Report to Congress on Implementation
of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act
(as required by Section 1001(3) of Public Law 107-56)

January 22, 2003
Office of the Inspector General

---

January 22, 2003

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510		The Honorable James Sensenbrenner Chairman Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510		The Honorable John Conyers Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairmen, Senator Leahy, and Congressman Conyers:

Enclosed is the report required by Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56. Section 1001 directs the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to undertake a series of actions related to civil rights or civil liberties allegations against Department of Justice employees and to report on these actions every six months to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives.

This report, our second under Section 1001, describes the OIG’s activities in implementing these responsibilities for the six-month period from June 15, 2002, until December 15, 2002.

Please contact me or my Counselor, Paul Martin, at 514-3435 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Glenn A. Fine Inspector General

Enclosures

Second Report to Congress on Implementation
of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act
(as required by Section 1001(3) of Public Law 107-56)

January 22, 2003
Office of the Inspector General

---

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is an independent entity that reports to both the Attorney General and Congress. The OIG's mission is to investigate allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse in DOJ programs and personnel and to promote economy and efficiency in DOJ operations.

The OIG now has jurisdiction to review programs and personnel in all DOJ components, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, and other DOJ organizations.¹

The OIG consists of the Immediate Office of the Inspector General and the following divisions and offices:

Audit Division is responsible for independent audits of Department programs, computer systems, and financial statements.

Evaluation and Inspections Division provides an alternative mechanism to traditional audits and investigations to review Department programs and activities.

Investigations Division is responsible for investigating allegations of bribery, fraud, abuse, civil rights violations, and violations of other criminal laws and administrative procedures that govern Department employees, contractors, and grantees.

Office of Oversight and Review blends the skills of attorneys, investigators, and program analysts to investigate or review high-profile or sensitive matters involving Department programs or employees.

Office of General Counsel provides legal advice to OIG management and staff. In addition, the office drafts memoranda on issues of law; prepares administrative subpoenas; represents the OIG in personnel, contractual, and legal matters; and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Management and Planning Division assists the OIG by providing services in the areas of planning, budget, finance, personnel, training, procurement, automated data processing, computer network communications, and general support.

Office of the Inspector General
Organizational Chart
December 2002

The OIG has a staff of approximately 400 employees, about half of whom are based in Washington, DC, while the rest work from 19 Investigations Division field offices and 7 Audit Division regional offices located throughout the country.

Office of the Inspector General
Field Office Locations
December 2002

The USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act), Public Law 107-56, was enacted by Congress and signed by the President on October 26, 2001, provides new and enhanced law enforcement authorities, including the sharing of foreign intelligence information, increased penalties for money laundering and other financial crimes, and stricter controls on immigration. In addition, Section 1001 of the Patriot Act directs the OIG to undertake a series of actions related to claims of civil rights or civil liberties violations by DOJ employees.

II. SECTION 1001

Section 1001 of the Patriot Act provides the following:

The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall designate one official who shall -
1. review information and receive complaints alleging abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by employees and officials of the Department of Justice;

2. make public through the Internet, radio, television, and newspaper advertisements information on the responsibilities and functions of, and how to contact, the official; and

3. submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on a semi-annual basis a report on the implementation of this subsection and detailing any abuses described in paragraph (1), including a description of the use of funds appropriations used to carry out this subsection.

In compliance with Section 1001, Inspector General Glenn Fine designated his Counselor, Paul Martin, as the official who is responsible for overseeing the OIG's Section 1001 activities and coordinating the OIG's response to the Section 1001 directives.

This report, submitted pursuant to Section 1001(3) of the Patriot Act, covers the period from June 16, 2002, through December 15, 2002, and describes, in turn, the OIG's activities in implementing the responsibilities outlined in Section 1001. This is the second report submitted by the OIG pursuant to this section of the Patriot Act; the OIG submitted its first report on July 15, 2002.

III. CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES COMPLAINTS

1. Review information and receive complaints alleging abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by employees and officials of the Department of Justice;

The OIG established the Special Operations Branch in its Investigations Division to help manage the OIG's investigative responsibilities outlined in the Patriot Act.² The Special Agent in Charge (SAC) who directs this new unit is assisted by two Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASAC), one of whom assists on the Patriot Act and DEA matters and a second who assists on FBI matters. In addition, two Investigative Specialists support the unit and divide their time between Patriot Act and FBI/DEA responsibilities.

The Special Operations Branch receives civil rights and civil liberties complaints via mail, e-mail, telephone, and facsimile. The complaints are reviewed by the Investigative Specialist and ASAC responsible for Patriot Act. After review, the complaint is entered into an OIG database and a decision is made concerning its disposition. The more serious civil rights and civil liberties allegations that relate to actions of a DOJ employee or contractor are assigned to an OIG Investigations Division field office where OIG special agents conduct investigations of criminal violations and administrative misconduct.³

Because of its limited resources, the OIG does not handle all allegations of misconduct against DOJ employees. The OIG refers, for appropriate handling, many complaints involving DOJ employees to internal affairs offices in DOJ components, such as the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, the DEA Office of Professional Responsibility, the BOP Office of Internal Affairs, or the INS Office of Internal Audit. Certain referrals require the component to report the results of their investigation to the OIG. In most cases, the OIG notifies the complainant of the referral.

Complaints outside the OIG's jurisdiction that identify a specific issue for investigation are forwarded to the appropriate investigative entity. For example, complaints of mistreatment by airport security staff are forwarded to the Department of Transportation's OIG. We have forwarded complaints to the OIGs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Army, and to the Civil Rights Office in the Department of Education. In addition, we have referred complainants to a variety of police department internal affairs offices.

Since passage of the Patriot Act, the OIG also has been in close communication with the DOJ Civil Rights Division's National Origin Working Group (NOWG) to Combat the Post-9/11 Discriminatory Backlash. The NOWG regularly forwards complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties abuses to the OIG for review. Many of the complaints forwarded by the NOWG are the result of media database searches.

When an allegation received from any source involves a potential violation of federal civil rights statutes by a DOJ employee, the complaint is discussed with the DOJ Civil Rights Division for prosecutorial review. In some cases, the Civil Rights Division accepts the case and requests additional investigation by either the OIG or FBI. In other cases, the Civil Rights Division declines prosecution.

1. Complaints Received this Reporting Period

From June 16, 2002, through December 15, 2002, the period covered by this report, the OIG received the following number and types of complaints:

• Number of complaints received suggesting Patriot Act-related civil rights or civil liberties connection:⁴ 783

• Number of "unrelated" complaints⁵: 358

• Number of complaints outside the OIG's jurisdiction⁶: 258

• Number of complaints within the OIG's jurisdiction: 167

• Number of complaints within the OIG's jurisdiction that state a credible Patriot Act complaint: 33

The 167 complaints received by the OIG during this reporting period that fell within the OIG’s jurisdiction (i.e., that state a claim involving a DOJ component or employee) covered a wide variety of subjects. They included allegations of excessive force by INS and BOP staff, verbal abuse by correctional officers, rude treatment by INS inspectors, and forced consumption of food prohibited by religious custom in INS and BOP facilities. However, many of the 167 complaints in this category, while within the OIG’s jurisdiction and couched as a “Patriot Act” or “civil rights” complaint, do not raise issues implicated by Section 1001. For example, the OIG received numerous e-mails from individuals asking about the status of immigration paperwork they had submitted to the INS. Consequently, after closely analyzing the complaints in this category, the OIG identified 33 that raised credible Patriot Act violations on their face. These allegations ranged in seriousness from alleged beatings of detainees to INS Inspections staff allegedly cursing at airline passengers.

