SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
66–179
2000
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 13, 2000
Serial No. 105
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Crime
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
GLENN R. SCHMITT, Chief Counsel
DANIEL J. BRYANT, Chief Counsel
RICK FILKINS, Counsel
CARL THORSEN, Counsel
BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
July 13, 2000
OPENING STATEMENT
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
McCollum, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress From the State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Crime
WITNESSES
Donovan, Donald S., Acting Assistant Director, Judicial Security Division, United States Marshals Service
Finan, Robert J., II, Assistant Director for Investigative Services, United States Marshals Service
Marshall, John W., Director, United States Marshals Service
McKinney, George K., United States Marshal for the District of Maryland
Pekarek, Kenneth L., Acting Assistant Director of the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, United States Marshals Service
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Donovan, Donald S., Acting Assistant Director, Judicial Security Division, United States Marshals Service: Prepared statement
Finan, Robert J., II, Assistant Director for Investigative Services, United States Marshals Service: Prepared statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Marshall, John W., Director, United States Marshals Service: Prepared statement
McKinney, George K., United States Marshal for the District of Maryland: Prepared statement
Pekarek, Kenneth L., Acting Assistant Director of the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, United States Marshals Service: Prepared statement
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill McCollum [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Bill McCollum, Howard Coble, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, and Sheila Jackson Lee.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Staff present: Glenn R. Schmitt, chief counsel; Carl Thorsen, counsel; Bobby Vassar, minority counsel; and Veronica L. Eligan, staff assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN McCOLLUM
Mr. MCCOLLUM. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime will come to order.
The United States Marshals Service is the Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency. Since 1789, the year the Service was created by the very first U.S. Congress, the Marshals have served the Nation through a variety of vital law enforcement activities. Today, the Marshals Service has 95 district offices, 4,000 employees stationed at more than 350 locations throughout the 50 States, Guam, North Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Each district is headed by a U.S. Marshal appointed by the President. The Marshals Service occupies a uniquely central position in the Federal justice system, the broadest statutory authority of any Federal enforcement agency. Deputy Marshals are involved in virtually every Federal law enforcement initiative and are responsible for protecting Federal judges and witnesses, Federal prisoner security and transportation, Federal fugitive investigation and apprehension, asset seizure, management and forfeiture, and special operations responding to high threat or emergency situations.
In recent years, the Marshals have been called on to perform extraordinary missions, such as protecting athletes at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, and providing security assistance during the movements of Minuteman and Cruise missiles between military facilities. Earlier this year, the Marshals special operations group was deployed to assist with security for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, DC.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are a number of important areas that today's hearing will touch on. For example, there are currently more than 40,000 outstanding Federal felony warrants for fugitives, 25,000 of which are the sole responsibility of the Marshals Service. That's an alarming number of felons walking our streets who should otherwise be incarcerated. We look forward to hearing more today about how Congress can help the Marshals Service apprehend those individuals.
We know that the Marshals Service is both understaffed and having to make do with an inadequate fleet of vehicles. This is an ongoing problem that I believe must be addressed soon. Last year, issues were raised as to the financial management of the Service. I hope to explore today the steps the Service has taken to address this problem.
We look forward to learning more about these matters, as well as ways in which the subcommittee can be helpful in addressing them. The Marshals Service has a proud history, and one that I know all of the members of the subcommittee want to help continue.
I thank all the Marshals Service officers who are here today for their service, and particularly I want to welcome John Marshall, the new Director of the Service. I welcome you and I look forward to receiving your testimony.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to join you in the oversight hearing on the U.S. Marshals Service. We're all aware of the prominent role the Marshals Service plays in protecting the Federal Judiciary. Specifically, the Marshals provide judicial security for Federal judges, jurists and other court officials.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I understand that there are approximately 300 threats against the judiciary each year, some of which are judged to require full time protective details. I look forward to hearing from the Marshals on the status of this program.
In addition, I anticipate this hearing will give us an opportunity to learn more about the Service's other areas of responsibility, including its efforts to apprehend approximately 40,000 fugitives with outstanding Federal felony arrest warrants and its role in housing prisoners and managing corporate assets. I also look forward to hearing more about its Witness Security Program, which I understand to have relocated and provided new identities, employment and identification documents for approximately 16,000 witnesses and family members since 1971. Each of these programs deserve our full support.
In addition to carefully examining the work of the Service, we must consider whether Congress needs to take any action to assist the Marshals Service. For example, I understand the Service may be in need of additional resources and is seeking administrative subpoena power related to fugitive apprehensions. We must examine such requests carefully, always cautious not to sacrifice constitutional rights in the name of efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony from Director Marshall and his assistants and working with you in this important oversight responsibility.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Coble, do you have opening remarks?
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.
I want to reiterate what you and the gentleman from Virginia said about the Marshals Service and its proud history. And I don't mean to rain on the parade, Mr. Chairman, but I want to share with the Director some information that was given to me by a highly respected Federal law enforcement officer some recent weeks ago. He said it was his opinion that the Marshals Service and the FBI have become glorified bureaucrats. Not I talking, he talking. I'm just bouncing that out on the table to see what kind of response we're going to get.
As was pointed out earlier, I recognize that Federal judges are oftentimes in vulnerable positions, but so are we. I've been threatened, and I expect Mr. Scott and Mr. McCollum have. We don't have security guards, and I don't want them.
I think the main purpose for you, you members of the Marshals Service, is as the chairman pointed out, fugitive apprehension. I mean, these in many instances, my friends, are time bombs ticking away.
Now, I guess if I were a member of the Marshals Service, Mr. Director, I would opt for protecting a judge as opposed to running down a fugitive. Naturally that's going to be the more desirable of the two roles. But that's food for thought, and I hope it hasn't rained on the parade, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to share that with you, see what you all have to say in response to it as we move along in the meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
I now will introduce our distinguished panel, starting with the Director. The Honorable John W. Marshall is the Director of the United States Marshals Service. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate in November, 1999. From 1994 to 1999, he served as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. Marshall began his law enforcement career in 1980 as a trooper with the Virginia State Police, and was a sergeant instructor at the State police training academy. He also worked as a special agent in the narcotics division in the Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
Mr. Marshall earned his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University, and we particularly welcome you here, for the first time in this capacity. Thank you.
The rest of the panel I will now also introduce. From my left to right is Mr. Donald Donovan, who's the Acting Assistant Director of the U.S. Marshals Judicial Security Division. In his capacity he serves as the principal advisor to the Director and Deputy Director on all matters pertaining to the personal, technical and physical security of the Federal judiciary. Mr. Donovan is a 24 year veteran of the Marshals Service and holds a bachelor's degree in management from National Louis University in Chicago.
Mr. Robert Finan is the Assistant Director for Investigative Services of the U.S. Marshals. His career has spanned many aspects of our Government, including military service, as an officer in the U.S. Army, Assistant Director for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, 20 years as a Secret Service special agent and a fellowship here on Capitol Hill. He received his bachelor's degree in international affairs from Georgetown University.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Kenneth Pekarek is the Acting Assistant Director of the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System for the United States Marshals Service. Mr. Pekarek began his career for the Marshals as a Deputy U.S. Marshal in the Southern District of Florida and has served in many capacities with the Marshals Service, including U.S. Marshal for the District of Kansas. Mr. Pekarek received his bachelor's degree from Central Missouri University. We welcome you.
Now, last on our panel is the Honorable George McKinney, who's been United States Marshal for the District of Maryland since he was appointed by the President, President Clinton in 1995. Prior to that, he served as U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia from 1973 to 1977. And also served in the United States Army, and was a special agent for the National Security Agency. Marshal McKinney is a graduate of Morgan State College.
And we thank all of you for coming today. All of the written testimony of each of the witnesses will be admitted into the record in its entirety, without objection. I hear none, and it is so ordered. We ask that each of you summarize your testimony. We will begin with Director Marshall, and then after that, I'll proceed in the order in which I introduced the witnesses.
Thank you, Director Marshall, it's yours.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MARSHALL, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Let me begin by thanking you on behalf of the men and women of the United States Marshals Service for your strong support. I look forward to continuing our successful working relationship with the subcommittee.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to pay tribute to Deputy Marshal Peter Hillman. The Marshals Service lost Deputy Hillman on June 8th in a tragic vehicle accident which occurred while he was transporting prisoners. Peter was a 14 year veteran of the Marshals Service who spent his career in California and was committed to carrying out his duties in an exemplary manner. We will always remember Deputy Hillman, and he will be greatly missed.
As you know, I was sworn in as Director of the Marshals Service in November, 1999, after having the privilege of serving as the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia for 5 years. In addition to overseeing the operation of the district, I served on several advisory committees, which gave me a valuable perspective of the Marshal Service's national programs. Prior to this, I was with the Virginia State Police for 14 years. It is truly an honor to serve as the Director of this Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency.
The Marshals Service was created by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. President George Washington appointed the first 13 Marshals that year. Although their primary mission was to support the Federal courts, Marshals and Deputy Marshals were the ''all-purpose'' lawmen who performed a number of duties, such as, executing warrants, distributing presidential proclamations, registering enemy aliens in time of war, controlling riots and even conducting the national census!
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although some of our responsibilities have changed in the past 211 years, the Marshals Service's commitment to justice, integrity and service remains constant. As we enter the 21st century, the Marshals Service continues to be one of the most versatile law enforcement agencies in the world.
Today we are responsible for protecting the Federal judiciary, the custody and transportation of Federal prisoners, fugitive apprehension, witness security, as well as the management and disposal of seized and forfeited properties. We have 94 district offices in the United States and its territories. The backbone of this agency is the 2,800 Deputy U.S. Marshals who carry out complex missions daily.
Just as in 1789, our primary mission today is the protection of the Federal judiciary, which includes personal protection for members of the judicial family who are under threat, providing security for court proceedings and securing all Federal courthouse facilities. The Service occupies a uniquely central position in the Federal judicial system. We have provided security for many high threat trials, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unibomber trial and the Montana Freemen trials. In the past 5 years, the Marshals Service has secured over 1,000 high threat trials and protected over 700 members of the judicial family, including the Supreme Court justices. We take tremendous pride in the success we've had protecting the Federal judiciary and providing security in over 800 Federal court facilities. In fiscal year 1999, court security officers confiscated nearly 27,000 weapons at these facilities.
Immediately after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, because of our expertise in physical security, we were tasked with assessing the vulnerability of more than 8,000 U.S. courthouses and Federal buildings. We developed more than 50 minimum security standards for use in federally owned and leased buildings.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our courthouse security missions encompass a vast array of activities, including the design, installation and operation of state of the art electronic security systems to protect prisoner movements and the judicial operations at more than 800 court locations. Further, we have developed and conducted a quantitative survey for all court locations in which we produce prisoners. It was designed to objectively evaluate court facilities to determine their suitability for prisoner movements and operations based upon measurable written standards. It has been very helpful in prioritizing our cellblock renovation projects with the available funding that we receive each year.
As U.S. Marshal in the Eastern District of Virginia, I conducted several briefings to illustrate the difference between the facilities with substandard prisoner movement, which our survey indicates is most of our locations, as compared to the facilities that we have designed for all new or renovated courthouses.
The Witness Security Program, established by Congress 29 years ago, is another important mission that the Marshals Service has been tasked with since its inception. To date, not one of the over 16,000 protected witnesses and family members who has followed the established rules has ever been harmed or killed as a result of their testimony. It is not an exaggeration to say that this program is one of the most successful in the history of law enforcement. Since inception of the program, an overall conviction rate of 89 percent has been obtained as a result of testimony. This percentage underscores the fact of how important it is to keep these witnesses alive and free from intimidation.
By statute, the Marshals Service has the authority to investigate fugitive matters internationally and domestically. Each year, the Marshals Service arrests more fugitives than all other Federal agencies combined. During the past 4 years, we have arrested over 120,000 Federal, State and local fugitives. In the first 7 months of this fiscal year, the Marshals Service has arrested well over 15,000 Federal fugitives. In addition, our State and local task forces have arrested almost 9,000 fugitives.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We participate in 128 fugitive task forces and lead over 60 of these nationwide. Our Deputy U.S. Marshals are the best fugitive investigators in the world. It is a successful day for the Marshals Service and the Nation when we use our expertise to arrest any fugitive, whether it be a Federal, State or local case. I would like to point out that we recently arrested two fugitives on our 15 Most Wanted list within a 9-day period.
Since these fugitives know they are wanted, they are continually on the run. Fugitive investigations are fluid, and time is of the essence when gathering information and executing investigative leads. A fugitive may literally be ''here today and gone in an hour.'' The Marshals Service must act quickly to apprehend them. Administrative subpoena authority is one critical tool that would assist us in our efforts.
Our fugitive investigators are not limited by the borders of our Nation. In 1998, the Marshals Service began a pilot program to assign deputies to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. The focus of this operation was to pursue and apprehend fugitives wanted in the United States. So far, the success of the program has been significant. The number of fugitive cases closed in the first 7 months of operations exceeded the previous 7 years total. We have recently assigned deputies to Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. After 3 weeks of operation in Jamaica, the Marshals Service closed more cases than in the previous 2 years.
When fugitives are apprehended, our responsibilities do not end. We take custody of these fugitives, along with individuals arrested by all other Federal law enforcement agencies. As the Marshals Service does not own or operate detention facilities, we rely heavily on State, local and private jails. The Marshals Service uses a network of over 1,200 State and local jails on a space available basis in addition to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to house more than approximately 35,000 prisoners daily.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another critical responsibility we have is the transportation of prisoners. We are responsible for transporting them to and from court daily. In-district prisoner moves are accomplished by our deputies and contract guards. Out-of-district moves are accomplished through the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, known as JPATS.
In 1995, the air fleets of the Marshals and the INS merged to create JPATS. The merger created a more efficient and effective system for transporting prisoners and illegal aliens. The Marshals Service manages JPATS, the largest transporter of prisoners in the Nation. It handles air transportation for persons in our custody as well as those in the custody of the INS and the Bureau of Prisons. JPATS also coordinates ground transportation for the Marshals Service and BOP. In addition, JPATS transports State and local prisoners at cost. JPATS conducts an average of 1,000 moves each day and completes an average of 230,000 prisoner and alien movements a year.
Another program that we are very proud of in the Marshals Service is the Special Operations Group. SOG is a specially trained tactical unit deployed in high risk and sensitive law enforcement situations, national emergencies, civil disorders and natural disasters, in support of the Marshal Service districts across the country. The selected deputies volunteer to participate in SOG. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of working with SOG deputies in the Virgin Islands in the aftermath of Hurricane Marilyn and observed first-hand their expertise and professionalism. Mr. Chairman, I know that Glenn Schmitt and Carl Thorsen on your staff recently visited the SOG facility in Louisiana. I want to thank them for their interest in the Marshal Service and for taking the time to visit.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Marshal Service is also responsible for the management and disposal of seized and forfeited property acquired by criminals through illegal activities. We currently have 28,000 assets valued at $1.1 billion. I've given particular attention to ensuring that the program has strong oversight and management direction. Since the 1999 General Accounting Office review of our program, which found ''no material weaknesses,'' we have made even more improvements. Nationwide, the U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys have entered into cooperative agreements regarding pre-seizure planning to ensure the quality of the forfeiture cases. We have recently developed a restructuring of the program to make the management and disposition of assets even more efficient and cost effective.
