[House Hearing, 105 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ======================================================================== HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman JIM KOLBE, Arizona ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado RALPH REGULA, Ohio JULIAN C. DIXON, California MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York TOM LATHAM, Iowa NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Jim Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Miller, and Mike Ringler, Subcommittee Staff ________ PART 6 THE JUDICIARY Page The Supreme Court of the United States............................ 1 Architect of the Capitol.......................................... 29 The Federal Judiciary and the Administrative Office............... 47 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Attorney General.................................................. 199 Justice Inspector General......................................... 495 Federal Bureau of Investigation................................... 577 Counterterrorism.................................................. 647 Drug Enforcement Programs......................................... 699 State and Local Law Enforcement................................... 897 Immigration....................................................... 1011 Prisons and Related Issues........................................ 1125 ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41-832 O WASHINGTON : 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee TOM LATHAM, Iowa ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ---------- Thursday, March 13, 1997. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WITNESSES HON. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HON. DAVID H. SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JAMES C. DUFF, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE DALE B. BOSLEY, MARSHAL FRANK LORSON, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK TONY DONNELLY, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND PERSONNEL Opening Remarks Mr. Rogers. The hearing will come to order. We are pleased to be here today to discuss the 1998 budget request of the Supreme Court. We welcome before the Subcommittee again this year Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter in their fourth appearance together before us. We think it is star billing on the marquee out there. Justice Kennedy. We don't do this act any other place, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I'm glad we have an exclusive. This is a unique opportunity for the Congress to interact with the Judicial Branch, two separate and independent branches, but working within the system of checks and balances included by our Founding Fathers. One check held by the Congress, over the other two branches enshrined in the Constitution, is the power of the purse. It might be said in this case that we provide the check and hope that you make it balance. The budget request for the Supreme Court is $29,278,000, an increase of $2,121,000, or 7.8 percent over the amount we provided for fiscal year 1997. There is an additional request of $3,997,000 for appearance of the buildings and grounds, which is an increase of $1,197,000 above the fiscal year 1997 appropriation. This particular appropriation is managed by the Architect of the Capitol. After hearing from the Supreme Court we will then hear from the new Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman. Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. Justice Souter, we are pleased to have you here today. Justice Kennedy, we will make your prepared testimony a part of the record. Justice Kennedy. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. If you'd like to proceed informally briefly, we'd love to hear from you. Justice Kennedy. Thank you very much. Mr. Rogers. The same for Justice Souter. Statement of Justice Kennedy Justice Kennedy. Thank you for your welcome. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it's a pleasure to be here and we thank you for giving some special attention to the Supreme Court, which has a small budget compared to the other matters that this Committee must consider. But it is a good opportunity for you to look at this small part of the Federal Judicial System. Justice Souter and I have with us today various of our Court Officers; the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, Mr. Jim Duff; our Marshal of the Court, Mr. Dale Bosley; Chief Deputy Clerk, Frank Lorson; our Public Information Officer, Toni House; and our Director of Budget and Personnel, Tony Donnelly. In the second row I think we have Frank Wagner, our Reporter of Decisions. Mr. Rogers. I'd like to interrupt you for a second to say that Mr. Duff is an extremely talented man. I wonder where he received his education. Justice Kennedy. We are well-aware of that, Mr. Chairman and he's done a terrific job for us and for the Chief Justice. Mr. Rogers. Could you tell me where he was educated? Justice Kennedy. Yes. I believe it was somewhere near Kentucky. Mr. Rogers. I know his family, in Owsley County which is in my district, and he has a fine family. Now, do they play basketball down there? Justice Kennedy. I have not seen him play on the highest Court in the country which is our basketball court. I'll have to go and watch him work out there sometime. Mr. Rogers. He played for Adolph Rupp at the University of Kentucky. Justice Kennedy. He's been well-prepared for the challenges that he faces with us. Our budget, as you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, if you include the buildings and grounds budget which is the Architect's portion, is