B. Patriot Act Cases this Reporting Period

1. Complaints Worked by the OIG

During this reporting period, the OIG opened 6 new Patriot Act-related investigations, continued 11 ongoing Patriot Act-related investigations, and closed 4 investigations, 3 of which we discussed in our previous semi-annual report to Congress.

Among the new cases of alleged civil rights and civil liberties abuses by DOJ employees opened by the OIG during this reporting period are:

• The OIG is investigating claims raised in a newspaper article that an INS detention officer at a New Jersey facility held a loaded gun to an alien detainee’s head and threatened him while transferring the detainee to another detention facility in July 2002.

• The OIG received a complaint that an INS Inspector entered a gas station operated by an Arab-American and, in a disrespectful and hostile manner, demanded “papers” from the Arab American. The complaint also alleged that the INS Inspector made a disparaging remark, escalating the incident to the point where the Arab American called the police.

• The OIG received information from the American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee (ADC) that an INS detainee in Denton, Texas, had six teeth extracted against his will while in INS custody. The detainee also alleged that he was beaten, threatened by officers, denied adequate medical treatment, and forced to eat pork on a regular basis even though it was against his religion. The OIG interviewed Denton County staff and reviewed the complainant’s INS and medical records. The Denton County Jail Food Services Administrator told the OIG that the jail has had a 100 percent non-pork diet for approximately one year. Dental records at the Denton County Jail indicate that the victim signed consent forms to have his badly infected teeth removed. Regarding the alleged assault by Denton County officers, the OIG investigation revealed conflicting information from the victim, witness, and officers, and the OIG could not substantiate the detainee’s alleged injuries. The OIG presented the results of its investigation to attorneys in the Civil Rights Division, who declined prosecution. The OIG subsequently closed the case.

The following are examples of civil rights and civil liberties allegations opened during the previous reporting period that the OIG continues to investigate during this reporting period:

• The OIG is investigating an allegation that federal correctional officers at the BOP’s Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, repeatedly slammed an INS detainee against a wall and also injured three other detainees. The OIG interviewed several of the correctional officers allegedly involved in the abuse, interviewed the alleged victims, and reviewed the alleged victims’ medical records. Based on the evidence presented, however, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York declined to prosecute the matter. Nonetheless, the OIG is continuing investigating this case for potential administrative misconduct.

• The OIG is investigating claims that an INS detainee at the Passaic County Jail in Paterson, New Jersey, was injured during an altercation with correctional officers. The OIG learned that correctional officers subdued the detainee with pepper spray after the detainee allegedly refused to follow orders and became uncooperative. The detainee claimed that the officers physically abused him during the altercation, causing him serious injuries. The OIG also interviewed two other detainees who were allegedly abused by unidentified guards, according to allegations raised in a separate complaint letter. Both detainees advised that there was no mistreatment by the corrections staff. In June 2002, the INS deported the detainee from the United States. The OIG presented this case to the Civil Rights Division and prosecutors declined to file criminal charges. The OIG is continuing to investigate this case as an administrative investigation.
• The OIG is investigating an allegation that an unidentified BOP correctional officer at an Oklahoma facility slammed the food tray door into the face of an INS detainee, causing his nose to bleed. According to the complaint, the correctional officer subsequently refused to provide the detainee with medical treatment. As part of this ongoing investigation, the OIG reviewed the facility’s logbooks, rosters, and staff photographs and created a “photo lineup” to assist the victim in identifying the assailant. The victim refused to review the photo lineup or submit to an OIG interview. The Civil Rights Division declined to prosecute, but the OIG is conducting an administrative investigation of this matter.

The following are summaries of the four OIG investigations closed during this reporting period:

• During the last reporting period, the OIG opened an investigation based on information that an alien being detained at an INS facility in El Paso, Texas, was beaten by an INS Detention Enforcement Officer (DEO), placed in solitary confinement, and denied medical treatment because he refused to eat pork based on religious reasons. The OIG investigation did not substantiate the allegations. The investigation revealed that the alien was violent and uncooperative, and the INS DEO acted in a reasonable manner. The OIG found no indication that the alien was mistreated. As a result, the OIG closed the investigation.

