OVERHAUL LIKELY TO SHRINK FBI DRUG WAR ROLE

Carrying Burden Worries Local Law Enforcement

WASHINGTON -- As the FBI, the nation's premier crime-fighting force,
undergoes a historic reorientation from crime-solving to the war on
terrorism, many are asking what will happen to the previous great national
mission: the war on drugs.

Nearly one-quarter of the FBI's $3.4 billion budget, and thousands of its
agents, is dedicated to helping fight drug trafficking. FBI Director Robert
Mueller is scheduled to announce a complete overhaul of the bureau early
next year, and most observers say it is likely to include a far smaller
role for FBI agents in fighting drugs. Mueller announced a restructuring of
bureau management last week.

That means the burden will fall on state and local police departments,
which are already overtaxed, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which
would need an infusion of dollars to take up the slack.

"I don't know what they are going to do, but they are going to have to
articulate something," said Nicholas Gess, a former Clinton administration
Justice Department official. "Governors and mayors will not let them get
away with just transferring it to them. When the crime rate goes up, it's
the mayor who gets voted out."

Mueller has acknowledged that he cannot simply declare the FBI is no longer
in the drug-fighting business because its 11,000 agents are needed to fight
terrorism.

"I'm sensitive to the fact that when you don't do something, you have to
fill that gap," Mueller said last week. "Whenever we make a decision as to
taking something away from one area, we have to know who will fill the
void, and whether they are capable and willing to fill the void."

But it is unclear how the gap will be filled, not only regarding drug
crimes but other investigations as well. From bank robbery to gun offenses
to pornography, police who depend heavily on the bureau to help with
challenging crimes worry about what will happen when the FBI announces its
reorganization.

"I'm concerned about bank robbery," said Bill Berger, North Miami Beach
police chief. "It's not a local crime. It tends to be individuals who go
from state to state and may have a political agenda. Unfortunately, police
departments don't communicate that well among each other. That is the one
crime that concerns me."

Money Question Rises Again

Lawmakers may find themselves facing a difficult decision: Whether to spend
much more money on law enforcement, despite the sputtering economy and the
re-emergence of budget deficits, or to allow investigation of some crimes
to fall by the wayside.

"The obvious response from the FBI is, 'Take your pick. Do you want us to
increase the size of our force to fight terrorism, or will you run us
ragged with everything you can dream up? And if you pick the second, we
need money,'" said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

Lee Colwell, a former associate director of the FBI, agreed.

"I don't see any clear, clean choices," he said. "It's a reordering of
priorities based on the threat now. It's not an easy policy issue, and
there are no easy choices. But I don't think anyone would dispute that the
threat of terrorism has provided a mandate to do something."

Last week Mueller announced Phase 1 of the bureau's reorganization, one
that dealt mostly with changes at headquarters. Phase 2, expected early
next year, is likely to prove far more controversial.

The shift Mueller is contemplating is a historic one. The FBI was not
always in the business of drug investigations; its original mission was
complex, interstate crimes that would overwhelm city police forces--Mafia
racketeering, city hall corruption, white-collar fraud.

But when President Ronald Reagan launched his war on drugs 20 years ago, he
conscripted the FBI into the crusade, over the protest of many agents. And
Congress for two decades has sought to prove its tough-on- crime
credentials by making more and more offenses into federal crimes and
assigning them to the FBI--carjacking and gun crimes for example.

In essence, Mueller's reorganization not only will be an overhaul of his
agency, but it will amount to a realignment of American law enforcement.
After two decades of trying to persuade federal agents to handle local
crimes and work with city police, the FBI suddenly will be pulling back.

Justice Department leaders have not specified which investigations the FBI
will abandon. But clearly they will be related to offenses that do not
require the bureau's sophistication and national reach.

"The department will not be all things to all people," Atty. Gen. John
Ashcroft told his staff last month. "We cannot do everything we once did,
because lives now depend on us doing a few things very well. We must strive
to maximize our potential even as we recognize our limitations."

While some are worried, others welcome this change, saying it never made
sense for the FBI to handle local crimes.

"In terms of violent crime, the federal role was always improper," said
Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

"If the FBI is not involved, I don't see that this is in any way going to
be catastrophic to the investigations."

Some police chiefs, meanwhile, insist they have improved their ability to
handle drug cases. Others say it is redundant for the DEA and FBI to target
drugs.

"I in fact recommended to Director Mueller that the FBI get out of the drug
business," said Robert Olson, police chief of Minneapolis.

In any case the FBI would not drop all drug cases. Its agents likely would
step in on complex cases involving organized crime, powerful gangs or
international cartels.

But it appears inescapable that the FBI will pull important resources out
of what was until Sept. 11 the nation's top law-enforcement priority.

The reorientation presents other dangers as well. Several agents warned
that as the FBI pulls out of local cases, it risks damaging a federal-local
partnership that has been nurtured over the years.

"There is a law-enforcement fabric that has been woven over a long period
of time of how we work with state and local offices," said Nancy Savage, an
FBI agent in Eugene, Ore., who heads the FBI Agents Association. "It's
woven based on mutual assistance. We don't want it to be broken. We would
be less effective in every respect, including terrorism."

An Important Link

Even the actions that virtually everyone agrees the FBI must take, such as
pulling out of investigating some simpler crimes, will not be easy.

"Even when it comes to violent crime, the FBI performs a unique function
because they have nationwide jurisdiction," said Gess, a senior consultant
with Bingham Consulting Group. "It's all very well and good to say a police
officer in New York can call a police officer in Los Angeles, but who do
you call? There is no good system."

Some fear that other priorities inevitably will be lost. Even if the FBI
keeps its mandate to investigate such complex matters such as antitrust
cases, environmental offenses and civil rights violations, these crimes may
not get the attention they deserve.

"Some will be tempted to use this as an excuse to get the FBI out of those
things that from a political perspective they don't want to have examined,
such as civil rights and environmental matters," said Eric Holder, the No.
2 official in the Clinton Justice Department. "I would hope that would not
happen."