[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] REVIEWING FinCEN OVERSIGHT REPORTS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ APRIL 28, 2010 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 111-129 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 57-747 WASHINGTON : 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PETER T. KING, New York LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina RON PAUL, Texas GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Carolina DENNIS MOORE, Kansas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri Virginia CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York JEB HENSARLING, Texas JOE BACA, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania DAVID SCOTT, Georgia RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas AL GREEN, Texas TOM PRICE, Georgia EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois JOHN CAMPBELL, California GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ADAM PUTNAM, Florida PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota KENNY MARCHANT, Texas RON KLEIN, Florida THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan CHARLES WILSON, Ohio KEVIN McCARTHY, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida JOE DONNELLY, Indiana LYNN JENKINS, Kansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota JACKIE SPEIER, California LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi WALT MINNICK, Idaho JOHN ADLER, New Jersey MARY JO KILROY, Ohio STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida JIM HIMES, Connecticut GARY PETERS, Michigan DAN MAFFEI, New York Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations DENNIS MOORE, Kansas, Chairman STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois RON KLEIN, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina JACKIE SPEIER, California RON PAUL, Texas GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota JOHN ADLER, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York MARY JO KILROY, Ohio ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio ALAN GRAYSON, Florida C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: April 28, 2010............................................... 1 Appendix: April 28, 2010............................................... 27 WITNESSES Wednesday, April 28, 2010 Freis, James H., Jr., Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)............................................... 5 Hillman, Richard J., Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.... 15 Larence, Eileen R., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office............................... 16 Thorson, Hon. Eric M., Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Treasury....................................................... 7 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Moore, Hon. Dennis........................................... 28 Lynch, Hon. Stephen F........................................ 29 Freis, James H., Jr.......................................... 32 Hillman, Richard J........................................... 47 Larence, Eileen R............................................ 62 Thorson, Hon. Eric M......................................... 80 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Moore, Hon. Dennis: GAO report entitled, ``Anti-Money Laundering, Improved Communication Could Enhance the Support FinCEN Provides to Law Enforcement,'' dated December 2009..................... 96 GAO report entitled, ``Bank Secrecy Act, Suspicious Activity Report Use is Increasing, but FinCEN Needs to Further Develop and Document Its Form Revision Process,'' dated February 2009.............................................. 140 Audit Report from the Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, entitled, ``SAR Data Quality Requires FinCEN's Continued Attention,'' dated January 19, 2010..... 193 REVIEWING FinCEN OVERSIGHT REPORTS ---------- Wednesday, April 28, 2010 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis Moore [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Moore of Kansas, Lynch, Adler; Biggert, McHenry, and Paulsen. Chairman Moore of Kansas. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee will come to order. Our hearing this afternoon is entitled, ``Reviewing FinCEN Oversight Reports.'' We will begin this hearing with members' opening statements up to 10 minutes per side, and then we will hear testimony from our witnesses. For each witness panel, members will have up to 5 minutes each to question our witnesses. The Chair advises our witnesses to please keep your opening statements to 5 minutes to keep things moving so we can get to members' questions. Also, any unanswered question can always be followed up in writing for the record. Without objection, all members' opening statements will be made a part of the record, and I will now recognize myself for up to 5 minutes for an opening statement. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN was first established by the Treasury Department in 1990 to provide a government-wide multi-source financial intelligence and analysis network. The organization was later formalized as an official bureau within the Treasury Department by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, when the Bank Secrecy Act's scope was expanded to focus on stopping terrorist financing as well as money laundering. FinCEN administers the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and is responsible for the process in which financial institutions file suspicious activity reports or SARs. FinCEN will then analyze that information and provide the information analysis to a wide range of law enforcement, intelligence, and regulatory agencies. As we know too well, the tragic attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, exposed our broken intelligence system where one agency knew one thing but another agency did not know and was not empowered with that vital information to try to prevent these attacks. While most of our focus in Congress this past year has been to provide tough TARP oversight and strengthen our financial regulatory system following the financial crisis of 2008, stopping terrorist financing and money laundering remain top priorities. Let me be clear. We must remain vigilant and ensure that our law enforcement and other agencies have all the information they need to do their job in better protecting our country. Our constituents expect and deserve nothing less. Today, we will be reviewing three oversight reports--one by the Treasury Inspector General, and two by GAO--that examined FinCEN's efforts to improve SAR data quality and communication with law enforcement. With limited resources, FinCEN must leverage resources to do much better in both. I look forward to hearing how FinCEN has responded to these oversight reports and learning what concrete steps they have taken to address the recommendations made by GAO and the Treasury IG. While I am glad we have the Treasury IG testifying today on FinCEN oversight, I am not pleased Congress has effectively tied his hands and put his office and other Inspectors General under a tremendous burden with the material loss review mandates. While learning lessons from bank failures is important, tough oversight of fraudulent loan modification schemes, private bank BSA compliance, and many other priorities are just as important. Under the bipartisan leadership of Representatives Steve Driehaus and Christopher Lee of this subcommittee, the House acted last year by passing H.R. 3330 to provide the flexibility that our Inspectors General desperately needed. I was pleased to see a version of our legislation in the Senate financial regulatory reform bill, but as is often the case, when comparing House and Senate legislation, our version, we believe, is clearly better, and we will continue fighting to fully empower our Inspectors General with the oversight tools they need. I now recognize for 5 minutes the ranking member of the subcommittee and my colleague from Illinois--it is not Judy Biggert, she is not here right now--I am going to recognize Mr. McHenry, Patrick McHenry. Mr. McHenry. That might be a slight insult to Judy. She is much more attractive and a nicer lady. [laughter] Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding the hearing today. Obviously, Treasury and FinCEN are certainly vital in the United States to stop the money laundering and financing of terror. Law enforcement needs a quick dependable way to track the money involved in crimes, and financial institutions often serve as the first line of defense in preventing financial crimes and providing critical information to law enforcement. This is a complex and difficult task, obviously, but it is also imperative that we make certain it is done correctly. Since its inception, FinCEN has had to depend on the IRS for the bulk of its computing and data storage, a situation that made sense at first, but is now at best inefficient. Congress last year approved an amendment by Congressman Paulsen, who is here today on the subcommittee, to start the process of updating FinCEN's computers, but unfortunately, the Obama Administration has reduced its Fiscal Year 2011 budget requests for FinCEN by nearly 10 percent. FinCEN needs the proper resources to do its job, and that means it must have its own computer system and the clear responsibility to make sure it works correctly. It is unrealistic to imagine that every suspicious activity report will result in an investigation or a conviction, but FinCEN and law enforcement should have the hardware and software and other resources to search data reported by financial institutions quickly and thoroughly. Faulty data is unacceptable, whatever the reason. If online retailers can instantly see that an order being placed is missing essential data, certainly FinCEN and the IRS should have the capacity and capability to detect incomplete suspicious activity reports and see the missing data. