability to
deny bail to dangerous felons who are a risk of flight and the
tough Federal gun laws and the mandatory sentences for people
who use firearms all came during the years that the chairman
led this committee and chaired it.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this
hearing.
Senator Thurmond. Senator Sessions, I want to thank you for
your effective participation in this hearing. You are always
very helpful in what you do and we appreciate your good work.
Now, I would like to place a statement by Senator Leahy and
a statement by Senator Schumer in the record, if there is no
objection.
[The prepared statements of Senators Leahy and Schumer
follow:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator From the
State of Vermont

I welcome all the witnesses to this hearing. We need to do a better
job of supporting our Federal law enforcement officers and our State
and local law enforcement officers and recognizing the conditions under
which they serve. This is National Police Week. Yesterday marked the
National Peace Officers' Memorial Service in which we remembered
another 139 Federal, State and local officers who died in the line of
duty. I thank Senator Thurmond and Senator Schumer for proceeding with
this hearing and offer these thoughts on a number of matters of
importance to law enforcement.

POLITICAL LEADERS SHOULD NOT USE EXTREME RHETORIC AGAINST OUR FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

As someone who served in law enforcement for eight years as the
Chittenden County State's Attorney, I empathize with, respect and
admire those who devote their careers to public safety. I took issue
with the extreme rhetoric that some have used recently to attack our
Federal law enforcement officers who helped return Elian Gonzalez to
his father.
For example, one of the Republican leaders in the House of
Representatives was quoted as calling the officers of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the
U.S. Marshals Service ``jack-booted thugs.'' And the Mayor of New York
City called these dedicated public servants ``storm troopers.'' This
extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal law enforcement
officers in the eyes of the public.
Let none of us in the Congress, or those seeking to serve in
Congress, contribute to an atmosphere of disrespect for law enforcement
officers. No matter what your opinion of the law enforcement action in
South Florida, we should all agree that these law enforcement officers
were following orders and putting their lives on the line, which they
do everyday. Let us treat law enforcement officers with the respect
that enables officers to preserve the peace and protect the public.
This harsh rhetoric by Republican public officials reminds me of
similar harsh rhetoric used by the National Rifle Association. In April
1995, Wayne La Pierre, Vice President of the NRA, sent a fund-raising
letter to NRA members calling Federal law enforcement officers ``jack-
booted thugs'' who wear ``Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper
uniforms.'' Mr. La Pierre was apparently referring to Federal Bureau of
Investigation and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents
involved in law enforcement actions in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and at the
Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
President George Bush, who was correctly outraged by this NRA
rhetoric, promptly resigned from the NRA in protest. At the time in
1995, President Bush wrote to the NRA: ``Your broadside against Federal
agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor. * * * It
indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement
officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the
line for all of us.'' I praised President Bush for his actions in 1995
and again recently.
President Bush was right. This harsh rhetoric of calling Federal
law enforcement officers ``jack-booted thugs'' and ``storm troopers''
should offend our sense of decency and honor. It is highly offensive
and did not belong in any public debate on the reunion of Elian
Gonzalez with his father, either. We are fortunate to have dedicated
women and men throughout Federal law enforcement in this country who do
a tremendous job in the most difficult of circumstances. They are
examples of the hard-working public servants that make up the Federal
government, who are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. These
are people with children and parents and friends. They deserve our
respect, not personal insults.
In countless incidents across the country everyday, Federal law
enforcement officers, who are sworn to protect the public and enforce
the law, are in danger. These law enforcement officers deserve our
thanks and our respect. They do not deserve to be called ``jack-booted
thugs'' and ``storm troopers.''
I went to the Senate floor in the wake of those comments to join
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association in condemning these
insults against our nation's law enforcement officers. Any public
official who used this harsh rhetoric owes our Federal law enforcement
officers an apology. I regret that members of the majority party have
not followed President Bush's example and condemned this extreme
rhetoric.