• The OIG investigated a complaint that an FBI Special Agent and a New Jersey County Sheriff's Deputy used unnecessary force and illegally entered a residence in connection with the September 11 terrorism probe. The OIG investigation determined that on September 26, 2001, the FBI agent and Sheriff’s Deputy were pursuing a lead in an attempt to question a suspected terrorist believed to be residing in New Jersey. The OIG presented the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Jersey, which declined prosecution, and the OIG closed the case.

• The OIG and the FBI jointly investigated claims that an alien arrested and detained at a Jacksonville, Florida, airport on September 14, 2001, was later physically assaulted at an INS contract detention facility. Specifically, the allegation stated that unknown subjects entered the alien’s cell, handcuffed and shackled him, and allegedly hit him in the face. OIG agents conducted numerous interviews, reviewed medical records at the detention facility, and attempted to collect the alien’s alleged bloodstained shirt to send to the FBI laboratory for forensic analysis, but the alien refused to cooperate. During this reporting period, the OIG presented the case to the Civil Rights Division, which declined prosecution. Because the victim refused to cooperate, the OIG was unable to substantiate any administrative charges and closed the case.

• Based upon a request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the OIG investigated whether an FBI polygrapher coerced a confession from an individual who was detained in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Specifically, the individual was detained as a material witness after a security guard at a New York hotel reported finding an aviation radio in the safe of the suspect’s room, which overlooked the World Trade Center. The individual initially was charged with perjury after he denied to the FBI that he owned the radio, but later was released when the security guard admitted fabricating the allegations about the radio. The individual alleged that during a polygraph examination, an FBI agent allegedly had threatened the individual and his family to coerce his confession. The OIG obtained affidavits from the victim and witnesses as part of its review of this matter. In addition, the OIG’s Chief Polygraph Examiner reviewed the FBI agent’s polygraph charts for quality control purposes and concurred with the FBI polygrapher’s assessment that the individual had been deceptive when he denied owning the radio. The OIG submitted an investigative report to the U.S. Attorney’s Office concluding that the evidence did not substantiate the allegation that the FBI polygrapher had threatened the individual. The U.S. Attorney’s Office subsequently forwarded the OIG’s findings to a United States District Court Judge in the Southern District of New York.

2. Complaints Referred to DOJ Components

During this reporting period, the OIG referred 27 of the 33 complaints that stated a credible Patriot Act violation to internal affairs offices within DOJ components for their review or information. The OIG forwarded five complaints to the FBI, including allegations that an FBI agent inappropriately referred to an individual as a “terrorist” when interviewing the man’s brother and another complaint in which the owner of a corporate jet training school claimed the FBI arrested him because of his ethnicity and the FBI’s desire to put him out of business. As of December 15, 2002 (the close of this reporting period), the FBI was conducting preliminary reviews of the five complaints.

The OIG referred 12 of these complaints to the INS, including allegations that INS inspectors subjected a woman to rude questioning and a humiliating search of her luggage because of her Muslim heritage. Another complaint raised numerous allegations concerning detention conditions for INS detainees at the Middlesex County Jail in New Jersey. These allegations referred to cold temperatures in the jail, lack of courtyard and visitation privileges, poor sleeping conditions, limited access to medical services, and verbal abuse by corrections officers. By December 15, 2002, the INS had closed three cases as unsubstantiated, referred eight to local INS management for its review, and opened one as a pending management inquiry.

The OIG referred ten of these complaints to the BOP this reporting period, including allegations that an inmate was placed in a high-security cell without justification and verbally abused by correctional officers. Another inmate claimed he was subject to excessive searches because of his Muslim religious beliefs. In another complaint, inmates alleged that correctional officers intentionally shined flashlights into their cells, called them a “terrorist” and “Taliban,” and suggested that they were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The BOP closed three cases as unsubstantiated by the end of this reporting period, while seven remained open under investigation.

