DOCSLIB.ORG

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2009 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California TOM LATHAM, Iowa MICHAEL HONDA, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. JOHN BLAZEY, MARJORIE DUSKE, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, TRACEY LATURNER, and DIANA SIMPSON Subcommittee Staff PART 5 Page Department of Justice ............................................................ 1 Federal Bureau of Investigation .......................................... 71 Drug Enforcement Administration ..................................... 115 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ........................ 159 Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services, Office of Violence Against Women. 203 Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Marshals Service; Office of the Federal Detention Trustee ................................................ 277 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 42–792 WASHINGTON : 2008 VerDate Aug 31 2005 01:41 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 7513 Sfmt 7513 E:\HR\OC\42792P1.XXX 42792P1 smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia RALPH REGULA, Ohio MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York JAMES T. WALSH, New York JOSE´ E. SERRANO, New York DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona TODD TIAHRT, Kansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CHET EDWARDS, Texas TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York KAY GRANGER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania SAM FARR, California VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois RAY LAHOOD, Illinois CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DAVE WELDON, Florida ALLEN BOYD, Florida MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida MARION BERRY, Arkansas DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas TOM UDALL, New Mexico RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana ADAM SCHIFF, California KEN CALVERT, California MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota STEVE ISRAEL, New York TIM RYAN, Ohio C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director (II) VerDate Aug 31 2005 01:41 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 7513 Sfmt 7513 E:\HR\OC\42792P1.XXX 42792P1 smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RE- LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITNESS MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL CONGRESSMAN OBEY OPENING REMARKS Mr. OBEY [presiding]. Well, good morning, everybody. Good morning, Mr. Attorney General. Mr. MUKASEY. Good morning. Mr. OBEY. Good to see you again. Mr. MUKASEY. Good to see you. OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. OBEY Mr. OBEY. I would like to welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on the Department of Justice. Our witness today will be Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. Sir, when you became Attorney General, you inherited a Depart- ment rife with problems. The most troubling of those has been the infiltration of partisan politics in the Department’s legal counsel, management decisions and operations. You are well aware, I think, of congressional concern about the partisan arm twisting that led to the authorization of the Adminis- tration’s warrantless wire tapping program, as well as the parsing of words that has been used to justify the CIA’s use of torture in its interrogation program. Last year, there were also severe concerns about White House in- volvement in the firing and hiring of U.S. Attorneys. With the Presidential election coming this year, many Americans are con- cerned about the Civil Rights Division’s capacity and willingness to investigate and enforce the ‘‘ Voting Rights Act’’ in cases of voter suppression. Unfortunately, politicization is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of management challenges at the Department of Justice. We have seen a steady stream of incidents across the Department in which senior leadership has abdicated its oversight and manage- ment responsibilities. I want to make clear I am not talking about you. I am talking about things that happened largely before you came on board. Over a period of several years, as you know, FBI agents have gained unauthorized access into the phone, banking, and credit (1) VerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2 wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING 2 records of American citizens, all without detection or redress by senior managers at either the FBI or the Department of Justice. The Bureau of Prisons faces a critical operating shortfall this year, and allegations have been raised that the Department has handed out juvenile justice grants to cronies rather than to deserv- ing applicants identified through fair, merit-based competitive proc- esses. We get a lot of lectures, frankly, from the White House about congressional earmarking practices. It seems to us that under a va- riety of disguises, the same practices are being practiced in spades in many of the agencies down on the executive end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The Administration again proposes to slash funding for state and local law enforcement and crime prevention grants despite clear in- dications that crime rises during economic downturns. The White House proposes even deeper cuts to state and local law enforcement than last year, to the tune of $1.6 billion below the current year funding level. I do not know of a single sheriff in the United States who agrees with that recommendation. With respect to federal law enforcement initiatives, the funding you have requested for ‘‘ Adam Walsh Act’’ sex offender apprehen- sion and immigration