S. 2413, BULLETPROOF VEST GRANT PARTNERSHIP ACT

This week is an annual occasion in which we pause to remember the
Federal, State and local officers who gave their lives in the line of
duty over the past year. It is a difficult week and an important week.
It should be a productive week, as well.
I said last week at the Judiciary Committee Business Meeting that
the committee should be taking up and reporting S. 2413, the bill that
I introduced with Senator Campbell and Senator Hatch to improve our
Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act by reauthorizing the program for
another three years, raising the annual appropriation to $50 million
and guaranteeing to jurisdictions with populations less than 100,000 a
fair share of these resources. This program hasbeen very helpful in
offering Federal assistance to help protect State and local officers in
concrete ways. It is an extraordinarily successful program and it
should be extended and expanded. I thank President Clinton for his
support and for calling for enactment of this measure during his
remarks at the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service yesterday. I
hope that when the Committee meets later this week, Senator Hatch will
see fit to include this measure on the agenda and that the Committee
will act favorably on it.
In addition, I look forward to enacting additional measures that
protect and assist State and local law enforcement. In particular, I
was extremely disappointed last year when an anonymous Republican
objection prevented S. 521, my bill to improve the Bulletproof Vest
Grant Partnership Act, from passing. This bill would allow the Attorney
General to waive or reduce the matching fund requirement for assisting
poor and rural law enforcement units to provide this life-saving
equipment to officers and prevent injury and death. I cannot understand
why anyone would want to oppose that effort.

S. 1360, SECRET SERVICE PROTECTIVE PRIVILEGE ACT

Despite their statements a couple of years ago, bemoaning the
misguided efforts of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to compel Secret
Service agents to answer questions about what may have observed or
overheard while protecting the life of the President, the majority has
taken no action to correct this situation.
Few national interests are more compelling than protecting the life
of the President of the United States. The Supreme Court has said that
the nation has ``an overwhelming interest in protecting the safety of
its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without
interference from threats of physical violence.'' [Watts v. United
States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969).] What is at stake is not merely the
safety of one person--it is the ability of the executive branch to
function in an effective and orderly fashion, and the capacity of the
United States to respond to threats and crises. Think of the shock
waves that rocked the world in November 1963 when President Kennedy was
assassinated. The assassination of a president has international
repercussions and threatens the security and future of the entire
nation.
The threat to our national security and to our democracy extends
beyond the life of the president to those in direct line of the office
of the president--the Vice President, the president-elect, and the Vice
President elect. By Act of Congress, these officials are required to
accept the protection of the Secret Service--they may not turn it down.
This statutory mandate reflects the critical importance that Congress
has attached to the physical safety of these officials.
Congress has also charged the Secret Service with responsibility
for protecting visiting heads of foreign states and foreign
governments. The assassination of a foreign head of state on American
soil could be catastrophic from a foreign relations standpoint and
could seriously threaten national security.
That is why I introduced the Secret Service Protective Privilege
Act (S. 1360) last year to enhance the Secret Service's ability to
protect these officials, and the nation, from the risk of
assassination. It would do this by facilitating the relationship of
trust between these officials and their Secret Service protectors that
is essential to the Service's protective strategy. I am disappointed
that the majority has paid no attention to this matter of national
security.

S. 39, PUBLIC SAFETY MEDAL OF VALOR ACT

Finally, I am disappointed that the Congress has not taken final
action on the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act (S. 39) championed by
Senator Stevens. The awarding of a medal for extraordinary valor shown
by law enforcement officers every year would be a good way to draw
attention to the service provided every day by officers all across this
country. That bill passed the Senate a year ago by unanimous consent. I
cosponsored the bill along with 28 others. For the past year, the House
has not found the time to pass it. Yesterday, the President announced
that he will explore ways to proceed to honor valor by our public
safety officers through executive action if Congress continues to stall
action on this bill. I hope that Congress will finally act on S. 39
this week and send it to the President for his signature.
s. 1638, educational benefits to dependents of law enforcement officers
I had urged the Senate, at long last, to take action on S. 1638, a
bill this Committee reported last February to extend educational
benefits retroactively to the families of law enforcement officers
killed in the line of duty before 1992. The effort on that bill has
been led by Senators Ashcroft and Robb. I support extending educational
assistance benefits to the families of public safety officers who died
in the line of duty. I supported those efforts when we acted for
Federal officers' families back in 1996 and when we extended those
benefits to State and local officers' families in 1998.
A number of us joined with Senator Specter and Senator Kohl back in
1996 to pass the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act. I
recall that Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator
Thurmond, Senator Grassley, Senator Simpson and Senator Hatch
cosponsored that effort, as well. Our efforts grew out of the Ruby
Ridge investigation that was led by Senators Specter and Kohl and our
common concern to help the family of U.S. Marshal Bill Degan and the
families of other Federal officers killed in the line of duty.
At that time we were unable to gain the consensus needed to
authorize these education benefits to State and local law enforcement
officers. Some thought that would cost too much.
We came back in 1997 and 1998 and were able to pass the Public
Safety Officers Educational Benefits Assistance Act to extend those
benefits to State and local public safety officers. We were led in this
effort by Senators Specter and Biden and, again, a number of members of
this Committee cosponsored that effort--I recall in particular, Senator
Kennedy, Senator Durbin and Senator Abraham.
We were told in February that the estimated cost of this expansion
would be $125 million. Since then we have received a significantly
revised estimate from the CBO greatly diminishing the estimated costs.
I do not know whether CBO was wrong in February or is wrong now, but I
commend Senator Ashcroft and all the sponsors of this measure for their
willingness to make this investment and authorize these payments.
I have asked whether we would do better if instead of moving the
eligibility dates back approximately between 14 and 19 years, we remove
them altogether. I do not want some to be penalized by the arbitrary
selection of the eligibility date. In this regard, I have urged an
amendment to take the eligibility dates back to at least January 1978,
in order to cover at least one, and possibly more, Vermont families who
suffered the loss of a family member who was a public safety officer
earlier that year. The family of Arnold Magoon, a Vermont Game Warden,
should not be penalized again because he died on April 27 and not after
May 1 or October 1 of 1978.
I said in February when the Committee considered this measure that
I would work to speed its passage and to help achieve its goal of
making these assistance payments as comprehensive as possible. As soon
as the majority got around to suggesting consideration of this matter
on Wednesday, May 10, I cleared it for consideration so that we could
proceed. I am glad to be able to report that the Senate passed the
measure yesterday with an amendment I proposed to set the eligibility
date so as to include the Magoon family.