Also during this reporting period, the BOP substantiated a non-criminal Patriot Act allegation. The complaint involved an allegation that several correctional officers at a California facility placed copies of an American flag and pictures depicting a flag burning inside the food slots of three inmate’s cells. On the papers were typed: “American flag: $25, Gasoline: $2, Cigarette Lighter: $2.50, catching yourself on fire because you are a terrorist asshole: PRICELESS.” In addition, the complaint alleged that correctional staff placed miniature replicas of the American flag over the windows of the inmate’s cell doors. The BOP sustained allegations of unprofessional conduct against the officers, and disciplinary action against the officers is pending.

During the previous reporting period, the FBI’s Civil Rights Unit had opened seven investigations of allegations of physical or verbal abuse by BOP employees against detainees held in connection with the September 11 terrorist attacks.⁷ During this reporting period, the FBI closed two of these investigations as unsubstantiated and continued to investigate the remaining five complaints.

C. Other OIG Activities Related to Allegations of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Abuses

The OIG is going beyond the explicit requirements of Section 1001 to more fully implement its civil rights and civil liberties responsibilities. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of its workforce, the OIG can extend its oversight beyond traditional investigations to include evaluations, audits, and special reviews of DOJ programs and personnel. The OIG is conducting the following evaluations and reviews regarding alleged civil rights and civil liberties abuses.

1. Evaluation of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Abuses of September 11 Detainees

The OIG initiated this review to examine the treatment of detainees arrested in connection with the Department’s September 11 terrorism investigation. Specifically, the OIG is examining: 1) issues affecting the length of the detainees’ confinement, including the process undertaken by the FBI and others to clear individual detainees of a connection to the September 11 attacks or terrorism in general; 2) the DOJ’s efforts to oppose bond for all September 11 detainees and delay their deportations pending completion of the FBI’s clearance investigation; and 3) conditions of confinement experienced by detainees, including allegations of physical and verbal abuse made by detainees against prison staff; detainees’ access to counsel; medical care; and lighting conditions in the detainees’ high-security cellblock. We focused our review primarily on INS detainees housed at two facilities – the BOP’s Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, and the Passaic County Jail (Passaic) in Paterson, New Jersey. We chose these facilities because they held the majority of September 11 detainees and because they were the focus of complaints by detainees and advocacy groups.

As part of this evaluation, the OIG has interviewed 32 September 11 detainees who were confined at the MDC and Passaic facilities and more than 110 officials and staff members at those facilities, the INS, the FBI, the BOP, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the DOJ Criminal Division. The OIG also reviewed more than 200 official files pertaining to September 11 detainees and examined a variety of DOJ policies and procedures.

The OIG is close to completing the draft of its report describing the results of this review. The OIG intends to issue a public report describing its findings soon.

2. Review of BOP Security Policies Regarding the Search of Religious Headwear

The OIG began a review of the BOP’s policies on searching religious headwear worn by visitors to BOP facilities. This review arose out of a complaint to the OIG that a Sikh attorney was denied access to his client being held at the MDC in Brooklyn because he refused to remove his turban for inspection. The Sikh’s religious practice requires him to wear his turban in public at all times.

The OIG has met with the Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force to solicit its input, identify its concerns about religious discrimination against Sikhs, and explore potential solutions for searching religious headwear. The OIG will interview the Sikh attorney who raised the complaint as well as BOP officials. The objective of our review is to examine policies adopted by the BOP and other law enforcement and government agencies to ensure security while not unreasonably infringing upon the civil rights and civil liberties of individuals who wear religious headwear.

IV. ADVERTISING RESPONSIBILITIES

Make public through the Internet, radio, television, and newspaper advertisements information on the responsibilities and functions of, and how to contact, the official.