enforcement appears to represent only a passing thought. In addition, nearly every element of your Depart- ment is severely undercut by a lack of resources to deploy an inter- operable wireless communications network around the country, a critical shortfall identified in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy and still not deployed today. Continued growth in the FBI and the federal prison system is starving other critical functions at your Department in my judg- ment, activities such as criminal enforcement, litigation, adminis- trative support and infrastructure deployment. This trend, in my view, must be addressed sooner rather than later if there is to be any significant hope of a Department of Jus- tice comprised of more than the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons in the very near future. So we look forward to hearing your views on these and on any other issues that either you or members of the Committee choose to bring up. Again, we appreciate your appearance here today. Before we begin with your statement, I would like to ask the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for any com- ments he might have. OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. FRELINGHUYSEN Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, I join Chairman Obey in welcoming you this morning for your first appearance before our Committee to dis- cuss your 2009 budget. First, I want to recognize and extend my sincere appreciation to the men and women of the Justice Department who ably carry out their responsibilities to protect our country from terrorism and crime each and every day. We owe them a debt of gratitude. I would also like to recognize your public service career, not only as an attorney within the Justice Department, but your service on the Federal bench. VerDate Aug 31 2005 01:25 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 042792 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A792P2.XXX A792P2 wwoods2 on PRODPC60 with HEARING 3 As the Chairman has said, for 2009, you are seeking discre- tionary appropriations totaling $22.85 billion for the Department, a reduction of 514 million or 2.2 percent from the fiscal year 2000 level. While the request includes large and critically needed enhance- ments in national security and counter-terrorism money for those programs especially at the FBI and increased investments for criminal justice programs on our Southwest border, the budget also contains very deep and damaging cuts to assistance programs to state and local law enforcement, indeed our partners and your partners in some very important efforts. In addition, the Committee will act soon on the Administration’s pending supplemental request, so I will have some questions about the Department’s pending supplemental request of $146.7 million for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Global War on Terror. As you are aware, that request was formulated, I think, about 18 months ago and I am sure there are some updates you can provide us so we are operating on the latest and most current information. Again, like the Chairman, I welcome you here for your testimony this morning. Thank you. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Attorney General, why don’t you proceed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War on the Mexican Drug Cartels
    THE WAR ON MEXICAN CARTELS OPTIONS FOR U.S. AND MEXICAN POLICY-MAKERS POLICY PROGRAM CHAIRS Ken Liu Chris Taylor GROUP CHAIR Jean-Philippe Gauthier AUTHORS William Dean Laura Derouin Mikhaila Fogel Elsa Kania Tyler Keefe James McCune Valentina Perez Anthony Ramicone Robin Reyes Andrew Seo Minh Trinh Alex Velez-Green Colby Wilkason RESEARCH COORDINATORS Tia Ray Kathryn Walsh September 2012 Final Report of the Institute of Politics National Security Student Policy Group THE WAR ON MEXICAN CARTELS OPTIONS FOR U.S. AND MEXICAN POLICY-MAKERS POLICY PROGRAM CHAIRS Ken Liu Chris Taylor GROUP CHAIR Jean-Philippe Gauthier AUTHORS William Dean Laura Derouin Mikhaila Fogel Elsa Kania Tyler Keefe James McCune Valentina Perez Anthony Ramicone Robin Reyes Andrew Seo Minh Trinh Alex Velez-Green Colby Wilkason RESEARCH COORDINATORS Tia Ray Kathryn Walsh September 2012 Final Report of the Institute of Politics 2 National Security Student Policy Group Institute of Politics ABOUT THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY GROUP The Institute of Politics is a non-profit organization located in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. It is a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy, and its mission is to unite and engage students, particularly undergraduates, with academics, politicians, activists, and policymakers on a non-partisan basis and to stimulate and nurture their interest in public service and leadership. The Institute strives to promote greater understanding and cooperation between the academic world and the world of politics and public affairs. Led by a Director, Senior Advisory Board, Student Advisory Committee, and staff, the Institute provides wide-ranging opportunities for both Harvard students and the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Homeland Security Role in the Mexican War Against Drug Cartels
    THE U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY ROLE IN THE MEXICAN WAR AGAINST DRUG CARTELS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–14 Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 72–224 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman LAMAR SMITH, Texas BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia LAURA RICHARDSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TIM WALBERG, Michigan BRIAN HIGGINS, New York CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota JACKIE SPEIER, California JOE WALSH, Illinois CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan BEN QUAYLE, Arizona WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY BILLY LONG, Missouri VACANCY JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MO BROOKS, Alabama MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT MICHAEL T.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico∗
    Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico∗ Arindrajit Dube† Oeindrila Dube‡ Omar Garc´ıa-Ponce§ This draft: August 2011 Abstract Do more guns cause more violence? We exploit a natural experiment induced by the 2004 expiration of the U.S. federal assault weapons ban to examine how the subsequent exogenous increase in gun supply affected violence in Mexico. The expiration relaxed the permissiveness of gun sales in border states such as Texas and Arizona, but not California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. Using data from mortality statistics and criminal prosecutions over 2002-2006, we show that homicides, gun-related homicides and gun crimes increased differentially in Mexican municipios located closer to Texas and Arizona ports of entry, versus California ports of entry. Our estimates suggest that the U.S. policy change caused at least 158 additional deaths each year in municipios near the border during the post-2004 period. Notably, gun seizures also increased differentially, and solely for the gun category that includes assault weapons. The results are robust to controls for drug trafficking, policing, unauthorized immigration, and economic conditions in U.S. border ports, as well as drug eradication, trends by income and education, and military and legal enforcement efforts in Mexican municipios. Our findings suggest that U.S. gun laws have exerted an unanticipated spillover on gun supply in Mexico, and this increase in gun supply has contributed to rising violence south of the border. JEL codes: D74, K14, K42 ∗We are grateful to Joshua Angrist, Eli Berman, Michael Clemens, William Easterly, Macartan Humphreys, Brian Knight, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, Emily Owens, Debraj Ray, Alexandra Scacco, Jake Shapiro, David Stasavage, and Kevin Thom, as well as seminar participants at the Center for Global Development, NYU, Columbia CSDS, IAE Conflict Concentration, ESOP/WZB Political Economy of Conflict Conference, LACEA-crime, NBER Crime Working Goup, and Universidad Javeriana for providing useful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Or Furious): the Nonexistent U.S
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 46 2012 Going Nowhere Fast (or Furious): The Nonexistent U.S. Firearms Trafficking Statute and the Rise of Mexican Drug Cartel Violence Stewart M. Young University of Wyoming College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Stewart M. Young, Going Nowhere Fast (or Furious): The Nonexistent U.S. Firearms Trafficking Statute and the Rise of Mexican Drug Cartel Violence, 46 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 1 (2012). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol46/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOING NOWHERE "FAST" (OR "FURIOUS"): THE NONEXISTENT U.S. FIREARMS TRAFFICKING STATUTE AND THE RISE OF MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL VIOLENCE Stewart M. Young* Drug trafficking violence in Mexico, now reaching epidemic proportions, greatly impacts both the Mexican and United States governments. Despite the escalation of the "War on Drugs," drug traffickingfrom Mexico to the United States continues largely unabated, stifling tourism revenue and lawful economic opportunities, and causing violence previously unknown in Mexico. Thus far, the United States' ef- forts to deal with this drug trafficking and violence include the recent debacle of Operation Fast and Furious.
    [Show full text]
  • The State and Transnational Organized Crime: a Case Study Analysis of Criminal Opportunities in the Russian Federation and the United States
    THE STATE AND TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES YULIYA G. ZABYELINA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY TRENTO, ITALY 2013 2 EXAMINING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Thesis Supervisor DR. ANDREA DI NICOLA UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO Facoltà di Giurisprudenza Via Verdi 53 – 38122 Trento, Italy Email: [email protected] External Examiners DR. GEORGIOS ANTONOPOULOS TEESSIDE UNIVERSITY School of Social Sciences and Law Middlesbrough, Tees Valley TS1 3BA United Kingdom Email: [email protected] DR. BARBARA VETTORI UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE Facoltà di Scienze Politiche e Sociali L.go Gemelli, 1 – 20123 Milano, Italy Email: [email protected] 3 © COPYRIGHT 2013 BY YULIYA G. ZABYELINA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 4 ABSTRACT The concern with the role of failing and post-conflict states as incubators of transnational organized crime (TOC) was a recurrent theme in research in the 1990s. Because of deep- seated institutional failures, instability and impoverishment, weak states were considered as crime-facilitative environments, in which criminal organizations were provided with rewarding criminal opportunities and a high degree of immunity. The resilience of properly functioning states has often been taken for granted in mainstream accounts of TOC. Fragmented but nevertheless important empirical data provide evidence that TOC has established in many countries around the world irrespective of high levels of economic development and outstanding governance. This dissertation studies the nexus between state features and TOC. In order to do so, a qualitative analysis of the formation of criminal opportunities within different types of states is offered.