Before being confirmed as Director, I knew that there were financial problems that had to be addressed. They stemmed from the fact that the execution of the agency's budget was not linked to the way it was formulated. Within weeks of being sworn in, I initiated several simultaneous changes to fundamentally change the way the Marshals Service does business.
First, I established a comptroller position to ensure that financial management and budget reforms continued to be implemented. Second, I instituted a position control system so that staffing decisions are based on affordability. Third, I directed that a permanent reprogramming action be submitted to realign base resources according to how the agency expended funds. Fourth, I initiated a comprehensive budget review that will form the basis for future resource requests and increase accountability.
I plan to restructure the operational workforce so that our criminal investigators will perform investigations, deputies will handle courtroom protection, and detention officers, detention enforcement officers will be responsible for the cellblocks and prisoner movements. Currently, our Deputy U.S. Marshals perform all of these tasks. I believe the new three-tiered structure will ensure that we perform our missions more efficiently without jeopardizing safety and security.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Among the greatest challenges facing the Marshals Service today is the continuing growth of our prisoner population. With over approximately 35,000 prisoners presently in custody, the population has grown almost 80 percent since 1994. While most of our districts are staggering under this increased work load, the five southwest border districts are being hit the hardest. Prisoner population in these districts has almost tripled in the last 6 years. It now exceeds 11,000, or almost one-third of the total national prisoner population. In the Western District of Texas alone, the average daily prisoner population is over 3,000.
The production of prisoners for court proceedings along the southwest border dominates the daily activities of all five districts. All other law enforcement responsibilities must be scheduled around prisoner related activities as time permits. The five districts use more than 90 different jails to house their prisoners, often hours away from the Federal courts.
As Director of the Marshals Service, I have visited the southwest border region and have witnessed first-hand the effect this initiative has had on our five districts along the border. A Deputy in a border district handles an average of 45 prisoners every day, compared to the national average of 15. This fiscal year, I was able to take steps to assist the border districts by dedicating 28 employees. However, we need to do more.
Mr. Chairman, I know an issue of great concern to you is the proliferation of counterfeit badges. As a result of the General Accounting Office investigation on the breaches of security at Federal facilities and airports, we have taken steps to increase security at courthouses nationwide.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Middle District of Florida immediately implemented changes to ensure all law enforcement officers are escorted to the weapons locker room while a court security officer observes the officers securing their weapons. In addition, I have asked all Marshals Service districts to closely review their weapons screening and storage practices, keeping in mind the vulnerabilities detected in the GAO investigation.
The Marshals Service worked with the 105th Congress to enact legislation to protect the name, logo and seal of our agency from commercial misuse. Using the new law, the Marshals Service has responded to the threat of counterfeit badges and has launched a comprehensive effort to address mis-use of our badge and identity, false impersonation, and the sale of contraband items over the internet.
These efforts have already borne fruit. Last year, the agency worked with the Department of Justice's Inspector General and the U.S. Attorneys Offices of the District of Columbia and Middle District of Louisiana to stop the sale of counterfeit badges, credentials and identification badges. Over 200 counterfeit badges were recovered under the terms of a cease and desist agreement.
Recently it was discovered that a Marshals Service badge or its likeness was being offered for sale over the internet by an individual in Florida. Investigators in the Middle District of Florida determined the identity of the seller and recovered badges and credentials. Criminal charges have been filed.
Mr. Chairman, like you, I have great respect for the men and women of the Marshals Service and reverence for those who have fallen while wearing our badge. I would like to thank you for your commitment to this issue in helping me ensure that the emblem of our deputies does not fall into unworthy hands.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, I would like to emphasize that I take pride in the men and women of this agency. Our deputies protect the judicial process, apprehend fugitives and transport prisoners each day. And they are the best in the world at what they do and our administrative support staff is second to none. I am proud that the Marshals Service continues to live up to its legacy and tradition.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MARSHALL, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. Let me begin by thanking you, on behalf of the men and women of the Marshals Service, for your strong support. I look forward to continuing our successful working relationship with the Subcommittee.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to pay tribute to Deputy U.S. Marshal Peter Hillman. The Marshals Service lost Deputy Hillman on June 8th in a tragic vehicle accident which occurred while he was transporting prisoners. Peter was a 14 year veteran of the Marshals Service who spent his career in California and was committed to carrying out his duties in an exemplary manner. Peter lent support to the community of the Virgin Islands after Hurricane Marilyn, apprehended fugitives during Operation Sunrise, provided security at a high threat trial in Montana, as well as the Olympic Games in Atlanta. We will always remember Deputy Hillman, and he will be greatly missed.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, I was sworn in as Director of the Marshals Service in November 1999, after having the privilege of serving as the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia for five years. In addition to overseeing the operation of the district, I served on several advisory committees which gave me a valuable perspective of the Marshals Service's national programs. Prior to this, I was with the Virginia State Police for 14 years. It is truly an honor to serve as the Director of this nation's oldest law enforcement agency.
The Marshals Service was created by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. President George Washington appointed the first 13 Marshals that year. Although their primary mission was to support the federal courts, Marshals and Deputy Marshals were the ''all-purpose'' lawmen who performed a number of duties, such as, executing warrants, distributing Presidential proclamations, registering enemy aliens in time of war, controlling riots and even conducting the national census! Although some of our responsibilities may have changed in the past 211 years, the Marshals Service's commitment to justice, integrity and service remains constant. As we enter the 21st century, the Marshals Service continues to be on of the most versatile law enforcement agencies in the world.
Today, we are responsible for protecting the federal judiciary, the custody and transportation of federal prisoners, fugitive apprehension, witness security, as well as the management and disposal of seized and forfeited properties. We have 94 district offices in the United States and its territories. The backbone of this agency are the 2,800 Deputy Marshals who carry out our complex missions daily. Unlike other federal law enforcement agencies where Criminal Investigators focus on one specific mission, each investigator performs all the missions of the Marshals Service and continues to adapt to the ever-changing environment.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just as in 1789, our primary mission today is the protection of the federal judiciary, which includes personal protection for members of the judicial family who are under threat, providing security for court proceedings, and securing all federal courthouse facilities. The Service occupies a uniquely central position in the Federal Judicial System. We have provided security for many high threat trials, such as: the Oklahoma City bombing trial, the Unabomber trial, and the Montana Freeman trials. In the past 5 years, the Marshals Service has secured over 1,000 high threat trials and protected over 700 members of the judicial family—including the Supreme Court Justices.
We take tremendous pride in having the responsibility of protecting the federal judiciary and providing security in over 800 federal court facilities. In fiscal year 1999, Court Security Officers confiscated nearly 27,000 weapons at federal court facilities.
Immediately after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, based on our expertise in physical security, we were tasked to assess the vulnerability of more than 8,000 U.S. Courthouses and federal buildings. We developed more than 50 minimum security standards for use in federally owned and leased buildings.
Our courthouse security missions encompass a vast array of activities including the design, installation and operation of state of the art electronic security systems to protect prisoner movements, and the judicial operations at more than 800 court locations. Further, we have developed and conducted a quantitative survey for all court locations in which we produce prisoners. It was designed to objectively evaluate court facilities to determine their suitability for prisoner movements and operations based upon measurable written standards. It has been very helpful in prioritizing our cellblock renovation projects with the available funding that we receive each year. As U.S. Marshal in the Eastern District of Virginia, I conducted several briefings to illustrate the difference between the facilities with substandard prisoner movement, which our survey indicates is most of our locations, as compared to the facilities that we have designed for all new or renovated Courthouses.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Witness Security Program, established by Congress 29 years ago, also falls within our mission. To date, not one of the over 16,000 protected witnesses and family members who has followed the established rules, has ever been harmed or killed as a result of their testimony. It is not an exaggeration to say that this program is one of the most successful in the history of law enforcement. Since inception of the program, an overall conviction rate of 89 percent has been obtained as a result of testimony—this percentage underscores the fact of how important it is to keep these witnesses alive and free from intimidation.
By statute, the Marshals Service has the authority to investigate fugitive matters both internationally and domestically. Each year, the Marshals Service arrests more fugitives than all other federal agencies combined. During the past 4 years, we have arrested 120,000 federal, state and local fugitives. In the first 7 months of this fiscal year, the Marshals Service has arrested well over 15,000 federal fugitives. In addition, our state and local task forces have arrested almost 9,000 fugitives.
We participate in 128 fugitive task forces and lead over 60 of these nationwide. Our Deputy U.S. Marshals are the best fugitive investigators in the world—It is a successful day for the Marshals Service and our nation when we use our expertise to arrest any fugitive whether it be a federal, state or local case. I would like to point out that we recently arrested 2 of our ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitives within a 9-day period.
Domestically, the Marshals Service has sponsored several special fugitive operations over many years. Since 1981, the Marshals Service sponsored 17 of these short-term operations, which were focused on the apprehension of federal, state and local fugitives. These fugitive operations combined resulted in the apprehension of over 34,000 fugitives, and were the impetus behind the numerous permanent fugitive task forces in which we participate today.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One initiative with which I am personally familiar, and take great pride in, was the Richmond Area Fugitive Task Force. This operation was conducted in Richmond, Virginia during a 3-month period in the summer of 1998. At that time, I was serving as the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia. During this initiative, Deputy Marshals and Richmond Police Officers teamed up to review, prioritize, and investigate nearly 1,700 arrest warrants for fugitives charged with violent crimes, such as: Murder, Armed Robbery, Assault, Narcotics Violations, and Probation or Parole Violations. This initiative led to the clearance of 514 arrest warrants, including 293 by physical arrest. In addition, Deputy Marshals apprehended a group of five individuals just before they were to carry out a drive-by shooting.
Since these fugitives know they are wanted, they are continually on the run. Fugitive investigations are fluid and time is of the essence when gathering information and executing investigative leads. A fugitive may literally be, ''here today and gone in an hour.'' The Marshals Service aggressively pursues fugitives using a wide range of investigative techniques, ranging from the most basic and traditional to applying some of the most sophisticated technology currently available. The Marshals Service must act quickly to apprehend them. Administrative subpoena authority is one critical tool that would assist not only the Marshals Service, but all other federal law enforcement agencies that conduct fugitive investigations, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in this effort.
Our fugitive investigators are not limited by the borders of our nation. In 1998, the Marshals Service assigned deputies as a pilot program to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. The focus of this operation was to pursue and apprehend non-Mexican fugitives wanted in the United States. So far, the success of program has been significant. The number of fugitive cases closed and extradited in the first 7 months of operations exceeded the previous 7 years' total. We have just recently assigned deputies temporarily to Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. After 3 weeks of operation in Jamaica, the Marshals Service closed more cases than in the previous 2 years.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When fugitives are apprehended, our responsibilities do not end. We take custody of fugitives, along with individuals arrested by all other federal law enforcement agencies. As the Marshals Service does not own or operate detention facilities, we rely heavily on state, local and private jails. The Marshals Service utilizes a network of over 1,200 state and local jails on a space available basis, in addition to the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to house more than approximately 35,000 prisoners daily.
Another critical responsibility we have is the transportation of prisoners. We are responsible for transporting them to and from court daily. In-district prisoner moves are accomplished through our deputies and contract guards. Out-of-district moves are accomplished through the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, (JPATS).
In 1995, the air fleets of the Marshals Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service merged to create JPATS. The merger created a more efficient and effective system for transporting prisoners and illegal aliens. The Marshals Service manages JPATS, the largest transporters of prisoners in the nation. JPATS handles air transportation for persons in its own custody as well as those in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and BOP. JPATS also coordinates ground transportation for the Marshals Service and BOP. JPATS also transports state and local prisoners at cost. JPATS conducts an average of 1,000 moves each day and completes an average of 230,000 prisoner, inmate and alien movements a year.
Another program that we are very proud of in the Marshals Service is the Special Operations Group (SOG). SOG is a specially-trained tactical unit deployed in high risk and sensitive law enforcement situations, national emergencies, civil disorders and natural disasters in support of Marshals Service districts across the country. The selected deputies volunteer to participate in SOG. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of working with SOG deputies in the Virgin Islands in the aftermath of hurricane Marilyn, and observed firsthand their expertise and professionalism.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Marshals Service is also responsible for the Management and Disposal of seized and forfeited property acquired by criminals through illegal activities. We currently have 28,000 assets valued at $1.1 billion. I have given particular attention to ensuring that the program has strong oversight and management direction. Since the 1999 General Accounting Office review of our program which found no material weaknesses, we have made even more improvements. Nationwide, the U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys have entered into cooperative agreements regarding pre-seizure planning to ensure the quality of the forfeiture cases. We are currently developing a restructuring for this part of the program to make the management and disposition of assets even more efficient and cost effective.
Before being confirmed as Director, I knew that there were financial problems that had to be addressed. They stemmed from the fact that execution of the agency's budget was not linked to the way it was formulated. Within weeks of being sworn in, I initiated several simultaneous changes to fundamentally change the way the Marshals Service does business.
First, I established the Comptroller position to ensure that financial management and budget reforms continue to be implemented. Second, I instituted a position control system so that staffing decisions are based on affordability. Third, I directed that a permanent reprogramming action be submitted to realign base resources according to how the agency expended funds. Fourth, I initiated a comprehensive budget review that will form the basis for future resource requests and increase accountability.
Currently, the Marshals Service has a two-tiered structure of operational positions. I plan to restructure the operational workforce into a three-tiered structure so that our criminal investigators will perform investigations, deputies will handle court protection and detention enforcement officers will be responsible for the cellblocks and prisoner movements. I believe that the three-tiered structure will ensure that we perform our missions efficiently without jeopardizing safety and security.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The agency faces formidable challenges on a daily basis. The demanding challenge faced by the agency today is the exploding prisoner population along the Southwest Border. Our Southwest border districts include Arizona, Southern California, New Mexico, as well as Southern and Western Texas. Since 1994, the agency's prisoner population in Southwest Border districts has almost tripled as a result of successful enforcement of immigration initiatives. The 5 border districts have reached a level of over 10,000 prisoners. This now constitutes approximately one-third of our total population. In the Western District of Texas alone, the average daily prisoner population is over 3,000.
As the Director of the Marshals Service, I have visited this southwest border region and have witnessed first hand, the effects that this initiative has had on our five districts along the border. A deputy in a border districts handles an average of 45 prisoners every day, compared to the national average of 15. This fiscal year, I was able to take steps to assist the border districts by dedicating 28 employees to the region. However, we need to do more.
In the fiscal year 2001 budget request we seek funding for 381 new Deputy Marshal, Detention Enforcement Officer, and Administrative positions. 194 of these positions are to handle the increased workload generated by additional prosecutors and federal agents. At Chairman Rogers' request, I informed him that my top priorities for the agency are mission support staffing and courthouse security.