for $33,275,000. As you indicated, Mr. Hantman, the new Architect of the Capitol will present that portion of the budget that pertains to buildings and grounds. I have read his submission and we should say that the Court is in full agreement with it. One of the things he is going to tell you is that our building, of which he writes with great elegance in his report, is more than 60 years old. We are concerned about its structural features; the internal parts of the building that are inadequate; wiring, plumbing, and other building basics. A study is going to have to be made to see what upgrades are needed. We're concerned that the wiring, particularly, is inadequate. And we hope that the Committee gives careful attention and support to that request. With reference to our portion of the budget we do, as you have indicated, ask for an increase of $2,121,000. $1,504,000 of that is an adjustment to base. It does not represent new programs. And the adjustment figures are based on the standard cost projections that you're well-aware of. As we've indicated before, it seems that books and some of the services we use go up by much more than the ordinary inflation rate. And then there is the question of word processing equipment and computerized equipment. We go between cycles where we buy hardware in one year, and then we must have new software for three or four years after that, then new hardware. This cycle seems endless. I was wondering why we need new hardware. Well, one of the reasons is after it gets four or five years old, there is no one around who can fix it. So, you have to buy the new things. Also, our new people are trained on the newest systems. And so we have to keep up. You see that reflected in the adjustments to base. We do ask for one programmatic increase. And that pertains to our police and our security system. We've asked, as we indicated that we might last year, for six new positions. We also need an updated radio network to keep our officers in touch with each other. We have reports pending from various security agencies, including the Secret Service, that will make some recommendations that may require us to come back next year for some capital improvements with reference to the building structure and the building perimeter. Those studies have not yet been formally presented to the Court. But we do understand that the experts agree with us on the necessity for the new police positions. We ask for six new positions. That's two per shift. And it will result, we think, in some savings in the overtime that our police now incur. As to the Court as a whole, the picture is one of constancy and stability. As you can see at 1.10 of the budget estimate that you have in front of you, the caseload, in terms of filings, pushes up to the 8,000 level. This has been so for the last four or five years or so. And we can handle that caseload with the existing staff and facilities we have. It would be a mistake, as the Committee is well-aware, to assume that the relatively stable picture of Supreme Court filings is a reflection of the condition of the Court system as a whole. That, of course, is not true. In the Courts of Appeals, filings are up by over 5 percent. On a base where the Courts of Appeals are already over-burdened, this is a very substantial increase. At the District Court level, as you know, there are also increases both in the civil and criminal filings. The criminal cases particularly in the District Courts are more complex than they once were. This is the nature of the federal criminal jurisdiction. So, we are very concerned about the condition of the Courts of Appeals and the District Courts; and we recognize that the Committee and the Congress have, I think, consistent, Mr. Chairman with your earlier comments, acted with care and concern for your Constitutional responsibilities. The Committee has been most receptive to the needs of the Court, and we appreciate your consideration. I have no further remarks by way of opening. Perhaps Justice Souter would like to supplement my introduction. Justice Souter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't. I realize I'm here in case he gets laryngitis. He has not. [The statement of Justice Kennedy follows:] [Pages 5 - 10--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] additional police positions Mr. Rogers. We welcome your remarks. If you care to go straight into questions, we do have another witness after you this morning. So, we want to get you out of here quickly, for your own purposes and for ours as well. It is good to have both of you here. You are requesting a steady state budget, more or less--an increase to cover the cost of inflation and personnel benefits, with one exception, and that involves security. Is that generally correct? Justice Kennedy. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Now, last year at your request we provided $150,000 in the Architect of the Capitol's budget for a study of security at the Supreme Court. Are the additional six police that you requested in anticipation of what the study would have included, or is that separate? Justice Kennedy. We think it's separate. We have identified, based on our own assessments, the necessity for additional staff. What the Architect's report is going to cover are questions of basic building security, in so far as design and perimeter protection. We anticipate, based on what we've heard, that this is going to require some capital expenditures in our next budget request. But we have not seen that report yet. Mr. Rogers. When do you expect that report? Justice Kennedy. I'll ask Mr. Donnelly. Mr. Donnelly. They're just starting that report. So, sometime this fiscal