    [Show full text]
  • US Firearms Trafficking to Mexico
    U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico: New Data and Insights Illuminate Key Trends and Challenges Colby Goodman Michel Marizco Working Paper Series on U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation September 2010 1 Brief Project Description This Working Paper is the product of a joint project on U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation coordinated by the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. As part of the project, several leading experts have been invited to prepare research papers that provide background on organized crime in Mexico, the United States, and Central America, and analyze specific challenges for cooperation between the United States and Mexico, including efforts to address the consumption of narcotics, money laundering, arms trafficking, intelligence sharing, police strengthening, judicial reform, and the protection of journalists. This working paper is being released in a preliminary form to inform the public about key issues in the public and policy debate about the best way to confront drug trafficking and organized crime. Together the working paper series will form the basis of a forthcoming edited volume. All papers, along with other background information and analysis, can be accessed online at The Mexico Institute and the Trans-Border Institute and are copyrighted to the author. The project was made possible by a generous grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation. The views of the author do not represent an official position of the Woodrow Wilson Center or the University of San Diego. For questions related to the project, for media inquiries, or if you would like to contact the author please contact the project coordinator, Eric L.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-21-322, Firearms Trafficking
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters February 2021 FIREARMS TRAFFICKING U.S. Efforts to Disrupt Gun Smuggling into Mexico Would Benefit from Additional Data and Analysis GAO-21-322 February 2021 FIREARMS TRAFFICKING U.S. Efforts to Disrupt Gun Smuggling into Mexico Would Benefit from Additional Data and Analysis Highlights of GAO-21-322, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The U.S. Southwest Border Trafficking of U.S.-sourced firearms into Mexico is a national security threat, as it Counternarcotics Strategy: 2020 facilitates the illegal drug trade and has been linked to organized crime. The identified the trafficking of firearms Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from the U.S. into Mexico as a threat to (ATF) found that 70 percent of firearms reported to have been recovered in the safety and security of both Mexico from 2014 through 2018 and submitted for tracing were U.S. sourced. countries. The Mexican government However, ATF does not receive complete data about thousands of firearms, such has estimated that 200,000 firearms as those recovered by Mexican states, because only Mexico’s federal Attorney are smuggled from the United States General’s office submits trace requests to ATF. In addition, the Department of each year. Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) GAO was asked to report on U.S. has identified smuggling trends by analyzing DHS data on 1,012 firearms seized efforts to counter firearms trafficking to in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony by Eric L. Olson, Senior Associate Woodrow
    Testimony By Eric L. Olson, Senior Associate Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Latin America Program - Mexico Institute Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs “A Shared Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizen Security in the Americas.” Thursday, March 31, 2011 1 “Challenges and Opportunities for the U.S. and Mexico to Disrupt Firearms Trafficking to Mexico” Written Testimony by Eric L. Olson Senior Associate, Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute Thursday, March 31, 2011 Senator Menendez, Ranking Member Rubio, and Members of the Subcommittee I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Woodrow Wilson Center to discuss an issue of enormous importance in U.S. – Mexican relations, firearms trafficking. As you know, in 2007 Presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón Hinojosa announced a landmark security cooperation agreement called the Mérida Initiative. The significance of this agreement was not only the money and equipment involved but the innovative framework of “shared responsibility” that formalized the commitment of both countries to work together to address the serious security problems posed by organized crime. For the first time both countries acknowledged that the roots of the crime and violence convulsing Mexico where to be found in both countries. Mexico acknowledged that it needed to more aggressively confront organized crime by increasing deployments of its security forces, and dramatically strengthening its institutions by rooting out corruption, professionalizing its police, transforming its justice system, and improving the capacity of its military and intelligence services. For its part, the United States acknowledged that consumption of illegal drugs in the U.S., the profits generated, and the trafficking of firearms was feeding the violence in Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting Biotechnology In