Mr. Chairman, I know an issue of great concern to you is the proliferation and misuse of counterfeit badges. As a result of the General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation on the breaches of security at federal facilities and airports, we have taken steps to increase security at courthouses nationwide. The Middle District of Florida immediately implemented changes to ensure all law enforcement officers are escorted to the weapons locker room while a Court Security Officer observes the officers securing their weapons. In addition, I have asked all Marshals Service districts to closely review their weapons screening and storage practices, keeping in mind the vulnerabilities detected in the GAO investigation.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Marshals Service worked with the 105th Congress to enact legislation to protect the name, logo, and seal of our agency from commercial misuse. Using the new law, the Marshals Service has responded to the threat of counterfeit badges and has launched a comprehensive effort to address misuse of our badge and identity, false personation, and the sale of contraband items over the Internet.
These efforts have already borne fruit. Last year, the agency, worked with the Department of Justice's Inspector General and U.S. Attorneys' Offices for the District of Columbia and Middle District of Louisiana, to stop the sale of counterfeit badges, credentials and identification badges. Over 200 counterfeit badges were recovered under the terms of a cease and desist agreement.
Recently, it was discovered that a Marshals Service badge or its likeness was being offered for sale over the Internet by an individual in Florida. Investigators in the Middle District of Florida determined the identity of the seller and recovered badges and credentials. Criminal charges have been filed.
Mr. Chairman, like you, I have great respect for the men and women of the Marshals Service and reverence for those who have fallen while wearing our badge. I would like to thank you for your commitment to this issue in helping me ensure that the emblem of our deputies does not fall into unworthy hands.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that I take pride in the men and women of this agency. Our deputies protect the judicial process, apprehend fugitives, and transport prisoners each day and they are the best in the world at what they do; and our administrative support staff is second to none. I am proud that the Marshals Service continues to live up to its legacy and tradition. Thank you, for inviting me to speak before you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall.
We're going to proceed with the rest of the panel before questions, but I can't help but comment that I'm very appreciative of your anticipating a question I might otherwise have asked about the badges. And we are very concerned about security in our Federal buildings after that General Accounting Office investigation that as you know, this subcommittee sponsored. And to hear that you have stepped that up is very reassuring. But it is certainly one of those areas which we didn't expect to be as open and as penetrated and as easily used as a badge could be by a fake police officer to get into our buildings. So I am pleased by that.
You'll also be pleased to know we're going to be marking up some legislation in this subcommittee Mr. Horn of California has introduced to try to address that problem. But we want to thank you for that.
I also want to apologize in advance, I won't be here through the entire hearing. Mr. Chabot will chair some of it. But I am very much supportive of the Marshals Service.
Mr. Donovan, if you'd proceed with your testimony, we'll move to you. And as I said earlier, in the order in which I introduced you this morning. Welcome and thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF DONALD S. DONOVAN, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JUDICIAL SECURITY DIVISION, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about the judicial security mission of the U.S. Marshals Service. The Marshals Service protects over 2,000 sitting judges and hundreds of other court officials at more than 800 locations throughout the United States and its territories. But facts and figures alone do not tell the story of this critical and essential program.
The protection of judges and courthouses is one of the least understood but most important functions of American government. If Federal jurists cannot preside over cases and render verdicts free from fear and intimidation in a safe environment, then our citizens cannot expect the judicial system to function fairly and impartially. In short, without this protection, the Nation would be deprived of its most cherished and fundamental right—justice.
Our protection of a judge begins soon after he or she is confirmed, upon receiving a security orientation from either myself or one of my senior managers. In addition, judges receive a thorough security briefing when they first arrive in chambers. Before they preside over their first case, judges enter a courthouse that has been planned or renovated with state of the art security measures guarded by court security officers screening entrances for dangerous persons or items.
As long as they are on the bench, Federal judges receive biannual security briefings and surveys, covering every aspect of their professional and personal life. If a judge is threatened, the Marshals Service is there to protect them, in their chambers, at their home with their families, and everywhere in between. I cannot overemphasize the importance the Marshals Service places on this mission.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To protect the judicial family and courthouse facilities, we are organized into three primary program areas. I will briefly summarize each area and some of the accomplishments each have achieved.
The first area is our Court Security Program. This program ensures the safe conduct of judicial proceedings, as well as the personal protection of Federal judges and other members of the court family. It also assists our 94 Marshals Service district offices in preparing and providing security for high threat and sensitive trials. The program also manages and coordinates protective investigations in response to threats against members of the judiciary.
As part of this function, the program provides state of the art technical and security support to the Federal judiciary. We also conduct an analysis of potential vulnerabilities to our protectees while carrying out our protective assignments. The Court Security Program also conducts detailed court security surveys of both public buildings and private residences of Federal judges. On a time and funding available basis, we assist State and local governments in providing facility security surveys and provide court security training. We work cooperatively with FBI joint investigative teams, which consist of representatives from both the Federal and local law enforcement communities. The primary mission of these joint investigative teams is to uncover and thwart terrorist activities directed at judicial officers or judicial facilities.
The Court Security Program is organized into two components. First is our Operations Support Group. This highly qualified team of criminal investigators coordinates personnel and financial support to our district offices during high threat trials, so they in turn have the necessary tools to ensure the security and integrity of the judicial process.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, the Operations Support Group receives and processes more than 700 inappropriate communications and/or threats directed to members of the judiciary. This number has nearly tripled since 1995. To clarify, processing an inappropriate communication or threat involves initiating an investigation and working side by side with the FBI to identify and respond appropriately to potential threats to members of the judiciary.
The second component of the Court Security Program are our Senior Inspectors, based in the 11 judicial circuits and the District of Columbia. These senior criminal investigators provide technical support and service to our district offices. Additionally, they professionally evaluate and make recommendations to the U.S. Marshals on resources needed to accomplish 200 high threat or sensitive trials annually. Their specialized training and extensive experience in judicial security helps ensure the development of appropriate operation plans, utilization of specialized equipment and development of accurate cost estimates and proper staffing levels for potentially volatile proceedings.
The Senior Inspectors also coordinate protective service assignments for justices of the United States Supreme Court during periods of travel outside the Washington, DC. metropolitan area. The Senior Inspectors participate in approximately 120 protective service details annually for judges, and when necessary, United States Attorneys. The Senior Inspectors also conduct initial and follow-up on-site court facility surveys and inspections to determine adequate personnel and security systems.
Another important program area is the Judicial Protective Service. This program was established to enhance the level of security provided at Federal courthouses and Federal buildings housing court operations. The primary mission of this program is to prevent the unlawful entry of dangerous persons, weapons or other harmful devices into judicial areas and to prevent the disruption of judicial proceedings. This is primarily accomplished through the use of contract court security officers, known as CSOs, and state of the art security systems and screening equipment.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the program began in 1983, initial staffing included a force of only 144 CSOs. Today, however, there are over 3,300 CSOs stationed at more than 800 courthouses and Federal buildings throughout the United States. The Marshals Service requires CSOs to have a minimum of 3 years of police experience and to have graduated from an accredited law enforcement academy. As a result, most CSOs are former Federal, State or local police officers, all of whom are cleared by background investigation before being hired.
Much like you see every day here in Congress with the U.S. Capitol Police, our CSOs are the first line of defense. We employ the use of metal detectors and x-ray machines to screen persons and packages and to report facilities and ensure the safety and protection of the court family and the public. Almost daily, items which are prohibited in Federal courthouses are detected at the screening points. I have on display here today on the table some items that have actually been confiscated at Federal courthouse by CSOs.
Weapons that seem as sinister as a pair of brass knuckles, which, Mr. Chairman, I brought with me today, or as innocent, with your indulgence, as a walking cane, which as you can see [indicating transformation of walking cane into sword] which was actually seized at a United States Courthouse.
I encourage each of you and your staff members to examine these items at your leisure.
The last program I'd like to address, but certainly not the least important, is the Judicial Facilities and Security Program. We recently consolidated all physical security, facilities management, technical security systems and court security officer contract support functions into one unified and comprehensive program. This program develops policy and specifications for engineering, construction, planning, designing, acquisition of space, and most importantly, ensures the physical security of both Marshals Service personnel and the Federal judiciary.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We developed and conducted a quantitative survey for all court locations in which they produce prisoners. The survey was designed to objectively evaluate court facilities to determine the suitability of safe and secure prisoner movements based on measurable standards. The survey has been critical in prioritizing our cellblock renovation projects with the funding we receive each year.
We recently provided several on-site briefings for Congressional staff, and clearly demonstrated the difference between facilities with substandard prisoner movement areas in comparison to more modern facilities where we directly participated in the design and renovation project.
Today in cooperation with the General Services Administration and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, our program staff designs and oversees construction of all new courthouses to ensure the safe and secure movements of prisoners to and from sessions of court.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Marshals Service takes the security of our judges and Federal courthouses very seriously, because we know that we are protecting not merely a person or building, but ultimately America's right to equal justice under the law.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I'll be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD S. DONOVAN, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JUDICIAL SECURITY DIVISION, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about the Judicial Security mission of the U.S. Marshals Service.
The Marshals Service protects over 2,000 sitting judges and hundreds of other court officials at more than 800 locations throughout the United States and its territories. But facts and figures alone do not tell the story of this critical and essential program.
The protection of judges and courthouses is one of the least understood, but most important functions of American government. If federal jurists cannot preside over cases and render verdicts free from fear and intimidation in a safe environment, then our citizens cannot expect the judicial system to function fairly and impartially. In short, without this protection, the nation would be deprived of its most cherished and fundamental right—justice.
Our protection of a judge begins soon after he or she is confirmed, upon receiving a security orientation from either myself or one of my senior managers. In addition, judges receive a thorough security briefing when they first arrive in chambers. Before they preside over their first case, judges enter a courthouse that has been planned or renovated with state of the art security measures, guarded by Court Security Officers screening entrances for dangerous persons or items. As long as they are on the bench, federal judges receive biannual security briefings and surveys, covering every aspect of their professional and personal life. If a judge is threatened, the Marshals Service is there to protect them—in their chambers, at their home with their families and everywhere in between. I cannot overemphasize the importance the Marshals Service places on this mission.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To protect the judicial family and courthouse facilities, we are organized into three primary program areas. I will briefly summarize each area and some of the accomplishments each have achieved.
COURT SECURITY PROGRAM
The first area is our Court Security Program. This Program ensures the safe conduct of judicial proceedings as well as the personal protection of Federal judges and other members of the court family. It also assists our 94 Marshals Service district offices in preparing for and providing security for high threat and sensitive trials. The Program also manages and coordinates protective investigations in response to threats against members of the judiciary.
As part of this function, the program provides state of the art technical and security support to the federal judiciary. We also conduct an analysis of potential vulnerabilities to our protectees while carrying out our protective assignments.
The Court Security Program also conducts detailed security surveys of both public buildings and the private residences of Federal judges. On a time and funding available basis, we assist state and local governments in providing facility security surveys and provide court security training. We work cooperatively with FBI joint investigative teams, which consist of representatives from both the Federal and local law enforcement communities. The primary mission of these joint investigative teams is to uncover and thwart terrorist activities directed at judicial officers or judicial facilities.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Court Security Program is organized into two components. First is our Operations Support Group. This highly qualified team of criminal investigators coordinates personnel and financial support to our district offices during high threat trials so they in turn, have the necessary tools to ensure the security and integrity of the judicial process. Additionally, the Operations Support Group receives and processes more than 700 inappropriate communications and/or threats directed to members of the judiciary. This number has nearly tripled since 1995. To clarify, processing an inappropriate communication or threat involves initiating an investigation and working side-by-side with the FBI to identify and respond appropriately to potential threats to members of the judiciary.
The second component of the Court Security Program are our Senior Inspectors, based in the 11 judicial circuits and the District of Columbia. These senior criminal investigators provide technical support and service to our district offices. Additionally, they professionally evaluate and make recommendations to the U.S. Marshals on resources needed to accomplish 200 high threat or sensitive trials annually. Their specialized training and extensive experience in judicial security help ensure the development of appropriate operation plans, utilization of specialized equipment, and development of accurate cost estimates and proper staffing levels for these potentially volatile proceedings.
The Senior Inspectors also coordinate protective service assignments for Justices of the United States Supreme Court during periods of travel outside the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The Senior Inspectors participate in approximately 120 protective service details, annually for judges and, when necessary, for U.S. Attorneys. The senior inspectors also conduct initial and follow-up on site court facility surveys and inspections to determine adequate personnel and security systems.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JUDICIAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
Another important program area is the Judicial Protective Service. This program was established to enhance the level of security provided at Federal courthouses and Federal buildings housing court operations. The primary mission of this program is to prevent the unlawful entry of dangerous persons, weapons or other harmful devices into judicial areas, and to prevent the disruption of judicial proceedings. This is primarily accomplished through the use of contract Court Security Officers (CSOs) and state-of-the-art security systems and screening equipment.
Since the program began in 1983, initial staffing included a force of only 144 CSOs. Today, however, there are over 3,300 CSOs stationed at more than 800 courthouses and Federal buildings throughout the United States. The Marshals Service requires CSOs to have a minimum of 3 years of police experience and to have graduated from an accredited law enforcement academy. As a result, most CSOs are former federal, state or local police officers, all of whom are cleared by a background investigation before being hired.
Much like you see every day here in Congress with the U.S. Capitol Police, our CSOs are the first line of defense. We employ the use of metal detectors and x-ray machines to screen persons and packages entering court facilities and ensure the safety and protection of the court family and the public. Almost daily, items which are prohibited in Federal courthouses are detected at the screening points. I have on display here today some items that have actually been confiscated at Federal courthouses by CSOs.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JUDICIAL FACILITIES AND SECURITY PROGRAM
The last program I would like to address but certainly not the least important is our Judicial Facilities and Security Program. We recently consolidated all physical security, facilities management, technical security systems, and Court Security Officer contract support functions into one unified and comprehensive program. This program develops policy and specifications for engineering, construction, planning, designing, and acquisition of space, and most importantly-ensures the physical security of both Marshals Service personnel and the Federal judiciary.
We developed and conducted a quantitative survey for all court locations in which we produce prisoners. This survey was designed to objectively evaluate court facilities to determine the suitability of safe and secure prisoner movements based on measurable standards. This survey has been critical in prioritizing our prisoner cellblock renovations projects with the funding we receive each year.
We recently provided several on-site briefings for congressional staff and clearly demonstrated the difference between facilities with substandard prisoner movement areas in comparison to more modern facilities where we directly participated in the design and renovation project. Today, in cooperation with the General Services Administration and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, our program staff designs and oversees construction of all new courthouses to ensure the safe and secure movement of prisoners to and from sessions of court.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Marshals Service takes the security of our judges and federal courthouses very seriously because we know that we are protecting not merely a person or a building, but ultimately America's right to equal justice under the law.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. CHABOT [assuming Chair]. Thank you for your testimony here this afternoon.