year. Justice Kennedy. Sometime this fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. You will complete your study? Justice Kennedy. Yes. And there is a Secret Service report that is in. Mr. Rogers. Do you already have that report? Justice Kennedy. Not yet; in about two weeks. Mr. Rogers. Two weeks? Justice Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Where did the additional request for police originate? Justice Kennedy. It was basically generated by us. The Secret Service has told us that they are in full support of it and think that it is absolutely required. Mr. Rogers. Well, of course we're very interested in hearing about the progress of the security report so that we can make our plans as well. There is one thing we want to be sure of and that's to provide adequate security to the Court. Justice Kennedy. We can certainly arrange to have it furnished to you as soon as we get it. The last thing I thought I saw was it was over 600,000 people a year visit the building. So, just from a standpoint of control of that influx of visitors, we require a substantial presence. We also have increased our expertise in the assessment of threats of a more serious nature. Mr. Rogers. I'm just curious here. Sometimes you make decisions that are controversial, and immediately there are groups of people that want to carry signs and voice their objection or their agreement on some issue. Where is the line? Where does your own security police force leave off and other police forces come in? Justice Kennedy. We have a standing arrangement with the Capitol Police. And when there is going to be a major demonstration, we would notify them in advance. We have assistance from the Capitol Police. Our jurisdiction is basically the block of the Court, plus wherever the Justices happen to be. The working relationship, I understand, between the Capitol Police and our own force has been very good. Mr. Rogers. How many police do you have? Justice Kennedy. About 80, and that's for 24 hours a day. police radio system Mr. Rogers. Now, in your request for a police radio system, there is included the cost of an evaluation for remote communications. Is the evaluation something that another agency like Secret Service could do, or do you need to go to an outside firm to do that? Justice Kennedy. The evaluation was generated by our police in talking with independent contractors and with the Secret Service. Mr. Rogers. What I'm asking you is, could that be done by the Secret Service as opposed to hiring an outside contractor? Justice Kennedy. Well, I take it that this is for the purchase of the equipment; the budget that we're talking about. Apparently, the channel that they're on has been crowded and they've had inadequate communication. So, they need a system that works on some different or more efficient channel. That's my understanding. Mr. Rogers. The $400,000, as I understand, you've requested for evaluation of the remote communication needs of the police and purchases. Justice Kennedy. And purchase of the equipment. Mr. Rogers. What I'm saying is, can we get the study done by the Secret Service and give you money for the equipment? I'm just trying to save some money. Justice Kennedy. I'll have to ask our Marshal. My understanding is that the Secret Service has made the recommendation, but that we have to go outside to an independent contractor to get both the design and the equipment that we need. The Secret Service doesn't have it. I might indicate also, Mr. Chairman, that we are very, very pleased with the work that our police force does. One of the things we're always concerned about is the security and the confidentiality of the Court's documents. And we have our young law clerks working there until the early hours of the morning; coming in and out at all times. The police know every law clerk by name. They are very sensitive about document control. And the Court has been fortunate that we have not had breaches of security with reference to the Court's pending decisions. As you know, for any single decision that we are hearing, there are many other cases that will depend upon it. And leaks of our decisional processes could be damaging, both to the Court's reputation and to litigants in many, many cases. So, our police are very well-trained and sensitive that. We're very pleased with the performance that they render on a day-to-day basis. SCHEMATIC DESIGN Mr. Rogers. Well, you mentioned in your testimony your support of the Architect's request for a schematic design to substantially renovate the building and its utilities. That could lead to about a $22 million project. I know it's important. Do you think it is urgent enough to undertake that sizeable cost? Justice Kennedy. We think it's urgent that you do the study. It was requested last year and funding was not available for it. We're concerned about both wiring and plumbing because in the event of a failure the damage to the building could be severe. The building was built in 1934 for under $9 million, including furnishings. And so when you think that $20 million may be necessary to upgrade it, you tend to wonder. But I think we ought to look at the study and then make up our mind based on the recommendations. Mr. Rogers. We will wait for that with you. I'm just concerned about that size of a project when we're trying to balance the budget. But we want to be sure that the Court has an adequate facility. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to welcome the Justices to the hearing today. And I have no other questions. CASELOAD Mr. Rogers. In 1996, you experienced your first decline in caseload, but your projections for 1997 are rising again. Do you think that's accurate? Justice Kennedy. Indications are that they are rising. From this graph you see it is perceptible, but not in the size to cause any concern. We don't see a huge influx of petitions based on the construction of any new Federal enactments or new Federal regulatory schemes, substantive changes in the criminal law. Our predictions are that the case load should be fairly constant. Mr. Rogers. Is there any reason for the slight decline in this one year? Justice Kennedy. None that we can figure. No. I don't know the reason for the slight decline. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. Good morning, Justices. Justice Kennedy. Good morning, Mr. Latham. JUDICIAL SALARIES Mr. Latham. I guess I was more curious about salaries. How much of a problem is it to attract people to the Bench today because of the salary situation we have? Justice Kennedy. From what I can see and in checking my old community in Sacramento and in California, we still attract to the Bench practitioners from the highest ranks of the Bar. It is a matter of continuing concern to us, however, with reference to the District and the Circuit Courts, the Judges see an erosion of their salary by reason that no cost of living index is granted to them as there is to other Federal employees. And I think it has been four or five years now since there has been a COLA increase. This is demoralizing to the Judges. People do come from the really fine parts of the practicing bar, and are willing to take something of a pay cut often in order to have the honor to serve on the Federal Bench. But that should not be interpreted as giving the political branches incentives to treat them shabbily. Federal judicial salaries are much more substantial than state salaries. We know that; than state judicial salaries. On the other hand it's very important I think for Congress and the Executive Branch to be aware that the respect for the Judiciary depends in large part on the caliber and the dedication and the zeal of those Judges who are serving. We think it's urgent that Congress make up the COLA increases that were not granted in the past four or five years for our District and our Circuit Judges. Mr. Latham. Perhaps you can make some kind of a ruling for Members of Congress too. Justice Kennedy. Well, I'll let Justice--maybe Justice Souter may want to comment on that. But it is true, as you know that there has been perhaps an unstated policy of linking the two. I think that's unwise. It's not a question of which position should be paid more or less. It's a question of independently assessing the needs of the Courts and coming to a decision as to what their salaries ought to be, quite independent of the political concerns that affect the salaries of the other Branches. Maybe Justice Souter will comment. Justice Souter. Well, I think the only thing I would say in supplement is if there is going to be a link, I think it makes sense for the link to be with the other class, the Federal employees that you want to attract and keep in for the long haul. When you get a Judge appointed, you figure you're making a lifetime appointment and so does the Judge. The closest example of that, I guess, is in the, what do they call them, the general schedule employees whom you hope are going to be serving the government for a long time once they get there. And I think the fair case for the link is the case to treat the Judges the same way you're treating the general schedule employees. Which is not to say that there ought to be some kind of an automatic policy of adjustments every year, but that if you're going to adjust for the government generally, you shouldn't exclude the Judiciary from it, because the concerns are the same. The only other thing I would say is that I think it's inevitable that if something doesn't happen, the Congress and the Judiciary are going to begin to see the phenomenon which I know took place before I became a Federal Judge in which the erosion got to the point where there were noticeable resignations in the District Courts. You don't want a Judicial system, nobody does, in which the only people who can really afford to enter it are either independently wealthy so that they don't have to care about the salary or are getting a big increase by the appointment. I know a good many District Judges and, characteristically, the District Judges I know took a substantial pay cut when they went from law firms and went onto the Bench. They did that because they wanted to. But they've also got to figure their earning capacity in relation to what their families are going to require. And if you take a Judge who is in, let's say his 40s with kids coming along to be educated, he's got to make a very practical judgment about the capacity of his judicial salary to pay the cost of raising his kids. When you have erosion as we have seen for I guess four years now, that begins to hurt. And I think it's going to hurt in terms of decisions to desire and accept Judicial appointments and decisions to stay. I think the concern that those particular Judges have, I know Justice Kennedy and I have, would be addressed not only by the catch-up, which I know is being considered, in this session of the Congress, but by a link with general schedule employees so that the Judges get treated the same way the people working for them get treated. Mr. Latham. I admire you. The number one concern should be for the quality of the people who are serving. Justice Kennedy. We've been very concerned, Congressman, over our history in that we have a unified Bar. We don't have the Barrister/Solicitor distinction. And from earliest times, the leaders of the business bar, beginning around the 1870s what we call the