The OIG has initiated a variety of actions in response to Section 1001's advertising requirements and is planning to take additional steps in the months ahead.

A. Internet

The OIG's website contains information about how individuals can report violations of their civil rights or civil liberties. The OIG also continues to promote an e-mail address - inspector.general@usdoj.gov - where individuals can send complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations.

The OIG also has developed a poster, translated in Arabic, that explains how to file a civil rights or civil liberties complaint with the OIG. During this reporting period, the OIG added an electronic version of this poster to its website.

The DOJ’s main Internet homepage contains a link that provides a variety of options for reporting civil rights and civil liberties violations to the OIG. The Civil Rights Division’s website also describes the OIG’s role in investigating allegations of misconduct by DOJ employees and provides information on how to file a complaint with the OIG.

In addition, several minority and ethnic organizations have added information to their websites about how to contact the OIG with civil rights and civil liberties complaints. For example, the Arab American Institute (www.aaiusa.org), an organization that represents Arab Americans’ political interests and provides community services, added the OIG’s Patriot Act poster to its website of information and resources for the Arab American community. The Institute also has informed its members and affiliates of the OIG’s Patriot Act responsibilities through its weekly e-mail newsletter. Similarly, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), one of the largest Arab American organizations in the nation, has posted the OIG’s contact information and Patriot Act responsibilities on its website, which averages more than 1 million hits per month. The ADC also has published the OIG’s Patriot Act responsibilities in its magazine, the ADC Times, which is circulated to more than 20,000 people. Furthermore, the OIG’s Arabic poster and Patriot Act responsibilities have been disseminated electronically by the Council on American Islamic Relations LISTERV and the National Association of Muslim Lawyers LISTSERV. Altogether, information about how to report civil rights and civil liberties abuses to the OIG has reached well over 30,000 Arab and Muslim individuals via e-mail and the Internet.

The OIG intends to post additional Patriot Act-related information on its website, including a document describing frequently asked questions about the OIG and its Section 1001 responsibilities. The OIG has posted on its website our first semi-annual report required by Section 1001 covering our civil rights and civil liberty activities from April 1, 2002, to September 30, 2002. It will also post this report on our website.

B. Newspapers

The OIG issued a press release in January 2002 announcing the appointment of an official to coordinate its review of civil rights and civil liberties complaints. The press release generated articles in several newspapers and also was included in several ethnic and community-based organizations' newsletters.

The OIG has purchased advertisements in several about its role in investigating allegations of civil rights and civil liberties abuses. To date, these display advertisements have run in large circulation newspapers newspapers such as The Washington Post and The Washington Timesand in smaller, ethnic and community-based newspapers such as The Beirut Times in Los Angeles, California, and The Arab American News in Dearborn, Michigan. Advertisements in the latter two newspapers appeared in both English and Arabic. The following is an example of the display advertisement.

C. Radio

During this reporting period, the OIG produced a 60-second radio advertisement that contains the following text, read first in English and then in Arabic:

The Office of the Inspector General investigates allegations of civil rights and civil liberties abuses by U.S. Department of Justice employees. If you believe a Department of Justice employee has violated your civil rights or civil liberties, contact the Inspector General at 800-869-4499.

The OIG purchased advertising time to run this announcement on nine radio programs in five major metropolitan areas: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and Houston. The OIG selected these cities because they have large populations of Arab Muslims and have had the most Anti-Muslim incidents reported since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The OIG also placed this radio advertisement on small, ethnic radio stations that appeal specifically to Arab and Muslim listeners. The radio programs included: New York City’s 1430 AM; New York City’s 1680 AM South Asian; New York City’s 930 AM Ramadan program; New York City’s 930 AM Jaman program; Los Angeles’s 1190 AM Muslim Radio; Los Angeles’s 900 AM Pakistan Radio; Chicago’s 1420 AM Arab Community Radio; Detroit’s 690 AM Arab Radio; and Houston’s 1180 AM.