And we'll now move to Mr. Finan.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. FINAN, II, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Mr. FINAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I'm pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to testify about the Marshals Service missions for which I'm responsible, Criminal Investigations and Protective Operations.
Today I will describe for our mission of locating and apprehending fugitives and our role in protecting witnesses in the Witness Security Program. Let me begin by saying that fugitives and the problems they create are among the most significant challenges facing the criminal justice system today. The problems that fugitives pose for virtually ever citizen of the country are numerous, costly and potentially life threatening. First and foremost, fugitives pose a threat to public safety.
[Submitted material follows:]
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
66179a.eps
As noted in this chart, our studies show that violent fugitives average almost 12 prior criminal offenses. Records of the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, indicate that there are over 530,000 fugitive felons in its wanted persons system. The Marshals Service alone has over 25,000 active Federal felony arrest warrants in our inventory.
The Marshals Service arrests more fugitives than all other Federal law enforcement agencies combined. As this next chart depicts, we are on a record pace for arrests this year, which should exceed 64,000 fugitive felons by the end of the year.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179b.eps
We are responsible for apprehending escaped Federal prisoners, probation, parole and bond violators, fugitives wanted in connection with DEA indictments and fugitives wanted by Federal agencies who lack statutory arrest authority. Since 1989, the Marshals Service has entered into memoranda of understanding with several other Federal law enforcement agencies, giving us administrative and/or apprehension responsibility for those agency's fugitives.
The Marshals Service has authority to apprehend Federal, State and local fugitives both within and outside the United States. Our deputies assist State and local police to locate and arrest their fugitives whenever it is done pursuant to a special apprehension program that's been approved by the Attorney General or the local United States Attorney.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to prioritize our most sought after fugitives, we initiated our ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitive program in 1983. This list of high profile fugitives includes 15 of America's most dangerous career criminals. Next week, the Director will announce three new additions to this well publicized list.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179c.eps
During the first 8 months of this fiscal year, we apprehended 6 of our ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitives, and since 1983, we've apprehended 137 of the 152 fugitives who appeared on this list.
Mark Anthony Williams, a violent fugitive with the distinction of being on our list twice, exemplifies the type of fugitive who is prioritized for inclusion in this program. Williams, the leader of a multi-State narcotics organization, obtained crack cocaine in New York City and southern Florida and distributed it in North Carolina and in Virginia. In 1998, Williams was arrested by Deputy Marshals in Dover, Delaware. He was wanted in North Carolina for the distribution of cocaine, in Norfolk, Virginia for the homicide of a 15 year old boy and the wounding of a 13 year old boy, and in New York City for narcotics violations. He allegedly shot both boys and then walked up and fired additional rounds into the head of the 15 year old at close range, killing him. He is also a suspect in three more murders in North Carolina and one additional murder in Brooklyn, New York.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While being held in a North Carolina county detention center, he escaped in January 1999. Once again, Williams became one of the Marshals Service's ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitives. Immediately we initiated an intense investigation developing leads in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, New York, Michigan, Kingston, Jamaica, and Toronto, Canada. And on November 28th, 1999, Williams was apprehended by the Toronto police based on information provided by the Marshals Service.
The second program that we use to prioritize significant fugitives is our ''major case'' program. This focuses on fugitives who have a history of violence, who are considered a major drug trafficker, or who have escaped from a Federal penal institution. Fugitive cases elevated to major case status receive additional resources, such as access to our electronic surveillance unit technical capabilities. We want to thank members of the subcommittee staff, Glen Schmitt and Carl Thorsen, who personally toured our ESU unit and were briefed about our current technology.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179d.eps
A recent study conducted by our analytical support unit revealed that after being elevated to ''major case'' status, the average time that a fugitive remains at large is 64 days, compared to an average of 218 days for lower priority offenders, as depicted in this chart. Since 1981, the Marshals Service has sponsored 17 apprehension operations which focused on Federal, State and local fugitives. Collectively, these operations resulted in the arrest of more than 34,000 fugitive felons.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1993, as part of the Attorney General's Anti-Violent Crime initiative, we joined with Federal, State and local enforcement agencies to create 60 fugitive task forces. Task forces which have had an impact, reducing violent crime within their respective communities include the Gulf Coast Violent Offenders Task Force in Houston, and the San Diego Violent Crime Task Force, which have arrested a combined total of 18,572 Federal, State and local fugitives wanted for felonies.
The Marshals Service also participate in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, or OCDETF. We're currently conducting an OCDETF special enforcement operation in the Florida-Caribbean region which began this past April. It's targeting OCDETF fugitives wanted in Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. After 14 weeks of operation, this initiative has resulted in the apprehension of 619 OCDETF fugitives nationwide, 436 of those in the Florida-Caribbean region.
In addition to the domestic fugitive operations, we have authority to apprehend U.S. fugitives who flee to foreign countries. To accomplish this, we recently assigned deputies to the U.S. embassies in Mexico City, Kingston, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. The immediate success in Mexico City was significant, and as the Director has already pointed out, the number of fugitive cases closed during the first 7 months exceeded the previous 7 year totals.
In Jamaica, after only 3 weeks, Deputy Marshals closed more cases than the previous 2 years. And in the Dominican Republic, we're experiencing similar success, having already closed 32 fugitive cases.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Marshals Service is responsible for returning U.S. fugitives from foreign countries. In that role, we returned 237 international fugitives last year, and we coordinated 65 fugitive extraditions from the United States to other countries. As we enter the 21st century, we're optimistic that by continuing to develop our expertise, by continuing the expansion of our task forces and foreign offices, and by sharing our knowledge and resources with other law enforcement agencies, the success that we enjoy today in fugitive apprehensions can be achieved by other agencies resulting in a safer global community.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179e.eps
Next let me share with you some information about one of the most successful programs in law enforcement history. Since 1971, 16,181 participants have entered the Witness Security Program. An average of 500 witnesses and family members receive funding each month. Inspectors provide emergency relocation services and assist our program participants in establishing bank accounts, enrolling in school or job related training programs, obtaining employment, coordinating medical and counseling services, and obtaining housing and transportation.
During fiscal year 1999, inspectors accomplished over 1,500 productions, including witnesses for court testimony, neutral side interviews with United States Attorneys and case agents, video teleconference interviews, child visitations, and to obtain new identification. The Witness Security Program has played an important role in the Department's efforts to prosecute organized crime, drug traffickers, terrorists and major criminals.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the inception of the program, a conviction rate of 89 percent has been obtained with the help of protected witness testimony. Inspectors are involved both in the United States and overseas in developing security plans and producing witnesses for international terrorism trials. Recent examples of this type of activity include the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie trial, the U.S. embassy bombing, judicial proceedings in Africa, and the World Trade Center bombing trials.
In addition, inspectors assist the Diplomatic Security Service in providing protection to foreign dignitaries each year attending the U.N. General Assembly. And we also provide protection for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
In closing, I want to mention the great pride that we take in our employees, deputies, technicians, analysts and administrative staff, who together have built an unsurpassed record of accomplishments over 211 years. Every day, deputies and support staff make untold sacrifices to accomplish our diverse and sometimes very dangerous mission.
I'm confident that due to our focused commitment to these programs, and our employees' willingness to always do what it takes to get the job done, we've become the best at what we do. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I'd be happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Finan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. FINAN, II, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
INTRODUCTION
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to testify before you about those mission areas of the United States Marshals Service for which I am responsible—Criminal Investigations and Protective Operations.
During my time today, I will describe for you the Marshals Service's mission of locating and apprehending fugitives in the United States and abroad. I will also discuss our role in protecting witnesses who are admitted into the Witness Protection Program.
THE FUGITIVE THREAT
Let me begin by saying that fugitives and the problems that they create is one of the most significant challenges facing the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system today.
The problems that fugitives pose for virtually every citizen of the country are numerous, costly, and most importantly, potentially life-threatening. First and foremost, fugitives pose a widespread threat to public safety. By definition, fugitives are mobile and opportunistic, preying on innocent citizens by committing crimes against persons and property. They frequently finance their continued flight from the law by robbing, stealing, and defrauding the public and by selling controlled substances, frequently to children and young adults. Their criminal activity respects no geographic boundaries and often constitute violations of both Federal and state law.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Records of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) indicate that there are over 530,000 active felony fugitive files in its Wanted Persons System. The Marshals Service alone has a total of over 25,000 active Federal felony arrest warrants in its inventory nationwide. The Marshals Service is also responsible for the administration and execution of federal misdemeanor warrants and federal traffic warrants. We currently have over 35,000 open misdemeanor and traffic warrants and close approximately 17,000 of these per year.
Our Analytical Support Unit conducted a study of Marshals Service fugitives to identify common characteristics. We found that our ''typical'' fugitive is a 38-year-old male, wanted in connection with narcotics violations, with a record of four prior arrests, including one for a violent crime. The fact of the matter is that fugitives are as diverse as our society. They transcend gender, race, religion, age, and educational background. Every day in this country, fugitives are arrested in our inner cities, suburbs, and rural areas. As evidenced by statements of people on reality-based television shows such as ''America's Most Wanted,'' and from the experience of our own investigators, citizens are often very surprised to find that they have been living next door to a wanted felon.
The Marshals Service is responsible for apprehending escaped federal prisoners, probation, parole, and bond default violators, fugitives wanted in connection with Drug Enforcement Administration indictments, and fugitives wanted by those federal agencies without statutory arrest powers.
Historically, the Marshals Service has been ''the keeper of the court process,'' which includes all arrest warrants issued by the federal courts. The Marshals Service has administrative responsibility for all Federal felony, misdemeanor, petty offense and traffic warrants. Information on these warrants is tracked through our Warrant Information Network (WIN), an in-house database which holds information concerning warrants and prioritizes felony warrants based on a fugitive's history of violence and narcotics trafficking.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1989, the Marshals Service has entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with 10 Federal law enforcement agencies giving us administrative and/or apprehension responsibilities for those agencies' fugitives.
INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITIONS
The Marshals Service locates and apprehends Federal, state, and local fugitives both within and outside of the United States. Our deputies are authorized to pursue fugitives wanted under state warrants pursuant to a special apprehension program or task forces approved by the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney.
All requests for extraterritorial fugitive investigations and requests for assistance from foreign law enforcement agencies are coordinated through the International Investigations Unit at Marshals Service Headquarters. In FY 1999, the Marshals Service performed 237 international extraditions and provided coordination and support for foreign law enforcement agencies in 65 instances where fugitives were extradited from the United States to another country.
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
The globalization of crime has brought new emphasis on the international fugitive issue. Consistent with the Attorney General's International Crime Control Strategy, the Marshals Service recently assigned deputies to the U.S. embassies in Mexico City; Kingston, Jamaica; and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The focus of the temporary operation in Mexico was to pursue and apprehend non-Mexican national fugitives wanted in the United States. The success of the Deputy U.S. Marshals in Mexico City was significant: the number of fugitive cases closed and extradited during the first 7 months exceeded the previous 7 year totals. A similar scenario unfolded in Kingston, Jamaica, where, after 3 weeks of operation, the Deputy U.S. Marshals assigned there temporarily exceeded the total of extradited fugitives from the previous 2 years.
The most recent Marshals Service temporary office established in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, is experiencing many successes locating and extraditing fugitives, and we anticipate a positive outcome of our efforts in that country. In each of these countries, we work closely with the foreign law enforcement units responsible for apprehending fugitives by providing information and serving as technical advisors.
''15 MOST WANTED'' PROGRAM
In an effort to prioritize our most sought-after fugitives, in 1983 we initiated our ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitive program. This list of high profile fugitives includes 15 of America's most dangerous career criminals.
In order for a fugitive case to achieve ''15 Most Wanted'' status, the fugitive must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1) history of violence and/or weapons convictions
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2) major narcotics distributor, violent gang or significant criminal organization member
3) garnered national attention and/or special interest from the USMS and DOJ
4) significant international fugitive meeting criteria 1–3
5) significant state, local, or other Federal agency fugitive meeting the above requirements who has been turned over to the Marshals Service for apprehension responsibility.
During the first 8 months of this fiscal year, we apprehended 6 of our ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitives; and, since the program's inception, we apprehended 137 of the 152 fugitives who have been placed on this list.
Mark Anthony Williams, a violent fugitive who has the distinction of being on the ''15 Most Wanted'' list twice, exemplifies the type of fugitive that is prioritized for inclusion in this program. Williams was the leader of a multi-state narcotics organization that obtained crack cocaine in New York City and southern Florida and distributed it in Raleigh, North Carolina and Norfolk, Virginia.
On July 24, 1998, Williams, one of the U.S. Marshals Service ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitives, was arrested by Deputy Marshals in Dover, Delaware. At the time of the arrest, he was wanted in the Eastern District of North Carolina for distribution of cocaine and by the Norfolk, Virginia Police Department for the homicide of a 15 year old boy and the shooting of a 13 year old boy, and by the New York City Police Department for narcotics possession. Williams allegedly shot both boys and then walked up and fired additional bullets into the head of the 15 year old at close range. The police arrived on the scene, and Williams fled before he could murder the 13 year old. Williams is also a suspect in three murders in Raleigh, North Carolina, and one in Brooklyn, New York.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following his apprehension, Williams was being held without bail in the Eastern District of North Carolina, in a County Detention Center when he escaped from custody on January 22, 1999. Once again, Williams became one of the U.S. Marshals Service ''15 Most Wanted'' fugitives. Immediately, the Marshals Service initiated an intense investigation for Williams developing leads in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, New York, Michigan, Kingston, Jamaica, and Toronto, Canada.
On November 28, 1999, Williams was apprehended by the Toronto Police Services in Toronto, Canada based on information provided by the Marshals Service.
MAJOR CASE PROGRAM
A second program that we use to prioritize significant fugitives is our Major Case program. This focuses on fugitives who have a history of violence or possession/use of weapons; who are considered a major ''kingpin'' drug trafficker; whose case has generated significant local, regional, national or international attention; who has escaped from a secure federal penal institution or who has been identified as a special interest case by the Marshals Service or the Department of Justice.
Fugitives who are elevated to ''major case'' status receive additional attention and resources. A recent study conducted by our Analytical Support Unit revealed that, after being elevated to Major Case status, the average time that a fugitive remains at large is 64 days, as compared to an average of 218 days for lower priority offenders. Since the Major Case program was created in 1997, the Marshals Service has approved 740 fugitives for inclusion in this program and has apprehended 540. We currently have 200 fugitives that are being actively pursued as part of our Major Case program. This number is constantly changing as Major Case fugitives are apprehended and new cases are approved on a daily basis.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The following case exemplifies both the type of fugitive that is typically pursued in connection with the Major Case program and supports the premise that fugitives continue to commit crimes while on the run.
Recently, a fugitive was arrested by a team of members from our Fugitive Task Force from Philadelphia and officers from the Salisbury, Maryland Police Department. On April 3rd, this fugitive allegedly committed an armed robbery in the city of Philadelphia. The suspect shot his victim during the course of the robbery and fled on foot as police officers arrived at the scene. While fleeing from the officers, the suspect turned and fired nine rounds at the officers who were pursuing him. Fortunately, no officers or citizens were killed or wounded by this callous disregard for public safety. The suspect managed to elude capture, and the Philadelphia Police Department turned to the U.S. Marshals Eastern District of Pennsylvania Fugitive Task Force for assistance in locating and apprehending him.