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, especially the IG and the GAO, and I look forward to seeing an ongoing discussion about FinCEN's necessary resources to do its job. I yield back. Chairman Moore of Kansas. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts for up to 5 minutes. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this very important hearing today. I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their willingness to help the committee with its work. I have met with GAO, as well as Director Freis, regarding the reports that I, together with Chairman Frank, requested some time ago, and I am eager to discuss them further during this hearing. I wanted to provide some context, however, as to my own experience with FinCEN, and my knowledge of the good work that they do. FinCEN's mission to provide a government-wide, multi-source financial intelligence and analysis network is global and often goes unknown or unrecognized. FinCEN's regulatory responsibilities include administering the Bank Secrecy Act, the United States' primary anti-money laundering counterterrorist financing regulatory regime. They also support law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies through the sharing and analysis of financial intelligence, and lastly, and this is the area that I work with them most often on, I am proud to be the co-chair of the Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force, which builds global cooperation and offers technical expertise among financial intelligence units throughout the world. The recent GAO study found that suspicious activity report filings increased from 163,000 per year in 2000 to 649,000 per year in 2007. I can only imagine that has increased since then. This is an immense amount of information to manage and review. FinCEN works with every major administrative department to detect fraud and abuse, from the Federal Housing Authority, trying to help identify bad lenders, to Health and Human Services, to root out fraud in the reimbursement process. FinCEN opens up its database and provides essential information in numerous cases each year. FinCEN's responsibility was also broadened under the 2001 PATRIOT Act which expanded the Bank Secrecy Act to include money laundering and terrorist financing. FinCEN plays a dual role in supporting domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies through sharing their analysis of financial intelligence while simultaneously building that global cooperation with our counterparties in financial intelligence units (FIUs) around the world. In my travels abroad to the Middle East and other regions, I have been able to meet with FIUs in a variety of countries to view FinCEN's international work firsthand. As the co-chair of the Task Force on Terrorist Financing and Anti-Proliferation, I visited countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, and Afghanistan. We worked together in the West Bank. We have some problems in Gaza as well. I am just very thankful for FinCEN's help and guidance in all of those important places doing important work to combat the flow of illicit funds to terrorist organizations. I have seen the relationships developed between foreign governments and our Treasury officials. The information FinCEN can provide those FIUs is invaluable. These relationships formed as international governments establish FIUs and join FATF, the Financial Action Task Force, are key to FinCEN's long-term success in combating financial terrorism, both in the United States and abroad. However, despite this important dynamic, I am concerned that due to budget constraints, private contractors are increasingly doing the work that FinCEN has done in the past. In its 2006 report, FATF cited FinCEN's important role in facilitating domestic coordination and cooperation. However, it also warned that it is essential that FinCEN maintain its key role within the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing chain, and without proper funding and a presence in the international community, FinCEN cannot maintain that leadership role. The Obama Administration announced in November of 2009 an initiative to hold accountable those who helped bring about the last financial crisis. While that is commendable, this program is comprised of more than 20 Federal agencies including FinCEN, 94 U.S. Attorney Offices, and State and local partners, and provides FinCEN with no additional resources to do all that extra work and coordinate and contribute to the Task Force. This is just one recent but glaring example of how FinCEN is spread far too thin with too few resources to adequately accomplish its mission. I am amazed that they do as much as they fo, as well as they do it, given the resources they have been given. I look forward to addressing these issues in the future and helping FinCEN maintain its prominence within the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for your willingness to hold this hearing, and thank you for the time, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. I appreciate your testimony. Next, Mr. Paulsen has requested 2 minutes. Mr. Paulsen, you are recognized, sir, for 2 minutes. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank you for holding today's hearing. I appreciate it. Financial institutions often serve as the first line of defense in detecting financial crimes and providing critical information to law enforcement, and the information that is provided to government organizations by FinCEN is essential to catching criminals and defeating terrorism ultimately. The ability to follow the money trail provides our intelligence and law enforcement community with information that leads to a broader understanding of terrorist organizations and drug dealers. As my colleague, Representative McHenry, had mentioned just a little while ago, I offered an amendment during last year's appropriations process to help provide funding to FinCen for additional resources to more effectively combat financial crimes, and it was my hope that this funding would be used to help provide needed support and coordination with Federal, State, and local law enforcement. I look forward to hearing more about the modernization that FinCEN is currently undergoing and I look forward to the testimony today, and thank the witnesses for coming before us today, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir. I am pleased to introduce our first panel of witnesses. First, we will hear from Mr. James Freis, Jr., Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Then, we will hear from the Honorable Eric Thorson, Inspector General for the Treasury Department. We are glad to have you testify before our subcommittee again, Inspector General Thorson. Without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record. Director Freis, you are recognized for 5 minutes to provide a brief summary of your statement, sir. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. FREIS, Jr., DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK (FinCEN) Mr. Freis. Thank you. Chairman Moore, members of the subcommittee, I am Jim Freis, the Director of FinCEN. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the findings from oversight reports published by the GAO and the Treasury Inspector General that review FinCEN's support to law enforcement and the quality and usefulness of suspicious activity reports, known as SARs. With the exception of the IG report on SAR quality, which is no longer representative of today's SAR quality standards, FinCEN agrees with the findings and recommendations included in these reports, and I am pleased to say that significant progress has been made on all fronts to improve upon the areas identified as in need of improvement. As the Inspector General notes in his testimony, the findings included in his report are based on SAR filings from Fiscal Year 2006, and do not take into account the significant efforts we have made since then toward the overall objective, which he and I share, to improve both the quality and the accuracy of SAR data. With respect to the GAO's examination into how FinCEN's mission, services, and resources in support of law enforcement agencies have evolved, FinCEN concurs with the findings and recommendations of this report, and we are encouraged to see that it recognized the value of our efforts and the unique expertise we provide in addition to correctly illustrating our important role in supporting law enforcement's prosecution of financial crimes, all this while balancing the needs and priorities of over 300 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and providing regular and ongoing support to Federal and State regulatory authorities and foreign law enforcement around the world. The report made a series of recommendations for actions that are designed to maximize the relevance and usefulness of FinCEN's law enforcement support capabilities, such as establishing a process for informing law enforcement agencies and soliciting input about the availability of our various analytical products and the process for selecting which products to pursue. As I note in my affirmative testimony, in October 2009, FinCEN's Office of Law Enforcement Support initiated an effort to address communication with law enforcement on three levels: first, our analytical products; second, the work flow process; and third, outreach. As part of this effort, FinCEN has developed plain language descriptions of the types of analytical products and services we provide and the data sources and analytical tools available to us. These descriptions are designed for broad dissemination to all levels of Federal, State, and local law enforcement to enhance the communication and understanding of the various analytical products and services available. Regarding the GAO's examination into the degree to which law enforcement agencies actively use SARs for investigative purposes, FinCEN was pleased with the results, and we believe it represents a meaningful