These radio stations ran the OIG’s advertisement a total of 40 times. The OIG scheduled airing of its advertisement near the end of 2002 so that it would overlap with Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. During this time, we found that many of these radio stations offered special Ramadan programming that attracted large Muslim audiences.

In addition to purchasing advertisements, we distributed our advertisement text as a public service announcement to an additional 55 of the most popular radio stations in 13 major cities across the United States: New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Washington, D.C. We chose these locations for the public service announcement because they have large populations of Arab Muslims and have reported several Anti-Muslim incidents since September 11.

Because radio stations generally do not monitor public service announcements, we cannot determine how many times the OIG’s message was aired on these stations. However, we learned that one station, New York City’s WSOU 89.5 FM, aired our announcement 17 times during a one-month period. We expect that other stations also have or will air our announcement frequently because of its brevity and importance. In the months ahead, we plan to continue placing public service announcements with radio stations across the nation.

D. Television

The OIG is beginning to develop television advertisements as required by Section 1001. We are developing an advertising plan to reach the largest segment of our targeted audience in the most cost-effective manner. As with the radio advertisements, we are focusing on ethnic television stations in cities with large Arab and Muslim populations. Specifically, we are considering purchasing advertisements on Arab television stations in New York City, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.

V. EXPENSE OF IMPLEMENTING SECTION 1001

Submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on a semi-annual basis a report… including a description of the use of funds appropriations used to carry out this subsection.

During this reporting period, the OIG spent approximately $367,000 in personnel costs, $10,000 in travel costs, and $9,000 in non-personnel costs, for a total of nearly $386,000, to implement its responsibilities under Section 1001.

The personnel and travel costs reflect the time spent by OIG Special Agents, inspectors, and lawyers who have worked directly on Patriot Act-related matters. The non-personnel costs reflect approximately $955 for interpreter services, $1,700 for printing the OIG’s civil rights/civil liberties posters, $800 for distributing the posters, $800 for the development of the OIG’s radio advertisement, and $5,000 for airing the radio advertisements.

VI. ADDITIONAL OUTREACH EFFORTS

In addition to promoting the OIG’s role in reviewing claims of civil rights and civil liberties violations on the Internet and in radio and newspaper advertisements, the OIG is reaching out in other ways to educate the public about its Patriot Act responsibilities. The following are examples of OIG outreach efforts during the current reporting period:

• The OIG distributed its English/Arabic poster to more than 150 organizations in 50 cities to provide information on how to contact the OIG to report civil rights and civil liberties abuses. In addition, the OIG distributed the posters to the BOP, which has placed at least 2 posters in each of its facilities, and to the INS, which will display 5 posters in each of its 57 field offices.

  The OIG’s Investigations Division field offices also are distributing the posters to Arab businesses and organizations in their respective locations, including: New York City, New York; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; San Diego, California; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Atlanta, Georgia; Washington, D.C.; Miami, Florida; Tucson, Arizona; McAllen, Texas; El Paso, Texas; and Dallas, Texas.

  In total, the OIG has distributed more than 1,900 posters this reporting period.

In response to numerous requests for posters in languages other than English and Arabic, the OIG is considering translating the poster into Spanish, Punjabi, Urdu, and possibly other languages.

• The Special Assistant to the Inspector General has met with members from the Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force and the Civil Rights Division Coordination and Review Section. These meetings addressed methods to effectively reach the Arab and Sikh communities and inform them about how to report civil rights and civil liberties abuses by DOJ employees to the OIG.

• On October 9, 2002, an OIG Special Agent participated in a “Community Forum Addressing National Origin Discrimination” at the New Holly Gathering Hall in Seattle, Washington. Representatives from the DOJ Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Department of Labor also participated in the forum. Participants provided an explanation of civil rights for American citizens and legal immigrants, discussed procedures for filing complaints with government agencies, and explained each agency’s responsibilities as they relate to the Patriot Act. Approximately 100 people attended the forum.