On April 25th, Task Force investigators developed information that the fugitive was hiding at a residence in Salisbury, Maryland. That afternoon, Task Force investigators from Philadelphia, Baltimore, the Marshals Service Electronic Surveillance Unit, and officers from the Salisbury, Maryland Police Department arrested the suspect in Salisbury. Three additional suspects who were in the residence were detained, one of whom was arrested as a fugitive from armed robbery charges in Montoursville, Pennsylvania. A search of the residence was conducted, which resulted in the seizure of two handguns and a sawed-off shotgun. Detectives from the Salisbury Police Department later determined that the fugitive and his associates, using the seized weapons, were responsible for 29 unsolved armed robberies in recent weeks in the Salisbury area, as well as an armed bank robbery in Salisbury that was committed hours before they were arrested. Any one of these 30 violent encounters could easily have ended in tragedy.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to exemplifying the recidivist nature of many fugitives, this case also depicts the cooperative law enforcement spirit which is the cornerstone of our Fugitive Task Force Program.
FUGITIVE TASK FORCE PROGRAM
Since 1981, the Marshals Service has sponsored 17 short-term apprehension initiatives that focused on Federal, state and local fugitives. These initiatives were offender and/or region specific, and collectively resulted in the arrest of more than 34,000 felony fugitives. The success of these operations provided the basis for the formation of more than 60 permanent fugitive task forces that the Marshals Service leads today. In addition to those coordinated by the Marshals Service, we participate on approximately 70 other task forces.
In 1993, as part of the Attorney General's Anti-Violent Crime initiative, we joined with Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to create a number of permanent fugitive task forces. Successful and long running task forces that are coordinated by the Marshals Service and have had an impact reducing violent crime within their respective communities include: the Gulf Coast Violent Offenders Task Force in Houston, Texas; the New York/New Jersey HIDTA Task Force; the Fugitive Apprehension Strike Team in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio's SAFE Task Force; Baltimore's Fugitive Task Force and the Fugitive Group of the San Diego Violent Crime Task Force; and the District of Columbia Joint Fugitive Task Force.
In Texas, the Gulf Coast Violent Offenders Task Force is comprised of investigators from 10 agencies, and concentrates on Federal, state and local fugitives. This task force has now arrested more than 9,872 fugitives since it was formed in 1994. In 1999, the task force arrested 869 wanted felons, including 19 wanted for murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Fugitive Group of the San Diego Violent Crime Task Force consists of 30 investigators from 7 agencies. Since its inception in 1994, the task force has arrested more than 8,700 fugitive felons, including 176 charged with murder, manslaughter, or parolees whose original charge was murder or manslaughter. Additionally, the task force has seized narcotics valued at more than $2.5 million, 483 firearms, and recovered more than $600,000 in stolen property.
OCDETF
In addition to the fugitive task forces that I have described, the Marshals Service is also one of the 11 federal agencies that participates in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The OCDETF program is a Department of Justice initiative that provides funding, resources and coordination to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors nationwide to combat drug trafficking, money laundering, violence, organized crime, and corruption.
In support of this program, we are currently conducting an OCDETF-funded special enforcement initiative in the Florida/Caribbean region. This initiative, which began in April of this year, is targeting fugitives wanted pursuant to OCDETF indictments nationwide, with special emphasis on those wanted in the State of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. After 14 weeks of operation, the initiative has resulted in the apprehension of 619 OCDETF fugitives nationwide, 436 of those in the Florida/Caribbean region.
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE UNIT
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Marshals Service operates an Electronic Surveillance Unit that provides technical support to all field offices through regional offices located around the country. This unit provides technical equipment and expertise to assist our criminal investigators in tracking fugitives nationwide. In the last two years, the Electronic Surveillance Unit has been directly responsible for the apprehension of over 1,600 major case fugitives. In a few weeks, we will be adding our first surveillance aircraft to our inventory of technical equipment.
WARRANT BACKLOG INITIATIVE
In addition to our success in locating and apprehending fugitives, we also effectively administer the WIN system to ensure the integrity and validity of our warrant inventory. This is perhaps best exemplified by the ''Warrant Backlog Initiative'' that we conducted in Fiscal Year 1999. In the summer of 1998, Attorney General Reno challenged the Marshals Service to reduce its backlog, which was defined as warrants more than one year old, by 20% during FY 1999. Our criminal investigators rose to the challenge and reduced the backlog by 23%, from 10,677 backlog warrants to 8,185 backlog warrants. This process was accomplished by establishing ''cold case teams'' that diligently focused on warrants that were more than one-year-old. The teams reviewed warrant files from top-to-bottom, prioritized cases and investigative leads, and arrested backlog fugitives. In addition, the teams worked closely with prosecutors to dismiss or recall warrants that were no longer viable because the defendant was deceased, or because witnesses, case agents, or evidence were no longer available to prosecute the defendant.
ANALYTICAL SUPPORT UNIT
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the critical factors in the success of our backlog reduction initiative and in the overall management of our fugitive program is our Analytical Support Unit. This unit monitors and manages the WIN system. The WIN system provides all Marshals Service offices with access to the NCIC and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), both of which are clearinghouses for criminal justice information related to wanted persons, criminal history information, driver and vehicle registration information, as well as a myriad of other related indices and a real-time administrative communications network to Federal, state, and local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies nationwide.
In addition to managing the WIN system, this unit also provides case-specific analysis to our criminal investigators and program analysis for headquarters case managers, and provides analytical support to the Judicial Security Division, the Protective Operations Branch, and to state and local law enforcement agencies by analyzing information related to threats made against judicial officials.
As we enter the 21st century, we are optimistic that by continuing to develop our expertise and equipment, by continuing the expansion of our task forces and foreign offices, and by sharing our expertise and resources with other law enforcement agencies, foreign and domestic, the successes that we have enjoyed in the areas of fugitive apprehension can be realized by other agencies, resulting in a safer global community.
THE WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAM
Next, let me share with you some information about one of our government's most successful programs. Since 1971, 16,181 participants (7,108 primary witnesses and 9,073 family members) have entered the Witness Security Program. On average, the typical witness is provided program funding for 18 months. Program services, including official documentation, counseling, and mail services continue while the witness remains in good standing. Even though a witness may have completed testimony, and is financially self sufficient, the Witness Security Program continues to play a role in providing child visits to non-participating spouses, providing documentation services to children and grandchildren, responding to breaches in security, maintaining security during third party litigation, and providing for death bed/funeral visits.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An average of 500 witnesses and family members receive funding each month. For these individuals, Inspectors provide emergency relocation services (including temporary household relocations due to serious threats). Inspectors also coordinate and assist Program participants in establishing bank accounts, enrolling in school/or job related training programs, obtaining employment, coordinating medical and counseling services, and obtaining housing and transportation.
During FY 1999, Inspectors accomplished 1,523 productions including 632 primary witnesses for court testimony; 123 witnesses were produced for neutral site interviews with U.S. Attorneys or case agents; 25 witnesses were produced for video tele-conference interviews; 54 productions were for child visitations, and 689 witnesses were produced to obtain new documentation identification. Witness Security analysts processed over 2,200 official documentation requests during FY 1999. Documentation includes birth certificates, social security records, school and medical records, passports, etc. Since the Program has been in effect for 30 years, family members now include second, and sometimes third generation participants.
There are approximately 1,000 prisoner witnesses currently in the Program. Investigators coordinate productions for trial testimony, hearings and family visits. When a prisoner witness is released, we assist in providing the same services afforded to other Program participants, such as relocation and employment assistance. In addition, we maintain close contact with probation and parole officers and local law enforcement to ensure that the witness is complying with the terms of his/or her release.
The Witness Security Program has played an important role in the Department's efforts to prosecute organized crime, drug traffickers, terrorists, and major criminals. Since the inception of the program, a conviction rate of 89 percent has been obtained with the help of protected witness testimony.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There has been increased interest by foreign law enforcement agencies in establishing Witness Security Programs in their countries. At the request of the Department of State, Witness Security Inspectors provide training programs, conduct in-country assessments and provide Program related briefings to an increasing number of foreign officers. For example, Inspectors traveled to Rwanda and Tanzania to assist local law enforcement in the development of security plans for the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for the Hutu/Tutsi massacre. More recently, Inspectors have met with law enforcement representatives from former Soviet Union countries, the Carribean, and the Far East to discuss foreign Witness Security Program options.
In addition, Inspectors are involved, both overseas and in the United States, in developing security operations plans and producing witnesses for international terrorism trials. These proceedings include providing professional advice and expertise in both personal and physical security; coordinating video tele-conference coverage and security procedures for family members affected by acts of terrorism; and liaison with host country law enforcement officers. Recent examples of this type of activity include the Pan-Am 103/Lockerbie Trial, the U.S. African Embassy bombing judicial proceedings, and the World Trade Center bombing trials.
Currently, the Witness Security Program is involved in a major effort to upgrade existing computer systems and introduce new technology to improve the way we conduct business, enhance security, and reduce production costs. For example, we have been successful in working with the Italian Judiciary to have participants in the U.S. Witness Security Program provide testimony via video tele-conference. These types of productions are very successful in that there is no immediate risk to the witness, there is a substantial reduction in travel costs, and Inspectors are available for other assignments.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are also taking a look at the Witness Security case files which are currently stored as paper files. Our concerns about security and the ability to quicky retrieve pertinent documents have caused us to re-evaluate this entire system. Our long range plan includes scanning the original 7,000 case files, and then relocating the case files to a secure facility.
PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS
The Marshals Services' Protective Operations are accomplished by 125 Inspectors located in offices throughout the U.S. These Witness Security Inspectors respond to emergency executive orders from the President or the Attorney General. For example, during May 2000, approximately 63% of Witness Security Inspectors participated in special assignments. In addition, Inspectors assist the Department of State Diplomatic Security Service in providing personal protection services to foreign dignitaries attending the United Nations General Assembly. Witness Security Inspectors also provide domestic and international protection to the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would mention the great pride we take in our employees—deputies, technicians, analysts and administrative support—who have built an unsurpassed record of accomplishments over 211 years. Every day, deputies and support staff make untold sacrifices to accomplish our diverse and sometimes dangerous mission. I am confident that due to our focused commitment to these programs and because of their willingness to always do what it takes to get the job done, we have become the best at what we do. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak before you today.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Finan.
And I might note for other members that may or may not have heard this, since this is the first hearing, I believe, on the Marshals Service, in about 6 years, the time for each witness has been increased from 5 minutes to seven or 8 minutes per witness, just so the other members may be wondering why we haven't blown the whistle. But the members of the panel have done very well in keeping to those time frames, and we appreciate that very much.
Our next witness will be Mr. Pekarek.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. PEKAREK, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE JUSTICE PRISONER AND ALIEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Mr. PEKAREK. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I'd like to take this opportunity to speak to you today about the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, known as JPATS, the real life version of ConAir. While we don't land our planes on the streets of Las Vegas or on a deserted highway——[Laughter.]
Mr. PEKAREK [continuing]. We do successfully transport more than 230,000 prisoners and detainees each year. Mr. Chairman, before I continue, I would like to thank Glenn Schmidt on your staff for his interest in JPATS and for visiting our Oklahoma City facility.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Submitted material follows:]
66179f.eps
Today I'll be discussing the current state of JPATS, including its management oversight committee, customer base, volume of movements, safety and future initiatives. Prisoner transportation is a major mission of the United States Marshals Service. On any given day, JPATS exchanges approximately 800 phone calls and receives an average of 700 requests to move prisoners, inmates and aliens across the Nation and the various countries. These requests range from Bureau of Prisons transfers, newly sentenced prisoners, Federal writs, court orders, warrants of removal, non-Federal prisoners and criminal and non-criminal aliens.
As demonstrated in chart number two, JPATS' success in terms of program performance has exceeded all agency expectations. Over the last 5 years, JPATS has experienced a 47 percent increase in air and ground movements and expects to complete approximately 238,000 prisoner and alien movements this year and 263,000 movements in 2001. Air movements for the Marshals Service and BOP have increased 39 percent from 1995 through 1999. And Immigration and Naturalization alien air movements alone have increased 480 percent during this same period, an overall increase of 100 percent.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179g.eps
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1979, the Marshals Service established the National Prisoner Transportation System to coordinate the movement of prisoners for the Marshals Service and BOP throughout the Nation. At that time, NPTS was scheduling approximately 30,000 Marshals Service and BOP prisoner movements annually through a network of BOP buses, Marshals Service vans, cars, commercial airlines and air charters. The chart that is now being shown are the Marshals Service and BOP van and bus routes currently being scheduled by JPATS.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179h.eps
The rapid growth of the system demanded mass air transportation. In 1985, the Marshals Service acquired an excess Boeing 727 aircraft from the FAA. Since then, two more Boeing 727s, two DC–9s and various smaller jet aircraft have been added to the fleet, including two large leased aircraft to handle the increase in the INS alien movement.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179i.eps
The smaller jet aircraft are vital for the movement of prisoners with court order deadlines, juveniles, prisoners with suicidal or medical conditions, violent, dangerous or high profile prisoners and witnesses in the Witness Protection Program. In 1999, these smaller aircraft completed approximately 4,500 such movements.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1985, the Marshals Service initiated a program of returning State and local fugitive felons to jurisdictions where local authorities could not afford the return of the prisoner for prosecution. On a space available basis, this can now be accomplished at a fraction of what it would have cost local authorities. This program began with the return of 8 non-Federal prisoners and has now grown to approximately 2,000 returns each year.
In 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno directed the merger of the INS Aviation Operations and the NPTS to become JPATS. Operational components of JPATS include flight operations, aircraft maintenance, business, scheduling, and security. There are five JPATS offices, Kansas City, Missouri; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; El Paso Texas; Alexandria, Louisiana; and Manassas, Virginia, plus air operations sub-offices in Alaska and St. Croix in the Virgin Islands.
There are approximately 50 daily JPATS domestic and foreign missions utilizing various modes of transportation, which involve almost 1,000 prisoners, inmates and aliens, and hundreds of personnel from various agencies. International flights for deportation of aliens requires extensive coordination and have now become regularly scheduled trips worldwide.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179j.eps
JPATS accomplishes 20 monthly deportation flights to various countries in Central America, the Caribbean and Cuba. In 1997, JPATS aircraft deported 500 aliens and is expected to deport 12,000 this year and an estimated 20,000 in 2001.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since October 1998, JPATS air operations has operated as a revolving fund. The Marshals Service, INS and BOP are the customers of the revolving fund. Fiscal year 2000 costs of air operations will be $72.2 million for moving 148,000 prisoners and aliens. Customer funding, which is appropriated to pay for individual movements, includes: $23.7 million from the Marshals Service, $39.9 million from the INS, and $12.2 million from BOP, plus $1.4 million from the State and local programs.