CONCLUSION

These are some of the important legislative matters that the
Congress should address to help our Federal and State law enforcement
officers. I am glad that we finally passed S. 1638 on Monday. I urge
the Senate and the House to continue to work on all those issues so
that we can enact the reauthorization of the Bulletproof Vest Grant
Partnership Act and the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act before the end
of this week, as well as make progress on the issue of restoring the
Secret Service privilege. We should strive for constructive action
rather than half-baked rhetoric.

__________

Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles E. Schumer, a U.S. Senator From the
State of New York

This is National Police Week and I join my colleagues in honoring
law enforcement officers and the job they do under the most difficult
of circumstances. Our nation has no greater heroes than those willing
to put their lives on the line to serve and protect.
Given the importance of the job accomplished by those in law
enforcement, it is incumbent on us in Congress both to fully inform
ourselves about the dangers that confront federal officers and to do
what we can to eliminate them. Those threats have evolved and only
become more deadly over the years.
Of course, the gravest and most immediate hazard facing police is
the epidemic of gun violence ravaging communities across America. The
surest way to protect those who protect us is to enact common sense gun
reforms that will begin to take weapons out of the hands of criminals
who use them to terrorize our streets and our homes and our schools.
There are no firmer supporters of reforming our nation's gun laws
than the police we honor this week, and I join with them in striving to
rid our society of senseless gun-related violence that is first and
foremost aimed at officers. Police organizations of every stripe have
come out in support of gun reform legislation, including the Federal
Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Sheriff's
Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Organization, the Police
Foundation, and many others.
It is also true that criminals today can call upon ever more
sophisticated and wide-ranging networks of technology and supporters in
other countries. This capacity, which was minimal even a few years ago,
enhances the threat posed by law-breakers to all of us, and in
particular to the law enforcement personnel attempting to track and
apprehend criminals worldwide. I have in mind international terrorists
like Osama Bin Laden, who direct attacks against Americans from the
farthest reaches of the globe; narco-terrorists in Mexico and
elsewhere, who have killed and wounded DEA agents and use the global
financial system to launder their ill-gotten gains; and home-grown
networks in America, which use new methods of communication to foster
hate and incite people to commit violence against government workers.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony and
taking this opportunity to listen and learn from the men and women who
know firsthand what threats law enforcement officers face and how we
here can help defuse them.

Senator Thurmond. We will leave the record open for one
week for any follow-up questions anyone has.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you gentlemen who
have participated in this hearing for being here today and
presenting such effective testimony.
Unless there is anything further to come up, we now stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX

----------

Additional Submissions for the Record

----------

U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
Washington, DC, August 15, 2000.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight, Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter to the Attorney
General, signed with Senator Sessions, requesting information
concerning prosecutions for assaults on federal officers. I am writing
separately to Senator Sessions. I apologize for our delay in
responding.
You requested statistics reflecting the number of cases involving
assaults on federal officers that have been referred to United States
Attorneys for prosecution during the past 10 years, by agency name and
year, and the number of such cases that were prosecuted. Enclosed is a
statistical report from the United States Attorneys' central case
management system that displays national data on referred and filed
criminal cases, by referring agency and fiscal years 1999-2000, under
any of the following statutes:
18 U.S.C. Sec. 111--assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees;
18 U.S.C. Sec. 115--influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a
federal official by threatening or injuring a family member;
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1114--protection of officers and employees of the
United States (murder, manslaughter, attempted murder);
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2231--assault or resistance (against any person
authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and
seizures).
You should be aware that the enclosed statistics do not necessarily
reflect the totality of cases in which an assault on a federal officer
occurred. It is not uncommon for a defendant who may have committed
such an assault as part of a larger offense to be charged with the
crime for which a greater sentence can be imposed under federal
guidelines. In addition, assaults not charged are often considered at
sentencing, and can result in upward departures in defendants'
sentences.
For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of a letter from
United States Attorney Mark T. Calloway, who chairs the Attorney
General's Advisory Committee (AGAC), to Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly,
United States Customs Service. As you know, Commissioner Kelly
expressed his concerns about the prosecution of assault cases involving
federal officers in a March 29, 2000, letter to United States Attorney
Calloway. The enclosed letter invited Mr. Kelly to discuss his concerns
at the AGAC's May meeting, which, unfortunately, he was unable to
attend. However, Acting Assistant Commissioner John Varrone and
Associate Chief Counsel Seve Basha of the Customs Service met with the
AGAC on July 25 to discuss the issues Mr. Kelly has raised.
I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. If you have
questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert Raben,
Office of Legislative Affairs.
Enclosures.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3137A.001

U.S. Department of Justice,
U.S. Attorney,
Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte, NC, April 26, 2000.
Re your letter of March 29, 2000.

Mr. Raymond W. Kelly,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Commissioner Kelly: Thank you for your letter of March 29,
2000, concerning the prosecution of assaults on U.S. Customs agents. I
have placed the matter on the May 2000 agenda for the Attorney
General's Advisory Committee. We would welcome the opportunity to meet
with you to talk about the concerns expressed in your letter, as well
as other topics such as how the new Customs' search policy is working.
I will ask Judy Beeman, AGAC Liaison, to get in touch with your office
concerning the scheduling of this matter at the May AGAC meeting.
As a practical matter, I have found that solutions to concerns,
such as the ones raised in your letter, are best worked out at the
local level. If the prosecution of assaults on federal agents is
important to a SAC or RAC in my district, it becomes important to me
for I want to go to bat for the agents who investigate our cases. To
that end, I would suggest that one avenue the Customs Service may want
to consider is having the SAC or RAC in each district meet with the
U.S. Attorney and/or the Criminal Chief to talk about the prosecution
of such assaults, and how those decisions are made. I believe you will
have much more success working it out on the local level, than by
trying to implement a national policy that does not take into account
the particular characteristics and workload of the district, as well as
the discretion granted to United States Attorneys.
As always, please feel free to give me a call if I can be of
assistance to you. My direct line is (704) 338-3101. I hope you will be
able to join us at our May AGAC meeting.
Sincerely,
Mark T. Calloway,
Chair, Attorney General's Advisory Committee.
__________
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General: The ``Police Week'' ceremonies taking
place at various locations around Washington this week are a solemn
reminder of the dangers those who serve in law enforcement face on a
day to day basis. To help highlight the fact that federal agents face
equally high risks as local, county, and state officers, a hearing was
held today before the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight
regarding threats to federal law enforcement officers.
We were very concerned to discover that there was a consensus
expressed by representatives of the agencies testifying that the
contemporary criminal is more prone toward violence, that assaults
against federal agents is on the rise, and that the Department of
Justice should be doing more to aggressively prosecute cases of those
accused of assaulting a federal officer. It was the third revelation
that was most shocking, disheartening, and worrisome. An assault
against a federal officer is more than a physical attack against an
individual, it is an assault against our system of laws.
As an exercise of our subcommittee's oversight responsibility, we
request that you provide us with statistics on how many cases each
federal law enforcement agency has referred to the United States
Attorney for prosecution over the past ten years and how many of these
referred cases were prosecuted. Please separate the statistics by
agency and year.
We know that you are a supporter of law enforcement and we are
certain that you share our concern that we do all we can for those who
work in this very demanding profession. The job our agents and officers
do is dangerous enough, sending a signal that using force against a
federal agent may go unpunished is an impediment that they need not
face. We urge you to direct your United States Attorneys to make
prosecuting assaults against federal law enforcement officials one of
their top priorities, and that you also implement a way to monitor how
frequently they actually bring such prosecutions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
With kindest regards and best wishes,
Sincerely,
Jeff Sessions,
Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice
Oversight.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3137A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3137A.003

```