    Final Ben Miller.docx (Do Not Delete) 4/7/2010 2:20 PM FUELING VIOLENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER: WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO FROM FIREARMS TRAFFICKING Benjamin Kai Miller* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 164 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................... 165 A. Victim accounts.......................................................... 167 B. Where does the blame fall? ........................................ 172 C. Factors that led to the U.S.­Mexico border becoming a war zone .................................................. 174 III. ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 178 A. Why the policy method of incrementalism is the best approach for firearms trafficking laws .............. 179 B. How are Mexico and the United States currently responding to these issues? ........................................ 180 C. What more can be done? ............................................ 189 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 199 *J.D., University of Houston Law Center, Expected 2010; B.A., University of TexaS. ThiS Comment received the JameS W. Skelton, Jr. Writing Award for an Outstanding Comment on a Topic in International Law. I would like to thank my family, specifically my parents and the Cantus, for their constant support and encouragement throughout law school. I would also like to thank the Editorial Board of HJIL for their
    [Show full text]
  • National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy Implementation Update
    NATIONAL SOUTHWEST BORDER COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE 2010 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy Implementation Update Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 1: Intelligence and Information Sharing ............................................................................... 5 Chapter 2: At the Ports of Entry ......................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3: Between the Ports of Entry ............................................................................................. 10 Chapter 4: Air and Marine ............................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 5: Investigations and Prosecutions ..................................................................................... 14 Chapter 6: Money ............................................................................................................................. 18 Chapter 7: Weapons ......................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 8: Technology ..................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 9: Cooperation with Mexico ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arms Trafficking and Supremacism in the United States-Mexico Bilateral Relationship*
    Arms Trafficking and Supremacism in the United States-Mexico Bilateral Relationship* Mauricio Ibarra Ponce de León ** The issue of arms trafficking has been present at all times in bilateral security debates and meetings between Mexico and the United States, almost always in the context of meetings related to drug trafficking. Currently, the debate has evolved by relating this matter to others such as organized crime and increasing violence and, more recently, to complex issues such as racism, xenophobia, extremism and white supremacism. In this sense, throughout this essay we will review the security dis- cussions between both nations and how the issue of arms trafficking is introduced, making special reference to Mexico’s position on the U.S. legislation on arms. In another section, we will refer to arms traf- ficking on the border between both countries and to the recent cases of violence in Mexican border states, which exemplify the link between arms trafficking and organized crime. Also, the new strategy of the Gov- ernment of Mexico to “freeze” arms trafficking from the United States to Mexico will be highlighted and, finally, we will discuss the growing hate speech, racism, xenophobia and supremacism and how it is related to arms trafficking. * Spanish-English translation by Edith Verónica Luna. ** Consul General of Mexico in El Paso, Texas. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, número especial 2020, pp. 38-47, ISSN 0185-6022 Bilateral security mechanisms Over the years, the various institutional mechanisms on security matters be- tween Mexico and the United States such as the High-Level Contact Group (GCAN, in Spanish) and the United States-Mexico Justice Procurement Pan- el (SLEP) in the 1990s; the United States-Mexico High Level Group since 2006; the 2017 Group to Fight Transnational Organized Crime; and now the High Level Security Group (Ganseg) created in 2019, have always Mauricio Ibarra Ponce de León had a section to discuss the issue of illicit arms flows from the United States to Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border
    Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border Vivian S. Chu Legislative Attorney William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy July 29, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40733 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border Summary According to the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the lead federal agency responsible for stopping the illegal flow of firearms, or gun trafficking, from the United States to Mexico. ATF has developed a nationwide strategy to reduce firearms trafficking and violent crime by seeking to prevent convicted felons, drug traffickers, and juvenile gang members from acquiring firearms from gun traffickers. These criminals often acquire firearms from persons who are otherwise not prohibited from possessing firearms, or by buying firearms from corrupt federal firearms licensees (FFLs) who sell firearms off-the-books in an attempt to escape federal regulation. ATF also reports that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) are increasingly sending enforcers across the border to hire surrogates (straw purchasers) who buy several “military-style” firearms at a time from FFLs. The DTOs also reportedly favor pistols chambered to accommodate comparatively large cartridges that are capable of piercing through armor vests usually worn by law enforcement officers, and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Less frequently, but no less troubling to law enforcement, the DTOs have also sought .50 caliber sniper rifles that are capable of penetrating bullet-proof glass and lightly armored vehicles. ATF reports that there are around 6,700 FFLs in the United States operating in the Southwest border region of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
    [Show full text]