JPATS has developed several cost cutting initiatives which have been approved by our customers to help reduce their prices, such as, restructuring air routes and standardizing schedules to accommodate increased movement requests using existing aircraft, extending the hours of operation for JPATS aircraft to reduce the number of aircraft required, maximize current JPATS aircraft prisoner load capacity, model our aircraft maintenance concept after private industry to eliminate duplication of personnel and inventory, replace aging aircraft with newer, more cost efficient aircraft.
[Submitted material follows:]
66179k.eps
These initiatives are targeted to be implemented by the end of 2002, which will result in a more cost efficient operation. We conservatively estimate that these initiatives, if implemented, could achieve annual savings of $12.3 million, which is a 17 percent reduction to our current operating costs. In order to assure JPATS' continued success, a JPATS re-engineering committee consisting of JPATS and its customers, the Marshals Service, INS and BOP, has been permanently established for continuous oversight and improvement of the JPATS system. In addition, a JPATS executive committee, which includes agency heads from the Marshals Service, BOP, INS, as well as the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice, has been created to review both administrative and operational procedures and approve major decisions.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to report that since the inception of JPATS, all movements have been completed without any serious incidents or escapes, and were accomplished without threatening the security or safety of the detainees, JPATS personnel or the public. In addition, no civil rights actions have been brought against any JPATS personnel for mistreating a prisoner, inmate, or alien.
JPATS is a very unique operational entity which deals hourly with various Federal, State and local agencies, each having their own specific mission requirements. This demands a high level of multi-agency cooperation and requires time-urgent communications. The leadership, dedication, creativity and the ''can-do'' attitude of JPATS personnel are just a few of the reasons JPATS continues to provide dependable, safe and secure operations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement and I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pekarek follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. PEKAREK, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE JUSTICE PRISONER AND ALIEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about the Justice Prisoner & Alien Transportation System, known as JPATS—the real life version of ''ConAir.'' While we don't land our planes on the streets of Las Vegas or on a deserted highway, we do successfully transport more than 230,000 prisoners and detainees each year. Today, I will be discussing the current state of JPATS, including its management oversight committee, customer base, volume of movements, safety, and future initiatives.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prisoner Transportation is a major mission of the United States Marshals Service (USMS). On any given day, JPATS exchanges approximately 800 phone calls and receives an average of 700 requests to move prisoners, inmates and aliens across the nation and to various countries. These requests range from Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Transfers, Newly Sentenced Prisoners, Federal Writs, Court Orders, Warrants of Removal, Non-Federal prisoners, and Criminal and Non-Criminal Aliens.
JPATS' success—in terms of program performance—has exceeded all agency expectations. Over the last 5 years, JPATS has experienced a 47% increase in air and ground movements, and expects to complete approximately 238,000 prisoner and alien movements this year, and 263,000 movements in 2001. Air movements for the Marshals Service and BOP have increased 39% from 1995 through 1999, and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) alien air movements alone have increased 480% during this same period—an overall increase of 100%.
In 1979, the Marshals Service established the National Prisoner Transportation System (NPTS) to coordinate the movement of prisoners for the Marshals Service and BOP throughout the nation. At that time, NPTS was scheduling approximately 30,000 Marshals Service and BOP prisoner movements annually, through a network of BOP buses, Marshals Service vans, cars, commercial airlines and air charters.
The rapid growth of the system demanded mass air transportation. In 1985, the Marshals Service acquired an excessed Boeing 727 aircraft from the FAA. Since then, two more Boeing 727's, two DC9's, and various smaller jet aircraft have been added to the fleet, including 2 large leased aircraft to handle the increase in INS alien movements. The smaller jet aircraft are vital for the movement of prisoners with court order deadlines, juveniles, prisoners with suicidal or medical conditions, violent, dangerous or high profile prisoners, and witnesses in the Witness Security Program. In 1999, these smaller aircraft completed approximately 4,500 such movements.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1985, the Marshals Service initiated a program of returning state and local fugitive felons to jurisdictions where local authorities could not afford the return of the prisoner for prosecution. On a space available basis, this can now be accomplished at a fraction of what it would have cost local authorities. This program began with the return of 8 non-federal prisoners and has grown to approximately 2,000 returns each year.
In 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno directed the merger of the INS Aviation Operation and the NPTS to become JPATS. Operational components of JPATS include: Flight Operations; Aircraft Maintenance; Business; Scheduling; and Security. There are 5 JPATS Offices: Kansas City, Missouri; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; El Paso, Texas; Alexandria, Louisiana; and Manassas, Virginia, plus Air Operations Sub-Offices in Alaska and St. Croix in the Virgin Islands.
There are approximately 50 daily JPATS domestic and foreign missions utilizing various modes of transportation, which involve almost 1,000 prisoners, inmates and aliens, and hundreds of personnel from various agencies. International flights for deportation of aliens require extensive coordination, and have now become regularly scheduled trips worldwide. JPATS accomplishes 20 monthly deportation flights to various countries in Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba. In 1997, JPATS aircraft deported 500 aliens and is expected to deport 12,000 this year, and an estimated 20,000 in 2001.
Since October 1998, JPATS air operations has operated as a revolving fund. The Marshals Service, INS and BOP are the customers of the fund. FY2000 cost of air operations will be $72.2 million for moving 148,000 prisoners and aliens. Customer funding, which is appropriated to pay for individual movements, includes: $23.7 million from the Marshals Service, $34.9 million from INS, and $12.2 million from BOP, plus $1.4 million from the state and local program. JPATS has developed several cost cutting initiatives which have been approved by our customers to help reduce their prices, such as:
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Restructure air routes and standardize schedules to accommodate increased movement requests using existing JPATS aircraft.
Extend the hours of operation for JPATS aircraft to reduce the number of aircraft required.
Maximize current JPATS aircraft prisoner load capacities.
Model our aircraft maintenance concept after private industry to eliminate duplication of personnel and inventory.
Replace aging aircraft with newer, more cost efficient aircraft.
These initiatives, which are targeted to be implemented by the end of FY2002, will result in a more efficient and cost effective operation. We conservatively estimate that these initiatives, if implemented, could achieve annual savings of $12.3 million, which is a 17% reduction to our current operating costs.
In order to assure JPATS continued success, a JPATS Re-engineering Committee (consisting of JPATS and its customers—the Marshals Service, INS and BOP) has been permanently established for continuous oversight and improvement of the JPATS system. In addition, a JPATS Executive Committee, which includes Agency Heads of the Marshals Service, BOP, and INS, as well as the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice, has been created to review both administrative and operational procedures and approve major decisions.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to report that since the inception of JPATS, all movements have been completed without any serious incidents or escapes, and were accomplished without threatening the security or safety of the detainees, JPATS personnel, or the public. In addition, no civil rights actions have been brought against any JPATS personnel for mistreating a prisoner, inmate or alien.
JPATS is a very unique operational entity which deals hourly with various federal, state and local agencies—each having their own specific mission requirements. This demands a high level of multi-agency cooperation and requires time-urgent communications. The leadership, dedication, creativity, and the ''can-do'' attitude of JPATS personnel are just a few of the reasons JPATS continues to provide dependable, safe, and secure operations.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Pekarek.
Mr. McKinney is our final witness here this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE K. MCKINNEY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Mr. MCKINNEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I join Director Marshall and the assistant directors in thanking you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I began my career with the United States Marshals Service in the early 1960's, as a Deputy United States Marshal. I have served as the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia and now for the District of Maryland. My experience has provided me a unique opportunity to observe the growth of the Service over the past 40 years.
Since the establishment of the Marshals Service in 1789, the primary missions of the Marshals Service have remained steadfast: protection of the judiciary, detention of pretrial Federal prisoners, and apprehension of Federal fugitives. Added to our mission over the years has been the management of the asset forfeiture program, witness security and participation in special operations.
Let me tell you about my district. The District of Maryland encompasses the entire State of Maryland, and is comprised of two office locations, one in Baltimore, and the other in Greenbelt. We have 45 deputies, 6 administrative personnel and 40 court security officers. We provide security at both the Baltimore and Greenbelt courthouses.
Ensuring the safety of the judiciary and other individuals involved in the judicial process is of ultimate importance to the Marshals Service. Deputies provide courtroom security for the judicial family and ensure that each prisoner is produced to the appropriate courtroom for a multitude of other court related appearances.
During the day, deputies monitor and coordinate all prisoner movements, such as when they are visited by their counsel or case workers or interviewed by assistant U.S. attorneys regarding their respective cases. After court ends, deputies transport prisoners back to the detention facilities.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you are aware, the Federal pretrial prisoner population has increased steadily over the years. The District of Maryland maintains an average of 400 prisoners a day. The deputies begin their day around 7 a.m., making what we call ''prisoner runs'' to the outlying detention facilities. The prisoners are then transported from the facilities to the Federal courthouses for court appearances.
The Marshals Service does not maintain Federal pretrial detention facilities. In my district, the BOP does not have space available to house Marshals Service prisoners. As a result, we have established intragovernmental agency agreements, IGAs, with State and local facilities to house our prisoners, at an agreed upon daily rate.
We have also established cooperative agreement programs, or CAPs, with State and local detention facilities. The CAPs provide our district with a guaranteed number of daily prisoner bed spaces for a set number of years. In return, the State and local facilities are awarded funds to assist their jail construction projects. The IGAs and the CAPs have been an effective tool in the Marshals Service effort to keep pace with the constantly increasing demand for prisoner bed space.
Many of our prisoners are housed at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, better known as Supermax. My district maintains approximately 90 prisoners at the Supermax, which is the maximum security facility for the State of Maryland. The cost of maintaining prisoners at this facility, per day, is three times the cost incurred at a non-maximum security detention facility located elsewhere in the district. The high cost, while burdensome, is a necessity, since no other facility is capable of handling the high volume of prisoners for the Baltimore Federal Courthouse.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Submitted material follows:]
66179l.eps
The District of Maryland has arguably one of the best fugitive squad operations in the mid-Atlantic region. Authorized by the U.S. Attorney, the District of Maryland Fugitive Task Force is staffed by five deputies and two Baltimore Police Department officers. From January to December, 1999, as shown on the chart, the task force arrested a total of 373 fugitives. Of this number, 211 had Federal violations and 162 had been charged by the State or local jurisdictions with crimes such as murder, attempted murder and robbery.
Another resounding success has been our participation in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, ''Cross Border Initiative.'' Typically, felons in the Washington, DC area would cross the border into Maryland when chased out of the District of Columbia by local authorities, and vice versa. The HIDTA initiative was formed to address this problem. The District of Maryland specially deputized 175 State and local law enforcement officers to assist in this very successful initiative.
In addition to our court services, prisoner transportation and fugitive apprehension duties, the District of Maryland has a high volume of complex asset forfeiture cases. In accordance with court orders, our deputies, assisted by our administrative employees, are responsible for seizing and disposing of various items of real property, vehicles and personal property. These assets are subject to inventory and accountability at all times. Our district is currently managing 441 seizure cases. During the period July 1999 through June 2000, the District of Maryland safeguarded, managed and subsequently disposed of some $4 million in cash, $1.5 million in real property and $1.4 million in vehicles.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This afternoon, I have mentioned many of the primary activities conducted by our deputies. However, it should be noted that each Deputy may also be assigned what we call collateral duties. These duties are performed in addition to their regular assigned duties and provide enhanced training and expertise for deputies as they progress in their respective careers. The additional duties include serving as motor officer, seized property officer, recruiting officer, health and safety officer, threat coordinator, fire arms instructor, fitness in total coordinator, or as the court security officer coordinator. Although in an ideal situation, many collateral duties could be performed on a full time basis, deputies perform these essential duties when their time permits.
Many of the management and budget responsibilities formally assigned to the headquarters of the Marshals Service have now been delegated to the District U.S. Marshal, in accordance with new fiscal guidelines. As the Director mentioned in his statement, the Marshals Service recently completed a bottom up review of its fiscal, administrative, management, and budget functions. The end result of this process has provided improved accountability and use of personnel and financial resources at the district level. This process has also assisted the Director in presenting the Marshals Service annual budget and funding requests to the Department of Justice, the President and the Congress.
As a manager of the modern day Service, the U.S. Marshal must constantly be responsive to the many operational and security matters that come to their attention on a daily basis. This includes courthouse security, coordination of security with members of the bench during special high risk trials, oversight of security inspections for local detention facilities, daily contact with court officers and managers regarding courthouse security during and after normal duty hours, and coordination with local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies regarding task force operations.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I hope that I have provided you with insight regarding district operations. United States Marshals diligently work with their deputies, administrative staff and CSOs to ensure that the day to day details of our multifaceted mission are implemented with integrity and efficiency. Thank you for providing the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinney follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE K. MCKINNEY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I join Director Marshall and the Assistant Directors in thanking you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I began my career with the United States Marshals Service in the early 1960s, as a Deputy United States Marshal. Since then, I have served as the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia; and now for the District of Maryland. My experience has provided me a unique opportunity to observe the growth of the United States Marshals Service over the past 40 years.
Since the establishment of the Marshals Service in 1789, the primary missions of the Marshals Service have remained steadfast: Protection of the Judiciary; Detention of pretrial federal prisoners; and Apprehension of Fugitives. Added to our mission over the years has been the Management of the Asset Forfeiture Program, Witness Security, and participation in special operations.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me tell you about my district. The District of Maryland encompasses the entire state of Maryland, and is comprised of two office locations: one in Baltimore, and the other in Greenbelt. We have 45 deputies, 6 administrative personnel and 40 Court Security Officers (CSOs), who provide security at both the Baltimore and Greenbelt courthouses.
JUDICIAL SECURITY AND COURT SUPPORT SERVICES
Ensuring the safety of the judiciary and other individuals involved in the judicial process, is of ultimate importance to the Marshals Service. Deputies provide courtroom security for the judicial family, and ensure that each prisoner is produced to the appropriate court room for a multitude of other court-ordered appearances. During the day, deputies monitor and coordinate all prisoner movements, such as when they are visited by their counsel and case workers; or are interviewed by Assistant United States Attorneys regarding their respective cases. After court ends, deputies transport prisoners back to detention facilities.
PRISONER DETENTION AND TRANSPORTATION
As you are aware, the federal pretrial prisoner population has increased steadily over the years. The District of Maryland maintains an average of 400 prisoners a day. Deputies begin their days around 7 a.m., by making what are known as ''prisoner runs'' to the outlying detention facilities. The prisoners are then transported from the facilities to federal courthouses for court appearances.