body of empirical data from which the Congress can glean in order to satisfy questions regarding the vital role SARs play in safeguarding our financial system. The report also notes the efforts taken by FinCEN to improve the quality of SAR filings, and the increased and improved use of SAR data by law enforcement and regulatory authorities at all levels of government. In its conclusion, the GAO recommended that FinCEN further develop a strategy that fully incorporates certain practices to enhance collaboration among Federal agencies into the form change process. We agreed with the recommendation, which dovetails with an initiative FinCEN began well in advance of the report's publication. Over the past several years, we have been working toward modernizing our form management process to enable us to take advantage of the advances in electronic form development. In doing so, we consult stakeholders to whom we have delegated BSA examination authority, law enforcement, regulated financial institutions, and the interested public. We will continue to prioritize this multi-stakeholder comprehensive approach to form change collaboration which in turn will more than satisfy the GAO's recommendation. Financial crimes and other illicit activities are unfortunately here to stay, and we will remain vigilant in our mission to safeguard the financial system from those who wish to manipulate it for unscrupulous purposes. FinCEN is more committed than ever to maximizing the strengths and commonalities that exist between us, our law enforcement counterparts, and the industries we are responsible for regulating. We are very encouraged by the progress we have made thus far, and we are dedicated to continuing to build on these accomplishments by leveraging our resources, to not only assist law enforcement in holding criminal actors accountable, but to continue our proactive analysis of emerging trends and patterns in evoking our regulatory authorities to help stop crime before it is committed. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Director Freis can be found on page 32 of the appendix.] Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Freis. I will advise the panel members, subcommittee members here, and the people in the room that votes were called about 3 or 4 minutes ago. We still have more than 10 minutes left. The Chair at this time is going to recognize Mr. Thorson for testimony for up to 5 minutes, and following his testimony, we will recess for votes. Committee members will go over and vote and then return as quickly as possible so we can resume this hearing. Mr. Thorson, you are recognized for up to 5 minutes, sir. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC M. THORSON, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Mr. Thorson. Chairman Moore and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to discuss my office's most recent oversight report on FinCEN. That report, which we issued in January of this year, addressed data quality with suspicious activity reports or SARs, filed with FinCEN by banks and other financial institutions. As a brief background about my office, we provide independent audit and investigative oversight of most of Treasury's programs and operations. Our oversight includes FinCEN's administration of the Bank Secrecy Act or BSA. I consider oversight in Treasury's role in preventing money laundering and combating terrorist financing to be among our highest priority work. To that end, we first designated this area as one of Treasury's most significant management and performance challenges back in 1999 and have continued to do so since then. We have also conducted a number of audits of this area in the last decade or so, including many of FinCEN, as our resources have allowed. To be clear, our office identified Treasury's critical role in preventing money laundering and combating terrorist financing as high risk well before the horrific events of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, much of the information I am presenting to you today is based on work that my office conducted some time ago, although I believe the conditions remain relevant. The current financial crisis has had a major impact on my office's ability to do work in this and other critical areas which I will discuss later. As the administrator for BSA, FinCEN requires banks, thrifts, credit unions, money services businesses, and others to file SARs for transactions that the institution knows, suspects or has reason to suspect are intended to evade Federal law or regulation, involve illegally obtained funds, or have no business or apparent lawful purpose. FinCEN established the SAR database in 1996 as a single collection point for SARs to provide law enforcement agencies with critical information for specific criminal investigations, as well as to facilitate comprehensive analyses of trends and patterns in financial activity. Filers of SAR reports are required to provide accurate information and face penalties if they do not. This is more than a matter of what is legally required. As FinCEN stated in October 2009, ``Accurate and complete SARs are critical to the utility of BSA data in combating financial crimes, terrorist financing, and other illicit activity. The value of any SAR filing is impaired when it is not accurate and complete.'' We have accomplished four audits on the accuracy and completeness of SARs in FinCEN's database since 1999, and as Director Freis pointed out, our latest review was actually started in 2007, but was significantly delayed due to our failed bank workload. That audit found that SARs filed during Fiscal Year 2006 often lacked critical information or included inaccurate data. Specifically, we found that 59 percent of the 1.1 million SARs filed in 2006 contained omissions or incorrect, inconsistent or inappropriate information in one or more of the 17 data fields that FinCEN deemed critical to law enforcement. SARs filed by money services businesses had the highest percentage of data quality problems, 88 percent, followed by SARs filed by securities and futures firms, 50 percent, casino's and card clubs, 49 percent, and depository institutions, 34 percent. The fields that most often had missing or erroneous data were related to the subject's taxpayer identification number, address, and name. We believe that the filer should have used more due diligence in preparing them. To improve SAR data quality, we recommended that FinCEN: number one, continue and enhance its filer education and outreach programs; and two, identify significant and recurring SAR quality problems for follow-up. FinCEN agreed with our recommendations and they identified a number of steps it has already taken to enhance filer education. Also, FinCEN told us that it has put a SAR validation process in place that identifies all SAR filings with significant errors for its compliance staff to monitor. We consider these actions an excellent response to our recommendations. As requested, I will now briefly address the impact of the failed bank reviews to Treasury IG's FinCEN oversight. As you recall, I testified before this subcommittee in May of last year on this very matter. We are congressionally mandated to review the causes of failed banks and the OCC or OTS supervision exercised over those failed institutions whenever the failure results in a loss of $25 million or more to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Since the current economic crisis began, my audit staff has done little else but conduct material loss reviews. In this regard, we have completed 17 reviews and have another 35 in progress. Regrettably, I believe my office will be busy conducting such reviews for some time to come. While these reviews are important, we are simply not learning that much new with each successive review. The requirement is also precluding us from doing other important oversight work. Last July, with the much appreciated support by Chairman Moore and this subcommittee, the House passed H.R. 3330 to increase that threshold to $200 million, while prudently requiring some level of review of all bank failures. As you pointed out, sir, the current bill, Senate 3217, as introduced, did include a provision to raise that threshold. Lastly, FinCEN faces many challenges as administrator of the BSA, particularly with respect to the fact that it must rely on other regulators to ensure their regulated industries comply with BSA requirements. While a lot of focus is on the current financial crisis, we must remember the terrorists and criminals still are busy. Therefore, I applaud the subcommittee for its attention to FinCEN's important role in administering BSA. That concludes my statement. [The prepared statement of Inspector General Thorson can be found on page 80 of the appendix.] Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Thorson. We will at this time recess the subcommittee. I would ask all subcommittee members to come back here immediately upon completion of votes on the House Floor. I would ask our witnesses to remain available for questioning when we get back, and I think we have four votes, I believe. It will probably take half an hour to 40 minutes, but we will be back as quickly as we can. All subcommittee members, please return. We will stand in recess. [recess] Chairman Moore of Kansas. The subcommittee is called back to order. I ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record the three oversight reports we are examining today: the GAO report of February 27, 2009, entitled, ``The Bank Secrecy Act, Suspicious Activity Report Use is Increasing, but FinCEN Needs to Further Develop and Document Its Form Revision Process''; the GAO report of December 14, 2009, entitled, ``Anti-Money Laundering, Improved Communication Could Enhance the Support FinCEN Provides to Law Enforcement''; and finally, the Treasury IG report of January 19, 2010, entitled, ``SAR Data Quality Requires FinCEN's Continued Attention.'' Without objection, these reports will be made a part of the record. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. I want to start with Treasury Inspector General Thorson. Before I focus on FinCEN, Inspector General Thorson, if Congress were to enact H.R. 3330 to give your office and others the flexibility you need to better manage your resources and provide better oversight, what kinds of things with respect to FinCEN would your office be able to examine and report to Congress on? I presume the House legislation would be better for your office than the Senate language in the financial reg reform bill; is that correct, sir? Mr. Thorson. Yes. There are a number of things that raising that threshold would allow us to do. Specifically, with regard to FinCEN, I would have to refer to our audit plan, and we can certainly provide that for you. The idea and why we requested the increase in the threshold was to free up some of the audit resources. Certainly, aside from FinCEN, there are a lot of things within the Treasury Department that we have had to postpone that really are a major part of what our office is there for. I am giving you a little broader answer than you were probably looking for, but there are a number of things we would like to be able to do, and this would certainly help. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir. Director Freis, thank you for your testimony and for your public service. In the Treasury IG's January report, they list the top 25 depository institutions, including IndyMac and NetBank, that had errors in over half of their SAR data in Fiscal Year 2006, and recommend that FinCEN should notify Federal regulators of these problems. Has your Bureau done so, and has FinCEN seen any improvements or more errors with depository institutions, especially in the past 2 years, as they have dealt with the financial crisis? Any comments, sir? Mr. Freis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have developed a process within FinCEN that is consistent with those recommendations, to work very closely with the supervisors of the financial institutions, so we do examine for problems in the filing of all our reports, not just SARs, and we follow up directly with the supervisor, and then the supervisor will monitor to see improvements. I am happy to say that we have seen a continual increase in the quality of the reports from the financial industry. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Mr. Thorson, do you have any comments on that? Mr. Thorson. First of all, we are very happy to see that and certainly accept FinCEN's explanations of the changes they have made. We obviously have not had a chance to look at that since then. I think all of us here have the same goal, and that is to do whatever we can do to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of FinCEN, as it helps all of us. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Director Freis, on page one of your testimony, you note ``FinCEN's efforts to maintain the `proper balance' between reporting requirements imposed upon the industry and the need to ensure information gets to law enforcement officials.'' Which do you believe FinCEN does better, improving SAR data quality and working with industry on reporting requirements or working with law enforcement to get the information to them? Mr. Freis. I do not think it is a choice between the two, Mr. Chairman. I think our mission is to get information to law enforcement and increasing the quality is making that information more accessible to law enforcement. Ultimately, a large part of what I have tried to do in our dialogue with the financial industry is show them how it is in their interest, and particularly in these economic times when we are fighting the people who are trying to rip off the bank or rip off the customers and customers who lose money are not good customers for your bank. We have a common interest with the financial industry. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you. Inspector General Thorson, from what you know, would you encourage FinCEN to do a better job working with industry on SAR data quality or working with law enforcement? Mr. Thorson. I think really both of those things but certainly the quality when you talk, for instance, IndyMac, one of the banks that we looked at after it failed, had an 86 percent error rate. Everybody has the desire to certainly improve on those kinds of things, and I think what Director Freis has been saying is they are addressing it. You asked what would that threshold on MLRs improve on, that is one of the things that we would certainly be able to do, validate the actions taken on SARs as well as their IT modernization that he also mentioned. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir. My time has expired. Mr. Paulsen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask just a couple of questions. First, I will go to you, Mr. Thorson, if I could. Probably the most interesting part of your testimony comes at the end where you address FinCEN's IT system. I would like to ask you three questions at once and you can tackle them altogether, I guess, more or less. Number one, if FinCEN could stand up its own computer system, would that system address a lot of the data quality and form updating issues you and the GAO address? Number two, Treasury in general, not just FinCEN, has had a lot of difficulty with newer computer systems. Would you summarize now and then maybe give us a larger written report later on how FinCEN can successfully manage a transition to its own system? Number three, what in your view is the cause for the morphing of the FinCEN OFAC tracking system? What are its prospects for success, and is there anything that Congress can or should do in that capacity? Mr. Thorson. With the number of questions, I would like to provide you a very accurate answer, and I will do that in writing. One thing you mentioned was how do we implement this or how does FinCEN successfully implement that. I just would give you the answer I would give you on any major program, whether it is FinCEN or DOD. In this case, an IT program would start with a good solid plan of what it is you want to do, and what it is going to cost. In this case with Treasury, I would involve the Office of the CIO, and I would have strong independent oversight. That oversight is not there to second guess everything they do at all. It is there really to help them to make sure that they are looking at things that maybe they had not thought of. I hesitate to use the word ``partner'' because we are independent of everything. The truth is that is what our goal is, to help them accomplish their mission. A strong independent oversight would also be one of the factors I would put in there. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you. Mr. Freis, let me just follow up. As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, FinCEN's mission and work to help safeguard the financial system and aid our law enforcement community is important. I support that certainly as we all do. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am interested in FinCEN's ongoing modernization efforts. Will the modernization efforts that FinCEN is currently carrying out help resolve some of the issues that have been laid out in some of the reports that we have discussed that now have been brought up specifically? I am interested in how the modernization has helped you or helped you partner essentially with other agencies. Mr. Freis. Yes, indeed. The modernization is designed to address some of the issues that you mentioned and some of the issues that are in the GAO reports. Very consistent with what Mr. Thorson just said, the most important aspect in going to a big project, a big investment like this, is appropriate planning. We have been planning for a period of 3\1/2\ years for this IT modernization. It has been an unprecedented level of collaboration with all of the stakeholders. By that, I mean bringing together our law enforcement customers because ultimately, once again, we are trying to get them the data they need to fight the criminals, and working with the regulatory authorities on whom we rely for ensuring compliance and appropriate reporting by the regulated industries, and also working with the industry. Any way that we can help simplify their efforts to get us lower costs more quickly is a benefit to everyone, both the industry and law enforcement and of course, the general public, that we are looking to protect. We also have established significant levels of oversight with this program. First, making sure that we bring together the stakeholders that need to be closely involved. Mr. Thorson mentioned the Treasury CIO. We have a management executive group that oversees the work in the IT modernization, and that consists of myself as the Director of FinCEN, the Treasury CIO personally, and one of the two Deputy Commissioners at the IRS. As you know, we are transitioning the system in part from the IRS to FinCEN. Those are the three primary stakeholders. We work together in terms of the overall department priorities and working very closely with the Office of Management and Budget to make sure that they are helping us as we leverage across the different parts of the entire Administration. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you. My time is just wrapping up now. Mr. Thorson, if you have some follow-up in written form, I think that would be very helpful as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you. The Chair at this time recognizes Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes, sir. Mr. Lynch. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Director Freis, and this actually applies to Mr. Thorson as well, in this tight budget environment, it is not likely that we are going to see any increases for staffing. Director Freis, how many folks do you have handling your whole operation right now? Mr. Freis. We have 325 people as of today. Mr. Lynch. You are handling a global operation, trying to interface with governments all over the world. I have seen you do that. You have 300 domestic law enforcement agencies that you have to deal with. Now, we have just added some more responsibility with respect to these financial institutions that we want you to interface with. You are doing work with the top oversight panel. Realistically, I do not see this getting better. I do not see the funding for your people getting better. GAO, you are sort of in the same boat, where just doing this oversight in addition to what we are already requiring you to do on material loss at these banks. I just see this system stretching further towards the breaking point. How do you expect to handle all this responsibility with no additional people, no additional money, and at the same time ramping up this new technology? I am just trying to figure out how this works and how this gets better. Mr. Freis. We appreciate your support and we certainly appreciate the direction from the Congress in helping us to prioritize the funding that we have received for the IT modernization. It is a critical aspect. When I look back at our statutory mission, what Congress laid out for us, more than half of it talks about our IT management functions and the way the single investment at FinCEN can leverage across all aspects of the government. Mr. Lynch. Director, I appreciate that. I have more meter maids in my city than you have folks to handle your responsibility around the world. You have far greater responsibility, with all due respect to my meter maids, they do a wonderful job as well. It is just trying to match the resources to the job that needs to be done. Unless we change our budgetary priorities to give you the tools you need to do your job, I just see a failure coming. There will be a failure and then everybody will throw up their hands and say, why did we not fund FinCEN, why did we not provide the resources that they needed to do their job, how did this failure happen? It will all be in retrospect looking back at some colossal intelligence failure that continues to go on. I, for one, support getting you more resources and increasing your staffing commensurate with the responsibilities that we have given you. We are not nearly there in terms of the importance of the job that you do. Like I said earlier in my statement, I am amazed that you do as much as you do with the little resources that you have. You have to be maxed out here in terms of all the responsibilities that you have. I think it is disingenuous sometimes for Congress to come down on you and say, why are you not doing this, why are you not doing that? You have to cooperate better. You have to communicate better. Just covering all the bases you have to cover is a job in itself. Is there any hope that at least with the technology upgrade--are there ways we can do this to multiply the effectiveness of the employees that you have using new technology? Mr. Shaul from Mr. Frank's office, who has been helping me with some of the SAR stuff, has suggested, for instance, if we could move to a bar coding type of method to track SARs and to make them more complete, some of that information will be embedded so we do not have the problems that we had with IndyBank. Is that something that you think might be helpful as a force multiplier so you are not running around doing the stuff manually or less efficiently than you might be doing? Mr. Freis. Certainly, the IT can be a force multiplier, but most of what we are doing in terms of the IT modernization, one of the core pillars of it, is moving away from paper and manual processing to leveraging that electronically. Right now, the people who are doing that manual processing are IRS employees. We, as the Treasury Department and the government will benefit from that, FinCEN will not benefit-- Chairman Moore of Kansas. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Moore of Kansas. I want to thank our witnesses for testifying here today, Mr. Freis and Mr. Thorson, Inspector General Thorson. Thank you both for testifying. If you have any additional comments to make, please make those in writing and submit them. I will excuse you at this time and call our second panel, if you would please be seated. Thank you, gentlemen. We will convene with the second panel of witnesses. I am pleased to introduce our second panel. First, we will hear from Mr. Richard J. Hillman, Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, with the Government Accountability Office. Then, we will hear from Ms. Eileen Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, also with GAO. Without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record. Mr. Hillman, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. HILLMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Mr. Hillman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss recent work we have completed at FinCEN. My statement today is based upon GAO's 2009 report on the use of suspicious activity reports and challenges FinCEN has encountered in its form revisions process. Specifically, I will discuss three issues: factors that have contributed to an increase in the number of SAR filings for depository institutions; actions taken by FinCEN and law enforcement agencies to improve the quality of SAR reporting; and challenges FinCEN encountered in its attempt to revise the SAR form in 2006, and steps FinCEN could take to improve collaboration in its form revision process. Regarding the first issue, SAR filings have increased significantly from 2000 through 2008. Total SAR filings by depository institutions have more than quadrupled from about 163,000 in 2000 to more than 732,000 in 2008. Two key factors largely explain the increase: first, automated monitoring systems can flag multiple indicators of suspicious activity and identify significantly more unusual activity than manual monitoring; and second, several public enforcement actions against a few depository institutions prompted other institutions to more closely look at their clients and account activities. Another factor has been institutions' greater awareness of and training of Bank Secrecy Act requirements after September 11, 2001. As you know, SARs are a key information source for law enforcement agencies, as well as the Federal regulators. Because the information they contain is critical for investigations of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes, it is important that filers accurately fill out the reports. FinCEN and law enforcement agencies have taken some actions to improve the quality of SAR filings and educate filers about their usefulness. For example, FinCEN and Federal law enforcement representatives regularly participate in anti-money laundering issues, including events focused on SARs. Moreover, law enforcement representatives said they also establish relationships with depository institutions to communicate with staff about crafting useful SAR narratives. In addition, FinCEN, law enforcement agencies, and financial regulators have taken steps in recent years to make better use of SAR filings. For example, FinCEN uses SARs to provide analytical products to law enforcement agencies and financial regulators. Some law enforcement agencies use SAR data with their own datasets to facilitate complex analytical processes, and Federal, State, and local law enforcement representatives have collaborated to review and start investigations based upon SARs in their areas. Financial regulators are also using SARs. For example, they use them in their examinations process to assess compliance and take action against abuses by depository institution insiders. Finally, our view of FinCEN's form revision process for the SARs highlights challenges and weaknesses in FinCEN's management of multi-agency efforts. I will note that not only does FinCEN need to coordinate and collaborate with numerous law enforcement agencies and financial regulators, it also relies on the IRS for information technology support of BSA data including SARs, specifically. FinCEN developed a revised form in 2006, but then learned that it could not be used because of information technology limitations that the IRS could not address. Furthermore, some law enforcement groups expressed concerns that certain of the 2006 revisions could be detrimental to their investigations. Bank regulators, on the other hand, were satisfied with the revisions. In short, FinCEN's stakeholders had not all been involved early enough in the process. In 2008, FinCEN developed a new process for revising forms, including SARs, which may increase collaboration with some stakeholders. However, available documentation on the process did not detail the degree to which the new process would incorporate GAO identified best practices for enhancing and sustaining Federal agency collaboration efforts. For example, it did not specify roles and responsibilities for stakeholders or depict monitoring, evaluation or reporting mechanisms. Therefore, we recommended that FinCEN further develop and document its strategy to fully incorporate certain of these practices into their revision process and distribute that documentation to all stakeholders. In recent discussions with FinCEN officials, we have learned that it is taking some additional steps toward greater collaboration with law enforcement agency representatives, prosecutors, and multi-agency law enforcement teams and others to determine the contents of the form, but it is still too soon to determine the effectiveness of this process. In closing, I would like to note that the story of the SARs revision process highlights some of the key long-standing concerns that we identified over the years concerning FinCEN's ability to carry out its mission effectively given that it must depend on other agencies. We recognize that the mission of FinCEN creates some of its own challenges but we also believe that management has opportunities to strengthen its coordination and collaboration across agencies. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hillman can be found on page 47 of the appendix.] Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Hillman. Ms. Larence, you are recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am. STATEMENT OF EILEEN R. LARENCE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Larence. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to summarize our review of FinCEN's support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement as they investigate and prosecute terrorist financing, money laundering, and other financial crimes. In some ways, parts of FinCEN are in transition as they examine how to continue to be a relevant and meaningful resource to its more than 300 law enforcement customers. As more of these customers obtain direct access to the financial data FinCEN collects under the Bank Secrecy Act, they could do their own data queries and analyses and decrease the request to FinCEN for this kind of tactical case support by about 80 percent so FinCEN could examine other ways it could support law enforcement and effectively use its resources. The agency decided that it could use its expert knowledge about the financial data to conduct more complex and strategic analyses. For example, the agency could identify new patterns and emerging trends that could forewarn of new financial concerns. Given the evolving role of FinCEN, we surveyed Federal and State law enforcement agencies, including FinCEN's primary customers, to determine how useful they found FinCEN's current services and products. In general, the 25 law enforcement agencies responding to our survey in late 2008 found these services and products useful, and cited three in particular as most useful: first, having this direct access to the financial data; second, having liaisons at FinCEN; and third, being able to use FinCEN's secure communications to query U.S. financial institutions for data on persons or organizations under investigation, a capability that the PATRIOT Act provided. Law enforcement also reported that some of FinCEN's complex analytical products are particularly helpful in their investigations. This is especially true of technical reference manuals that cover issues such as Internet payment mechanisms. We identified four relatively easy commonsense ways that FinCEN could improve its working relationship and communications with law enforcement and help the agency be more relevant and responsive to these customers, increase the value and impact of its analyses, and ensure it uses its limited resources effectively. First, FinCEN could better inform law enforcement about the types of complex analytic products it can provide and let law enforcement know when it issues a new product. At the time of our review, 14 of the 25 law enforcement agencies had not received any or only one of FinCEN's strategic analytic products since 2004. Second, FinCEN could better define the types of requests for analytic support it will accept and the criteria it will use to set priorities for its analytic resources. FinCEN could also let law enforcement know whether and why it accepted or rejected a request. These basic practices would help build FinCEN's customer relations with law enforcement. Third, FinCEN could more actively solicit law enforcement's input on ongoing as well as planned analyses, significantly increasing their usefulness and relevance. Fourth and finally, FinCEN could establish a mechanism for agencies to provide law enforcement sensitive comments on proposed regulatory changes so as not to compromise key investigative techniques or strategies. The good news is that the Director acknowledges that FinCEN agreed with our recommendations. In fact, because we were doing work at the committee's request in the agency, FinCEN itself conducted its own internal study and acknowledged similar concerns as those we had identified. Last week, we asked FinCEN for an update, and learned it is initiating or plans to initiate corrective actions in a number of these areas. As Director Freis acknowledged, it is drafting both a menu of products and services, as well as a menu of resources that it plans to distribute electronically to law enforcement. It is also drafting a survey to determine what information law enforcement needs to support their investigations and a new form to capture and track requests for analytic support. In addition, FinCEN has developed a process to let law enforcement know the agency will fulfill a request, and furthermore, FinCEN organized some of its staff and workload so as to better engage law enforcement. And finally, FinCEN did solicit law enforcement input on a recent proposed regulatory change up-front before the change was a done deal, although in part, Congress provided them direction to do this. The agency is establishing a way for law enforcement to submit sensitive comments on proposed changes. Mr. Chairman, these are all good steps. FinCEN just needs to implement them and then track their success to ensure that the agency is using its resources most effectively in meeting law enforcement's needs. This will help to ensure that parts of FinCEN will survive. The subcommittee's support for FinCEN and oversight of its contributions will help to ensure that it is following through on these reforms. This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Larence can be found on page 62 of the appendix.] Chairman Moore of Kansas. My thanks to both witnesses for their testimony. I appreciate that very much. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. Ms. Larence, with respect to law enforcement and how FinCEN prioritizes which reports they do, how should they improve that priority system? Should they permit law enforcement to help decide, for example, perhaps a request from the FBI Director has a higher priority than an FBI agent in Seattle? Would involving law enforcement in that prioritization system help? Ms. Larence. Yes. We think that involving law enforcement in setting the criteria would help, but then also making sure FinCEN is transparent about that criteria. We do not argue that law enforcement should call all the shots because law enforcement itself recognizes that FinCEN brings particular expertise to the table because they have access to all of the data and because they have a broad perspective across the industry, regulators, and law enforcement itself. Law enforcement would just like to be more of a partner in that process. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you. Since you each focused on separate issues, it may be difficult for you both to give us a sense of which problem is more urgent, better communication with law enforcement or improving SAR data quality. How would each of you rank your respective issue on a scale of one to five, five meaning FinCEN is doing a great job, and one meaning they need to improve? Mr. Hillman, do you have any thoughts, sir? Mr. Hillman. Similar to the last panel, I believe that both of the actions that you are calling for are essential for FinCEN in achieving its mission. It must work with other regulators and other depository institutions in accomplishing its mission. It must serve law enforcement in meeting its terrorist financing and other financial crimes' work. I would put a high priority on both of those activities because if they were unsuccessful, then our country would be unsuccessful. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir. Ms. Larence, do you have any comments? Ms. Larence. Clearly, the law enforcement community found direct access to the data itself the most important service that FinCEN can provide, so I would argue that is where FinCEN would need to put its priorities. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you. Starting with you, Mr. Hillman, has FinCEN been responsive to GAO's recommendations? What additional steps should they take or focus on to improve their performance? Mr. Hillman. One of the major areas we found in our report on the SAR activities was that their forms revision process was not a collaborative process. They had made changes to that form and many individuals within the law enforcement community, specifically SAR review teams in other High Intensity Financial Crime Areas (HIFCA) had limited ability to influence the changes that they wanted to make to those forms. Since that recommendation was made, FinCEN has really taken to heart the need to ratchet up their coordination and communication in the forms revision process. We have seen substantial efforts on the part of the organization in obtaining views from outside parties early in the process, much of what we had recommended in the past. What we have not seen, however, are some other important facets of collaboration, including identifying and reporting and evaluating progress associated with their initiatives. We are also concerned that we have not really seen a plan for the effective implementation of this modernization effort, and given past progress in the information technology area, a plan is very important. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir. The Chair next recognizes Mr. Paulsen for 5 minutes, sir. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I will start with Mr. Hillman. Mr. Hillman, what are your views as to the current level of budgetary funding provided to FinCEN? Do they have adequate resources to effectively carry out their mission? Mr. Hillman. We really have not looked at the resources that have been provided to the organization. However, we do acknowledge the unenviable task that it has in achieving its multiple mission responsibilities, relying on the limited resources it does have and the other regulators at its disposal. Given that environment, that just puts a premium on ensuring effective collaboration and coordination across all of the financial regulators, law enforcement agencies, depository institutions, and others that are producing BSA data for that organization. That is what we have emphasized with FinCEN, improving its opportunities to collaborate and coordinate to get the biggest investment it can from the resources that it has. Mr. Paulsen. How important is it from your perspective for FinCEN to complete its SAR form revision process and how often do you think such a review or changes should take place in the future, given the changing nature of the financial system and of financial crimes? Mr. Hillman. They are required by law--from the Paperwork Reduction Act--to review their forms process every 3 years. They generally look at those forms a little bit ahead of that schedule to ensure they can complete that review in a timely fashion. I believe they are doing a diligent job in looking at their forms revisions. What we have found, however, is that the revisions that they have made had not been fully coordinated with others to determine that those form changes were going to improve the efficiency of the process, and then once they had decided on the revisions that they wanted to make, they had not coordinated effectively with the IRS and they were even in fact unable to implement the revisions they were proposing. Today, FinCEN is still using forms that they developed in 2003 in their forms revision process, and are unable to use technology to enhance their efforts going forward. Mr. Paulsen. Ms. Larence, as you probably know, FinCEN issued a report on fraud in the mortgage market well before the bubble collapsed. It was virtually ignored by the law enforcement community. Should FinCEN be held responsible for reports and information that are simply not used by law enforcement? Do you have any suggestions on that front at all? Ms. Larence. In talking with some of the FBI agents and liaisons, I think they felt like FinCEN brought a different perspective to that issue than the FBI could. The FBI has access to different information and takes a case perspective. They thought FinCEN could bring value but they would have liked to have maybe collaborated with FinCEN more. FinCEN itself in its internal review admitted that what they hear from law enforcement is the quality of their reports is very high, but sometimes the relevance is not as high. We argue if they would collaborate more with law enforcement to determine what kinds of information they need, what they are focusing on, they would stand a better chance to be more relevant. Mr. Paulsen. Regarding GAO's recommendation that FinCEN establish a process to inform law enforcement about the availability of completed analytical products, the December 2009 report indicated that FinCEN was not inclined to share certain products completed for one customer with other law enforcement agencies due to confidentiality rules. How should FinCEN handle this situation so that vital data and reports can be made available to all law enforcement agencies? Ms. Larence. A couple of things. They do follow what they call the third party rule. That is, they would ask the originating agency if they could have permission to share, and how extensively could they share, those products. What we heard from law enforcement was they would just like to even know that the product existed, and that way they may be able to pursue channels to get that information. It looks from what FinCEN is telling us, we have not had a chance to audit that yet, but they have put a process in place, both to better inform and market their products as well as to communicate better with law enforcement on their responses to law enforcement's requests. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes. Mr. Lynch. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask both of you. We are talking a lot about FinCEN's responsibility to interact and collaborate with law enforcement. That is just one-third of what their mission is. They also have a mission with 325 employees, they have 300 law enforcement agencies, then they have every single reporting financial services firm in the country, thousands, and then on top of that, they have 160 countries that currently have financial intelligence units--116, excuse me, and we are working on maybe another 40 right now to try to get financial intelligence units stood up, and FinCEN is working on those. They have 325 employees. I think it is mind boggling to expect anybody to be able to do that with that small a number of employees. I just do not see it happening. These folks are stretched thin. I know you did not look specifically at that, but do you have any-- Mr. Hillman. That actually was not the scope of our review in looking at SARs and SAR revisions, but it is clear FinCEN has a daunting responsibility with the resources that it has. It continues to put a premium on proper guidance and forms to the other regulators and depository institutions that supports its activities. In the recent past, we have seen a ratcheting up on the part of FinCEN in putting a good guidance out on their Web site for others on attending conferences. We learned that between 2006 and 2008, FinCEN representatives had attended over 300 different conferences and multi-agency groups to spread the word as to what types of activities they were hoping to see achieved. Law enforcement is doing the same thing and working with depository institutions and helping to ensure they get adequate and high-quality narratives in these SAR forms. We just need to continue to leverage the available resources to accomplish the goals and mission of FinCEN. Mr. Lynch. Right now, it seems like FinCEN is going out to these different agencies. They went out to California and they have been working closely with the FBI. Ironically, the FBI has put as many resources into analyzing the information provided by FinCEN than we have provided FinCEN to actually develop the data and provide the intelligence. It is sort of backwards. I just do not know how long we can continue to do that. I know FinCEN has a connection with all these different departments. We are providing extra resources to these other agencies, and yet we are level funding FinCEN that is providing all these agencies. I just see organizationally, it is a real problem. I do not know how to get past that without providing additional resources to FinCEN. Ms. Larence? Ms. Larence. We tried very hard to be able to help answer that question, at least in terms of the work they are providing to law enforcement, through the Analysis and Liaison Division. FinCEN needs to be able to demonstrate this is what we are doing with the resources that we have right now in terms of supporting the law enforcement community. Here are the critical gaps or here are the missed opportunities that we have to be able to provide significant support. FinCEN needs to be able to demonstrate these gaps. We just had a hard time getting that kind of management information to be able to make that story. Mr. Lynch. Let me ask, in your reports and in your analysis in looking at this, is FinCEN bringing in--you would think that one way we might be able to close that gap is to sort of bring in the law enforcement people, do a number of seminars on the financial analysis products that they have. I know there is outreach. I am not so sure that is the best use of their time. Maybe bring all those folks into Washington and do a bunch of these conferences and do a training on the products and on the data and how to use FinCEN better. Of course, that is going to be a double-edged sword because they are going to get more and more SARs. They are going to get more and more business. It is sort of like the problem I had with some of my local hospitals. They are losing money on every patient. Then they do outreach and they get more patients coming into the hospital and they are losing even more money. It is sort of a downward spiral of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is the problem that FinCEN has. I do not think they are doing it purposely. By not doing outreach, they are probably reserving some of their resources that they have. Any thoughts on that? Ms. Larence. I think they have some existing channels that they can use more effectively. They have a bi-monthly roundtable with law enforcement. They have changed the agenda already where they are better publicizing the products and they are using the roundtable to solicit ideas from law enforcement about the kinds of issues and analyses that would be helpful. They have already taken some steps there. They have been increasing their attendance at conferences and doing outreach. They have been partnering with some of the IGs to get the word out. They are looking at using the available channels that they have. I think also with issuing these menus of products and services and resources and using their existing gateway and secure outreach portals that they have to law enforcement just to publicize them will help a lot. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Thank you both. I yield back. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you. I understand that Ranking Member Judy Biggert is on her way. If Mr. Paulsen has any additional questions, he can go ahead at this time until she arrives. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of follow-up questions for Mr. Hillman, if I could. As you know, the suspicious activity report, the SAR report filings continue to increase. However, the quality of SAR filings continues to be an issue in depository institutions. Officials have commented they would like clear guidance on what law enforcement looks for, what they really want, what they find useful in these reports. Based on your work, what actions have FinCEN and law enforcement agencies taken to assist financial institutions in improving the quality of the SAR filings, and what should be done in the future on this front? Mr. Hillman. This is one area that has been a continual concern on the part of depository institutions, concern that they do not know exactly how law enforcement is using this data, not knowing how exactly how to satisfy those needs. We have found, however, that FinCEN has done a number of things to improve communication and coordination with the depository institutions and to educate them about the importance of SAR filings. For example, they have a variety of written products reporting trends in SAR data, providing tips on SAR filings. They have also posted a variety of guidance on their Web site. One important piece of guidance outlined the 10 most important common filing errors in SARs and steps to avoid them. In 2008, they also produced a guideline from SAR filings on proceeds and foreign corruption. FinCEN representatives, as I previously mentioned, also are participating in a number of conferences for depository institutions to share information with them and law enforcement is doing the same, to best assist depository institutions in providing the right information on SAR narratives and to help depository institutions better understand the types of information that they need for their investigative activities. Going forward, FinCEN really needs to continue to educate filers on the important uses of SARs and the benefits to law enforcement. Mr. Paulsen. One more question. In the past, financial industry officials have expressed concerns about the extent to which law enforcement agencies use suspicious activity reports and whether the effort put into filing them is actually helping law enforcement investigations. Just again a quick follow-up, because I think you had a little bit of this in your answer, but what steps have FinCEN, law enforcement, and others taken to make better use of SARs in general? This is a common theme I think we hear. Mr. Hillman. Absolutely. FinCEN, law enforcement, and financial institution regulators are each taking steps to ensure they are using quality information that is available from SARs. FinCEN, as we previously discussed, has produced various non-public analytical products and they have also pushed out bulk downloads of their SAR data to law enforcement organizations and others for them to combine that SAR information and other BSA information with other investigative information they have at their disposal to enrich their investigative activities. We have also seen some concerns being expressed by law enforcement agencies and others who use SAR forms, basically going to concerns with the formatting and the efficiency of the downloading process. A couple of important concerns have to do with the fact that SAR narratives produced on their systems come forth in all capital letters. There is no additional formatting for an individual, a SARs review team, for example, who may be looking at hundred of these SARs in an individual instance, from better understanding what was in that data. We also have had concerns expressed by financial regulators in that the downloads that are available in producing SARs analyses do not allow regulators to provide all the SARs that they need in that analysis at one point in time. There are concerns their analyses may not be fully complete. In addition, financial regulators have expressed concerns that the data input that is being provided by FinCEN, and to some extent by the IRS as well, is not producing accurate results. There are opportunities for FinCEN and the IRS to improve the uploading of information in their systems. Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Moore of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Paulsen, for your questions. Now I recognize for 5 minutes for questions the ranking member of the subcommittee, my colleague and friend from Illinois, Ranking Member Judy Biggert. Ms. Biggert? Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask questions. I, unfortunately, have been in a markup all day. We still have eight amendments to go. I had quite a few amendments. It usually does not last this long. Chairman Moore of Kansas. We are glad you are here. Mrs. Biggert. My first question would be, what are the answers to addressing FinCEN's shortcomings and what does FinCEN need to do their job and to do it well? Is it new authority? Resources? Is it a set timeframe to update information systems? Briefly. Mr. Hillman. I will take the issue on the information systems. I believe that is one of the significant challenges facing this organization at the time. They have had a dismal record in the past in establishing robust and successful information technology modernization initiatives, and they are undergoing one now as we speak. The advice that I would provide to FinCEN is that they take the time to thoroughly develop a plan for moving forward in their information technology initiative before implementing individual steps, and that they solicit the input of Treasury's Chief Information Officer in their deliberations on their modernization efforts. The Director, when he was here earlier this afternoon, discussed the fact that the CIO himself is on a panel with the Director and the Deputy Commissioner to oversee the modernization effort. FinCEN itself as an organization with so few resources, it really could leverage the technology expertise available in the Information Office to achieve its purposes more effectively. Ms. Larence. In terms of the issues that we looked at, these are not new findings. FinCEN had several internal studies starting in 2005, 2006, and 2008. FinCEN knows what it needs to do. It just needs to do it. It needs to track it to make sure the changes are effective. It needs to hold itself accountable with law enforcement for these changes. I think setting timeframes and establishing an accountability system where it publicly reports out to law enforcement and to the Congress on what its commitments are and whether it is making those commitments. Mrs. Biggert. Do you think Congress should set a timeline or a certain time when they should complete--outline the specific goals? I know the same situation is really in HUD, every year we ask them if they have their information system up and running and the technology, and it just keeps delaying and delaying. How can Congress get them moving and should there be a deadline set? Mr. Hillman. I believe that it would be important for Congress to request a plan from FinCEN as to how it intends to successfully modernize its information technology, and then to request periodic progress reports on their activities. In that way, there would be some very important oversight from the Congress in ensuring that FinCEN is making true progress in achieving its ultimate goals. Ms. Larence. We noticed in the most recent work on proposed regulatory changes that FinCEN collaborated very well with the law enforcement agencies within DHS, in part because Congress directed them to do that through statute. It is pretty clear that if Congress gave support and incentives such as setting recurring timeframes and holding FinCEN accountable to them, that does help. Mrs. Biggert. I think in the first panel, Director Freis said we have been planning for 3\1/2\ years and now they restarted the planning process. How much time do you think it would take them to complete the process of updating their technology? Mr. Hillman. With their current technology efforts, the staff within FinCEN, when we were updating the status of our recommendations for this hearing, were reluctant to share with us any timeframes for completing any individual efforts, but suggested that the total modernization effort was likely not to be completed until 2014. Mrs. Biggert. Does law enforcement find FinCEN more or less relevant now that agencies can access and analyze the Bank Secrecy Act data on their own? Ms. Larence. What we found in our review is that kind of case-specific tactical support the agencies are now doing themselves, so they did not really need FinCEN to do that for them. They did recognize that FinCEN had valuable expertise, again, because FinCEN understood industry, regulators, and law enforcement. They do think FinCEN could have a more strategic and forward-looking approach to trying to anticipate issues, looking for patterns and trends in the data. Law enforcement does think FinCEN brings value to the table. They just want to collaborate better so they have an opportunity to help to define with FinCEN the kinds of analyses that will be most relevant and useful to support their investigations and their cases. Mrs. Biggert. Do you think law enforcement really needs these complex analyses? Ms. Larence. I think they find them very helpful, if they are timely and useful. What we heard is if FinCEN involved law enforcement in helping to again define what to pursue in those analyses and also get them involved on ongoing reviews, that would help the information to meet law enforcement's needs and be more relevant than it is today. Mrs. Biggert. Do you see some of the agencies, law enforcement agencies, need FinCEN more to help them conduct their investigations and prosecutions than others? Ms. Larence. We did note that they have now more than 300 potential law enforcement customers. These range from some of the five biggest players, such as the DEA, the FBI, and ICE, down to smaller State law enforcement agencies, and to some extent, even local law enforcement agencies. These agencies are going to need a variety of skills and support from FinCEN. I think FinCEN has a lot of potential customers out there. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Thank you both for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Moore of Kansas. My thanks to the distinguished lady from Illinois. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony this afternoon. Today's hearing was helpful in improving our understanding of the challenges facing FinCEN and ways those challenges can be addressed. This is something we will continue to monitor closely. The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for our witnesses which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you all. [Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X April 28, 2010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7747.213