The Marshals Service does not maintain federal pretrial detention facilities. In my district, the BOP does not have space available to house Marshals Service prisoners. As a result, we have established Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) with state and local facilities to house our prisoners, at an agreed upon daily rate. We have also established Cooperative Agreement Programs (CAPs) with state and local detention facilities. The CAPs provide our district with a guaranteed number of daily prisoner bed spaces for a set number of years. In return, the state and local facilities are awarded funds to assist their jail construction projects. The IGAs and CAPs have been an effective tool in the Marshals Service's effort to keep pace with the constantly increasing demand for prisoner bed space.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of our prisoners are housed at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, better known as the SUPERMAX. My district maintains approximately 90 prisoners at the SUPERMAX, which is the maximum security facility for the State of Maryland. The cost of maintaining prisoners at this facility (per day) is three times the cost incurred at non-maximum security detention facilities, located elsewhere in the district. The high cost, while burdensome, is a necessity since no other facility is capable of handling the high volume of prisoners for the Baltimore Federal Courthouse.
FUGITIVE OPERATIONS
The District of Maryland has, arguably, one of the best Fugitive Squad operations in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Authorized by the U.S. Attorney, the District of Maryland Fugitive Task Force is staffed by five deputies and two Baltimore Police Department officers. From January-December 1999, the Task Force arrested a total of 373 fugitives. Of this number, 211 had federal violations and 162 had been charged by the state or local jurisdictions with crimes such as murder, attempted murder, and robbery.
Another resounding success has been our participation in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) ''Cross Border Initiative.'' Typically, felons in the Washington, D.C., area would ''cross the border'' into Maryland when chased out of the District of Columbia by local authorities, and vice versa. The HIDTA initiative was formed to address this problem. The District of Maryland special deputized 175 state and local law enforcement officers to assist in this very successful initiative.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ASSET FORFEITURE
In addition to our court services, prisoner transportation, and fugitive apprehension duties, the District of Maryland has a high volume of complex Asset Forfeiture cases. In accordance with court orders, our deputies, assisted by our administrative employees, are responsible for seizing and disposing of various items of real property, vehicles, and personal property. These assets are subject to inventory and accountability at all times. Our district is currently managing 441 seizure cases. During the period July 1999-June 2000, the District of Maryland safeguarded, managed, and subsequently disposed of some $4 million in cash, $1.5 million in Real Property and $1.4 million in Vehicles.
COLLATERAL DUTIES
This afternoon, I have mentioned many of the primary activities conducted by our deputies. However, it should be noted that each deputy may also be assigned what we call a collateral duty. These duties are performed in addition to their regularly assigned duties and provide enhanced training and expertise for deputies as they progress in their respective careers. The additional duties include serving as the Motor Vehicle Officer, Seized Property Officer, Recruiting Officer, Health and Safety Officer, Threat Coordinator, Fire Arms Instructor, Fitness-In-Total coordinator, or as the Court Security Officer coordinator. Although in an ideal situation, many collateral duties could be performed on a full-time basis, deputies perform these essential duties when their time permits.
Many of the management and budget responsibilities formally assigned to the Headquarters of the Marshals Service, have now been delegated to the District U.S. Marshal, in accordance with new fiscal guidelines. As the Director mentioned in his statement, the Marshals Service recently completed a Bottom-Up Review of its fiscal, administrative, management, and budget functions. The end result of this process has provided improved accountability and use of personnel and financial resources at the district level. This process has also assisted the Director in presenting the Marshals Service annual budget and funding requests to the Department of Justice, The President, and to Congress.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a manager, the modern day U.S. Marshal must constantly be responsive to the many operational and security matters that come to their attention on a daily basis, such as:
courthouse security;
coordination of security with members of the bench during special high risk security proceedings,
oversight of security inspections for local detention facilities,
daily contact with Court Security Officers and managers regarding courthouse security during and after normal duty hours, and
coordination with local, State and federal law enforcement agencies regarding Task Force operations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I hope that I have provided you with insight regarding district operations. United States Marshals diligently work with deputies, administrative staff and CSOs to ensure the day-to-day details of our multi-faceted missions are implemented with integrity and efficiency. Thank you for providing the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. McKinney.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At this time, members of the panel up here will question the witnesses, 5 minutes, alternating from Republican and Democrat side. On behalf of the chairman, I would recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
My first question would be for Mr. Finan. I believe you had mentioned in your testimony that the average number of days that it takes to arrest a fugitive in 2000 is about 64 days, is that correct, on average? I think it's better than 66, last year, that is the high priority.
Mr. FINAN. That is once we raise a case to major case status.
Mr. CHABOT. Could you explain what you mean, 64 on top of other days?
Mr. FINAN. Yes, sir. Not every case that the Marshals Service has, not all the 25,000 felony fugitive warrants, are at the major case level. Major case means you're able to bring additional assets to the case, it's a headquarters controlled case. Once we do that, that reduces the number of days as shown to 64, when we bring additional assets to the management of the case.
Mr. CHABOT. I would assume that the longer that a prisoner is out there on the loose, basically the more crimes he or she is committing. And so my question is basically what efforts are you all making or what do you need in order to try to reduce the number of days that a fugitive is out there, even more than you thus far have been able to do? Is it a matter of resources, is it a matter of more manpower, or what is it? And then in addition, what percentage of the number of your personnel do you devote to doing that, going out and picking these folks up?
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FINAN. Using the statistics for the last 3 years, that's fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999, we can see that in fiscal year 1997 we closed 21,080 cases. We received 21,600 cases. These are Marshals Service cases alone. Dedicated to that was 604 work years. Since as Marshall McKinney mentioned, so many of the other deputies have other duties, they're not just full time assigned, it's only in a few of our larger offices where they're full time assigned to fugitive squads. We need to track our fugitive efforts in work years as opposed to how many deputies. So it's 604 work years in 1997.
It went up to 624 work years in 1998, where we closed 22,900 of our cases. And if you include the task force cases in there, it's 44,000. And last year, fiscal year 1999, we received 25,070 cases, Marshals cases alone. The primary Federal felony cases were 25,000 we closed. When you include our task force operations, it was 46,000 that we closed, using 645 work years. And at the rate that we're going now, we've projected this year it's going to be 62,000.
[Submitted material follows:]
FURTHER U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE ANSWER TO INQUIRY OF CONGRESSMAN CHABOT
If the U.S. Marshals Service had administrative subpoena authority, the time a fugitive is on the street would be significantly reduced. We believe there would be a direct impact on the chart showing the average number of days a fugitive remains at large, lessening that time of 64 days or 218 days.
66179m.eps
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Let me ask Mr. Donovan a couple of questions. Mr. Donovan, do all the Federal courthouses now utilize metal detectors for screening, does every one of them do that now?
Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, they do.
Mr. CHABOT. And the individuals that you would catch with the various weapons that you've shown here, the knives, the brass knuckles, guns and things like that, do you then charge them with an appropriate offense, either carrying a concealed weapon or whatever?
Mr. DONOVAN. The normal process, Congressman, would be that we would detain them, contact the Federal Protective Service, or depending on the nature, it could be if it were drugs, drug enforcement or something more substantial, possibly the FBI. We would generally contact one of those agencies. They would come down, we would detain the person, they would come down, a decision would be made on prosecution and we would turn that person over to that agency.
Mr. CHABOT. Over to the appropriate law enforcement personnel. Okay. Let me ask you this. Relative to, in security matters, relative to the Oklahoma City bombing, what if any, I wouldn't say if any, what efforts did you make after that in order to make safer our various courthouses and things relative to terrorism, whether domestic or foreign?
Mr. DONOVAN. We've made extensive measures since Oklahoma City. If you recall, Congressman, the President directed a vulnerability study of which the Marshals Service was the lead agency. We did a vulnerability study of more than 8,000 Federal facilities throughout the United States. And we categorized the facilities based upon various levels, one through five, five being the highest. Every Federal courthouse in the country has been categorized at least a level four category.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the last several years, we've had the advent of closed circuit television cameras throughout Federal courthouses, the use of vehicle barriers, control booths, bollards, a number of physical security issues since that time.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you.
And Mr. Pekarek, relative to transporting prisoners, I'll recognize myself for an additional minute, by unanimous consent, could you describe what restraints you use in the buses and the vans and the planes on the prisoners when you're transporting them? And do you ever use commercial flights for prisoners?
Mr. PEKAREK. Congressman, to answer your last question first, only in extreme emergency where we have to get a prisoner from one point——
Mr. CHABOT. Extremely rare instances?
Mr. PEKAREK. Extremely rare emergency, where we have to get a prisoner from one point to another point, for a court ordered deadline or a medical issue, would we ever consider using a commercial airplane.
Mr. CHABOT. So you do do it, but very rarely?
Mr. PEKAREK. We do, but our stats right now are about 1 percent, less than 1 percent of the movements we make are on commercial airplanes.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. Okay. And what kind of restraints do you use at that time, and also when you're on your own?
Mr. PEKAREK. Vans and buses and aircraft, they're basically the same restraints, leg irons, waist chains and handcuffs. With regard to movement on aircraft, that again varies from airline to airline and their requirements and their regulations. On an aircraft, it's generally the waist chain and the handcuffs. We do try to hide those with a coat or something to cover them up.
Mr. CHABOT. One follow-up question. You mentioned that we also use these I guess with the deportation of folks from this country on occasion, use our own jets, is that right?
Mr. PEKAREK. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. CHABOT. Have you ever looked into or do you ever, as far as trying to save some money for the American taxpayer, do you ever look into trying to get some compensation back from, I certainly realize that many of these folks would be indigent, and the reason they came to this country to begin with would be for opportunities, etc., and they may be here illegally.
But some of the folks may be involved in some sort of illegal activity, such as drug dealing, and therefore have substantial assets. Do you ever try to get back the costs from some of those folks for having to deport them to other countries to begin with?
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PEKAREK. With regards to JPATS, JPATS is operating under a revolving fund. And we charge the INS so much per movement. I don't think we would get into that. I'm not sure if INS is looking into that or not. But we charge the customer, INS, when they ask us to make the movements, and then we charge INS to do it.
Mr. CHABOT. But INS is another Government agency. So as far as actually charging the person who's ultimately responsible for us having to, the taxpayer paying the cost to get them out of the country, as far as you know, we're not doing that now?
Mr. PEKAREK. JPATS is not doing that, that's correct.
Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much.
I'll at this point recognize Mr. Scott from Virginia, ranking member of the committee.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on that, I noticed you transport some State and local prisoners as well as Federal prisoners. What is the portion of the prisoners that you transport that are State and local and not Federal?
Mr. PEKAREK. Every year, we'll return approximately 2,000 State and local prisoners, to return for prosecution, approximately 2,000.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. Out of how many altogether?
Mr. PEKAREK. Two hundred and thirty-eight thousand.
Mr. SCOTT. That's about 1 percent?
Mr. PEKAREK. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. SCOTT. You indicated that you'd done the survey of the Federal buildings. What is the status of us upgrading the security of the Federal buildings, including courthouses? Are we, Mr. Donovan, are we up to date? I know there are a lot of courthouses on the list. I've got two on the list that are being rebuilt. What is the status of those?
Mr. DONOVAN. It's an ever-evolving process, Congressman, based on the funding available. We have basically created a prioritization list. Every year we do a court security survey of each facility. Those Marshals and the members of the court, Federal Protective Service, GSA, the group get together, they submit their request to us at headquarters. And based on the funding available, we prioritize that.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, how far behind—are we up to date? Are we far behind?
Mr. DONOVAN. We always have projects ahead of us. But I think we're at a fairly significant level. We've gone an awful long way since the Oklahoma City bombing, if that's your question.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. So you're not complaining about the lack of funding on that?
Mr. DONOVAN. I think we're doing well with what we have.
Mr. SCOTT. Director Marshall, I don't know who needs to answer this question. There were 700 threats against judges. How many people were arrested? How many of those complaints were determined to be well founded?
Mr. MARSHALL. I would defer to Assistant Director Donovan.
Mr. DONOVAN. And Congressman, I don't have that before me. But I certainly would be happy to find that for you and get that to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
FURTHER U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE ANSWER TO INQUIRY OF CONGRESSMAN SCOTT
Information available to the U.S. Marshals Service indicates that the number of prosecutions in fiscal year (FY) 1998 was 38; in FY 1999 the number was 33; and so far in fiscal year 2000, the number is 32.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay, we've got what I think would seem to most people to be an awful lot of people out on fugitive warrants. When the people were released, were they released on bond and how is the interplay between the surety on the bond and the Marshals Service, I guess I'll ask another question as you ponder that one, do we have bail bondsmen going out chasing people?
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FINAN. At the Federal level we do not find, we do not have much interaction with the bounty hunters or bail bondsmen. That is seen much more at the local level.
Mr. SCOTT. Do most people who are released have any kind of bond? Are bonds being forfeited when people disappear? When somebody's arrested, they're released on some kind of procedure. Usually in a State system, you post a bond or you are on your own recognizance, or something. And if you don't show up, if there's surety on the bond, somebody pays up. If you're on your own recognizance or something, or bond without surety, then you owe something. I mean, are people collecting on any of these things?
Mr. FINAN. By statute, sureties must be delivered to the U.S. Marshal for production to the magistrate.
Mr. SCOTT. Could you say that again, please?
Mr. FINAN. I'm going to have to get a better answer for you, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
FURTHER U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE ANSWER TO INQUIRY OF CONGRESSMAN SCOTT
The U.S. Attorney determines if there is going to be a prosecution. The U.S. Marshals Service prepares the prosecutive report, but it is up to the Assistant U.S. Attorney to proceed with the prosecution. Most Assistant U.S. Attorneys are reluctant to take the surety for bond because, in many cases, the fugitive's parents have to put up their home to keep their son or daughter out of jail.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. Okay.
Mr. MARSHALL. If I could, Congressman, the area of financial investigations with regard to the bond matters, etc. is an area that we would like to be able to expand our criminal investigations into. Once again, it comes down to at this point a staffing problem that we have where we can't fully investigate those financial matters.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you have more staff, could you catch more fugitives? You talk about the number of man years involved. We apparently have not reached the point of diminishing returns, where if you in fact had more staff, you could catch more criminals.
Mr. MARSHALL. Without a doubt.
Mr. FINAN. That's correct, sir, and in a shorter period of time.
Mr. SCOTT. Part of the court security system involves contracting with outside businesses who supply the court personnel for you, particularly on high profile cases. Could you tell me how large that program is and what you do to ensure quality of the employees?
Mr. MARSHALL. Congressman, daily in the country we depend on what we refer to as a guard work force, the normally off duty sheriff's deputies, police officers, State troopers, who help us provide courtroom security and help us with the movement of prisoners. We do go through a background on each one of these and they are specially deputized, special Deputy U.S. Marshals. We require them to meet the same type of firearms qualifications, we actually put them through our firearms qualifications, along with training so that they're consistent with our policies and our methods.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SCOTT. Can I follow up with this?
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired, but with unanimous consent, we'll recognize the gentleman for one more minute.
Mr. SCOTT. So you're doing the quality control? You're not depending on someone else to train and certify? I guess if they're State police officers, you can rely on that. But you are essentially certifying each individual employee as fully qualified and fully competent to perform the job?
Mr. MARSHALL. It's done at the district level, yes, Congressman.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Marshall, let me take the opportunity here to thank you and the men and women of the Marshals Service for the tremendous service they provide our country. I'm very familiar with it first-hand, through my service as a U.S. Attorney, and certainly continue that admiration for your service during the time I've served here in the Congress.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. BARR. I know that the Marshals Service was involved to some extent during the recent World Bank-IMF meeting here. Could you explain what the role of the Marshals Service was during that meeting?
Mr. MARSHALL. Congressman, primarily our role was to secure the Federal courthouse area in Washington, DC. We were set up at perimeters within several blocks of the courthouse to maintain that process, which was ongoing during the demonstrations. That was our job 24 hours a day.
In addition, we did help out on Monday of the week of the demonstrations, Metropolitan Police requested some assistance. Their officers were awfully tired and had been working some long hours, particularly at the part where they were having the key problems. We did supply them assistance in the form of our special operations group, who helped with crowd control.
Mr. BARR. You mentioned the, of course, the OCDETF program. How is that program working from the Marshals' standpoint? Are you fully involved in it? Is it working well? Are there any problem areas that you see?
Mr. MARSHALL. We're working well in the program. It's another area that we would like to expand. And I'll ask Assistant Director Finan to elaborate on that.
Mr. FINAN. Sir, of the 11 Federal agencies involved in the OCDETF program, we are the smallest. We have 13 people dedicated full time that are funded by the OCDETF. Those people are located in nine regions and one at headquarters.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of the small number of people, they perform primarily an oversight and review role, where they review all of the OCDETF related cases, fugitive cases that we have around the United States. And they monitor those cases.
We have the operation right now going on, as I mentioned, in the Florida-Caribbean region, which is about a $500,000 investment for about 16 or 18 weeks it will run. We're going to close it down on the 4th of August. It's been a very, very productive operation. We brought in approximately 20 deputies from other districts, TDY into the Miami and Tampa areas, and from the numbers that I mentioned before, it was a very, very productive effort.
Mr. BARR. Is it being closed down because the work was completed or for budgetary reasons?
Mr. FINAN. Well, sir, the work will never be completed, because we always will have more fugitives. It's being closed down because it was established as a temporary fugitive operation, and it was funded at the level, as I said, of about $500,000. We were able to eke out until about the 4th of August, which is when we'll about run out of funds on that one.
Mr. BARR. Has the Service, Director Marshall, requested additional funds for that, and if so, has that been supported by OMB and by the Administration?
Mr. MARSHALL. Actually, we work with OCDETF. Those positions are funded by OCDETF that we have dedicated to that program. So we depend on them for support with regard to that program.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As far as our total fugitive effort, yes, and there are 381 positions that are in our current budget that obviously would help us substantially around the field to address not only the fugitive situation, but our rising prisoner population.
Mr. BARR. So is this an area in particular that Congress should look at in terms of perhaps some additional funding?
Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, without a doubt, Congressman.
Mr. BARR. Thank you. We touched briefly, and I forget which of you all touched on it, on the management of the seizure cases. Could somebody give me some notion of the figures that we're talking about there, such as the number of properties that are currently under Marshal Service management, the length of time during which the Service has to manage them, and the cost of that management?
Mr. MARSHALL. Congressman, currently we have 28,000 assets valued at $1.1 billion. We are, as far as the operation of the program, the efficiency, we're in the process now of the reorganization of that program. We think in the long run, actually we'll be able to reduce the staffing necessary to support the program, but do it more efficiently. Currently now 30 percent of our work force is doing 70 percent of the asset forfeiture work. So we're looking to address that, taking administrative work out of the districts and centralizing it in four service centers around the country.
Mr. BARR. Are there any areas that are particularly problematic in terms of the length of time or the specialized costs or the costs because of a specialized need that are a particular drain on your resources, particular types of properties?
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. We've done a terrific job as far as reducing the number of real properties that we have in our possession. We try to dispose of all of them within a year. Anything over a year we consider as something that needs special attention.
I don't have those figures with me, but I can certainly provide those to you at a later date as far as how well we're doing on that. But overall, our inventory has gone down over the years.
Mr. BARR. Okay, I'd appreciate it, Director, if you could furnish those to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, the gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot.
Let me say that I am profoundly gratified for the law enforcement service that the U.S. Marshals Service provides to the Nation and count you as one of the finest services that we have the privilege of having serve us.
Let me thank the chairman and Mr. Scott for having this oversight hearing and congratulations to you, Mr. Marshall, belatedly, for your appointment and as well my sympathy to the Marshals Service and the family of Deputy Hillman in his tragic death.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have the privilege of supporting U.S. Marshal Art Contreras in the Southern District and might I say that he is performing excellently. He is a lifelong law enforcement officer, so I would imagine he wouldn't have diminished his position by accepting that particular directorship of that area.
I also think it's important to note for the oversight hearing the value of having the Marshals Service at very high profile trials, such as the Unibomber and of course, Oklahoma City.
Let me, as I noted, it seems that you're spending quite a bit of dollars on what we call in local government contract officers, about $20 million, if I'm correct, you cited $4,000 in total and about $2,800 in operations that presently are under the service of the U.S. Marshals Service. Would it not be more efficient to hire more personnel, whether this question has been asked, what would you propose would be a good number under your Service to carry on the responsibilities that are under your jurisdiction?
Mr. MARSHALL. We have two, basically two contract work forces that we depend on, Congresswoman. The first are our court security officers. We provide the screening at the entry to our courthouses, and that's of a force of probably over 3,000 that we depend on nationwide. As far as our daily use of guards in the courtroom, that does fluctuate due to the docket in each district, and that's one of the challenges we face as far as any effort to try and replace those guards with full time personnel.
We have done studies on that, and I think the number probably is around 200 at a minimum to be able to start to make a dent on that shadow work force that we depend on. But it does vary.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you then satisfied, if I'm understanding you correctly, with the 4,000, or could you use additional personnel that would be dealing with operations? Is the total 4,000 a number that is meeting our obligations, putting aside these fluctuating employees, or is there a need to increase the number of full time U.S. Marshals?
Mr. MARSHALL. Oh, yes, there's a serious demand to increase the number of personnel we need around the country.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. What would be a comfortable figure for you?
Mr. MARSHALL. The 381 that's in the current budget, Congresswoman, would definitely, would put us well on the road to where we need to be.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. So that number fits your needs at this point, and you wouldn't ask for 450 or 475 or 500?
Mr. MARSHALL. We could use additional, without a doubt. But that 381 certainly would be terrific.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand you, I think very profoundly.
Let me also raise an issue. I noted that you have this partnership with the INS. And you transport aliens. I indicated to all of those who expressed concern during the time of Elian Gonzalez that I would ask the question regarding his transport, particularly on the day that he was reunited with his father. Was the U.S. Marshals Service engaged in that process?
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. Congresswoman, we did not participate in the INS enforcement action that was taken in Miami. We were involved in the operation once Elian arrived at the airport in Miami. At that time, we took charge of him, and he was flown, along with the other personnel, to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. And that's when our involvement with Elian began.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. And in so doing, then, your responsibility was to provide protection for those transporting him and as well as young Elian Gonzalez?
Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. We actually began with the Gonzalez matter on April 8th with the arrival of his father, Juan Gonzalez. We provided portal to portal transportation for him. As far as Elian, we were involved once he arrived at the airport in Miami.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. When you have such high profile cases, is there any special training, other than this unit, I would imagine, that is set aside, or units that are set aside, and training to be able to both be in the position, I assume, of protecting that individual and protecting yourselves? What do you engage in?
Mr. MARSHALL. This was a joint effort between our witness security division that does receive extensive additional training to what our basic deputies receive. There's a combination of the witness security people, their expertise, along with staffing and with Deputy Marshals from around the country.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you had no overlap on the enforcement aspect, which was removing Elian Gonzalez from the home?
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. That's correct. We were not involved in that.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me follow up on my point that I made about you being a full fledged law enforcement agency, and ask what kind of training and sensitivity training is engaged or utilized with the U.S. Marshals Service. Obviously you've heard of the many instances in law enforcement agencies of any type with excessive force, discriminatory treatment. And I know that you carry or transport what some may describe as bad actors, but there are others who are detained for a variety of reasons.
What is going on internally to sensitize U.S. Marshals on those issues?
Mr. MARSHALL. That is a topic of interest that we do cover during basic training. It's also covered during our advanced training. We're very sensitive to that at the district level. I rely on district management to make sure that they are doing the proper monitoring of all our activities, to make sure that our people are treating everyone that they encounter with dignity and professionally. And any complaints to the contrary are promptly investigated.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I ask an additional minute?
Mr. CHABOT. Without objection.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman very much for his indulgence.
I want to follow that up, because I note that there may be a need to increase diversity in the U.S. Marshals Service. I noted as well in past sessions legislation to remove the appointment process to a civil service process. Having supported Mr. Contreras, a lifelong law enforcement officer who simply happens to be Hispanic, who I believe benefitted from the processes that we have now to acknowledge his credentials and his excellence, I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about moving it away from a process that would look to diversity.
What are you doing about diversity in the U.S. Marshals Service and any comment on an appointment process versus the civil service process?
Mr. MARSHALL. With regard to the appointment process, there are certainly pros and cons to the system. I'm very proud of the group of Marshals that we have now. We have a diverse group of United States Marshals, and I think that Marshal Contreras is a prime example of the type of leadership, the type of experience that that process allows us to avail ourselves of, in addition to diversity.
What I've done since arrival, Congresswoman, I think any new director will set as a goal that when he or she leaves that agency, that agency is left better than when he or she found it. That's certainly my goal in particular with regard to diversity in this agency. One of the first acts I did was to send out a very strong message to the field to let them know that I will not tolerate discrimination or any type of harassment, sexual or otherwise, by our employees, all employees, to the highest level of the spirit of EEO laws and affirmative employment programs.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since becoming Director, I'm very proud that our current basic Deputy class, which is going on in Glynco, Georgia, with 21 students, of that 21, 46 percent are minority or female. My recent promotions, the first group of promotions I made, 24 percent of those promotions were minorities. I've established an EEO advisory committee, a new EEO advisory committee, and 80 percent of that committee is minority or female, include 4 African-Americans, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian-Pacific, and 1 disabled employee and 6 females in that EEO advisory committee.
The career board which I recently named, which is the final group to look at promotions before making recommendations to me, 80 percent of that career board which I've established is either minority or female, 5 African-Americans, 3 Hispanic Americans and 6 females.
I've taken some very positive steps. And with regard to your question on the Marshals, our current U.S. Marshal work force, 40 percent of those are minorities or females, with 17 African-Americans, 7 Hispanics, 3 Asian-Americans, 1 Native American, and 9 females. I'm also very proud that we have our first African-American Assistant Director, Claudine Brown, who's in charge of our Budget Division, along with my general counsel, our human resources director, our EEO officer, are all females.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I thank the Director for his testimony.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, is recognized.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Donovan, many witnesses come up here and don't admit that they can get along with their current appropriated monies. I commend you, for I think you told the chairman you could survive on what you have. And I commend you. We don't hear that too often up here.
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Director, when I shared with you all my uncomplimentary remarks, I was merely conveying that to you. I too, not unlike my colleagues, am high on the Marshals Service. But if you have glorified bureaucrats, you need to weed them out. I'm sure we have glorified bureaucrats in Congress. Hopefully the five of us are exemplary——[Laughter.]
Mr. COBLE [continuing]. But the rotten apple is the one that spoils the entire bucket. So I meant nothing uncomplimentary to you all personally.
Let me put this question to you, Mr. Director. I'm a Marshal, I'm a Deputy Marshal. It's getting late in the day, and I'm the only guy at the office, and I've just learned there's a fugitive that needs to be apprehended, and he's in my area. Simultaneously, my sitting Federal judge has requested or demanded protection.
What would take priority in that hypothetical?
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. Well, that would be up to supervision, as far as the threat or the possible threat on the judge. It would be up to district management at that time to make a decision as to whether or not the action that's been reported needs immediate attention. They can authorize a protective detail for up to 72 hours.
So that would be a decision of supervision there. But without a doubt, neither one of those would go unaddressed. If we couldn't ourselves go out to apprehend that fugitive, we would contact the local authorities to make the apprehension in our absence. But we would certainly do everything we could to get personnel there to make the apprehension and to make sure that the judge is taken care of also.
Mr. COBLE. And I certainly don't want to turn blind eyes to judges who need protection. But I'm concerned about fugitive apprehension, as I'm sure you all are. I think it's a pot that's boiling and needs to be attended to.
To what extent are you all involved in apprehending State prisoners?
Mr. MARSHALL. State and local cases, we participate in several task forces around the country with State and local authorities. And we actually supervise 60 of these task forces. And this is a joint effort that really is a win-win situation for the Federal Government and the State and local governments. In particular, when I was a Marshal in Eastern Virginia, we had an operation for 3 months in the summer of 1995. And during that 3 month period, we had Deputy Marshals paired up with Richmond city police officers. And during that 3 month period, we cleared over 500 warrants, including 293 arrests.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Where I was going, Mr. Director, does that take time away from your Federal apprehension? That was what was concerning me?
Mr. MARSHALL. I don't believe it takes time away. Because what we accomplish through this is, we also have a Federal, the State and local officers to provide staffing that we need to go out and make the arrests, as well as in addition to their sources of information that they have, in the neighborhoods, being in the neighborhoods where we aren't, as much in the neighborhoods as the local. So it's an advantage to us as far as our cases.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Pekarek, let me put this question to you. The prisoners that you're transporting airborne, are they manacled to each other and to the plane?
Mr. MARSHALL. No. Not to the plane or to each other, no.
Mr. COBLE. Okay, because I had been told that they were to the plane, and I thought that would be inviting additional risk that probably shouldn't be invited.
Mr. MARSHALL. Assistant Director Pekarek, just in case there are any situations that I'm not aware of.
Mr. PEKAREK. Congressman, your question was asked, if they're attached to the airplane?
Mr. COBLE. Yes, if they're attached to one another, Mr. Barr and I together, and then in turn to the plane.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PEKAREK. No, Congressman. They are never attached to each other nor are they attached to the airplane.
Mr. COBLE. Okay. That would be certainly a problem that should probably not be surfacing.
Mr. PEKAREK. That does not happen.
Mr. COBLE. Well, I think my time is about done, we have a bell ringing, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the time.
Mr. CHABOT. Okay, thank you, Mr. Coble. And if there's no other members of the panel, I'd just conclude by saying that as the chairman, Bill McCollum mentioned at the beginning of this hearing the United States Marshals Service as the Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency. It was first created by the very first United States Congress. It has a very proud history.
I think your testimony this afternoon has been very, very good, and I think all the panel members learned something. And we appreciate your time. Please continue to serve our country as you have.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? I just wanted to put a question into the record and I'd appreciate it if they would submit it to me in writing, and that is, determination on going after fugitives and what kind of level do you use for levels of fugitives? I have had information about 20 bands for an unarmed person, and I'd like to know how those determinations are made. Thank you.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, Congresswoman.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And we again, as Mr. McCollum also mentioned, we look forward to serving many years with you, John Marshall, as the new Director of your Service. And we wish you the best in that capacity as well. At this time, the Subcommittee on Crime of the Judiciary Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]