corporate bar, encouraged their partners who were litigators to go on the Federal Bench because they knew the importance of having the highest quality lawyers on the Federal Bench; lawyers that can try complex anti-trust cases, a securities case, a class action torts case. This requires a high degree of skill. And our Federal Judiciary is the most skilled Judiciary in the world. If you have an environment, if you have a tradition, if you have a practice, if you have a custom in which the Judges are ignored with reference to salary requests, they are not going to have the urging and the support of their partners and their colleagues to go on the Federal Bench. Their colleagues will say ``Stay here. That job isn't worth taking.'' And this must never happen to a great judicial system. Mr. Latham. Are you hearing from people now about retiring earlier? Are we to the point where you are seeing an erosion in quality? Justice Souter. I can tell you personally that I have heard it in a couple of instances. I have no anecdotal evidence. Most of the Judges we have that I know are so dedicated to their work, and are so honored to be the trustees of the Constitution and of our rule of law and of our tradition that they will stay on that Bench. But that does not mean, it seems to me that you should use a supply and demand calculus in order to determine what is fair and adequate compensation for people of that caliber. Mr. Latham. We certainly don't want to have a situation where there is outside financial pressure on people in judicial positions. Justice Kennedy. Well, of course, during what I've always thought were the years when salaries were very, very small, there were those of us who are professional teachers, now we have had a severe limit put on the amount of money that could be made from outside teaching. That was imposed by the Congress. So, these are just additional constraints. And it's quite appropriate that Judges should not have outside income except from very traditional and appropriate sources. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HABEAS CORPUS REFORM Mr. Rogers. I'd like to ask you about the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in which we passed the so- called Habeas Corpus Reform last year. Have you felt the impact of that yet? If not, when do you expect to? Justice Kennedy. There are two parts to the bill and we felt the impact in one part and not in the second part. The first part of the bill limits the rights of petitioners in Habeas cases to file successive petitions. You must have the permission of the United States Court of Appeals before you can file a second Habeas petition. That permission is given only in extreme circumstances such as new evidence or a new rule of law. We have seen the difference. We've seen the difference on our Court. There are fewer petitions that are successive. They've been screened out in the Courts of Appeals very well. The encouragement and the message to the bar and to the defense bar is that Habeas claims, Constitutional claims on collateral attack, must be made in the first Habeas proceeding. Multiple Habeas proceedings are very expensive. All collateral proceedings are very expensive in capital cases. It's of a great concern. But we have seen the effect. It has somewhat lightened the work load of our Court. We still get emergency requests for stays. We still have to act sometimes at the last minute, but it has become much more orderly, I think, as a result of the new statute. The second part of the statute requires that the states be certified as providing adequate counsel in collateral cases. And if that certification is made, then all federal collateral proceedings must be filed within strict limits and disposed of by the Courts very quickly. There is a 180-day limit. I think I'm correct with reference to the District Courts acting. I think only five states have been certified and the procedure is moving rather slowly. We have not seen the impact of that. And I think that part of the Act has yet to take hold. Mr. Rogers. When do you expect that impact? Justice Kennedy. The certification procedure is apparently somewhat murky and is not proceeding very fast. The advantage of having the certification from a systemic standpoint is that there is a limit on the amount of time that the District Courts and the Circuit Courts can hold the cases. I am not aware of too many cases in the capital area that are being held by the District Courts. We will see cases when collateral proceedings will take six, seven years and a lot of that delay is often in the state courts. But we do think the certification procedure should make a difference. But it is slow to take hold. I know Virginia has received the certification. So, cases from the State of Virginia are now going to have to be processed in the Federal Courts within the guidelines. in forma pauperis cases Mr. Rogers. Let me ask you this. Will Prisoner Litigation Reform likely have a very direct impact on your workload by reducing the In Forma Pauperis cases? Justice Kennedy. Well, I suppose it depends on how far reaching the changes are. Mr. Rogers. Well, more than two-thirds of your estimated case workload for 1997 is In Forma Pauperis cases. Justice Kennedy. Yes. But those remember are not just prisoner cases. Those are simply cases in which a filing fee is waived based on the financial position of the petitioner. It doesn't mean that they are prisoner petitions in all cases. And it doesn't mean that they're without representation. Mr. Rogers. Do you have an idea of what percent of those cases, the In Forma Pauperis cases, are prisoner cases? Justice Kennedy. In our Court, let's see. Thirty-five to 40 percent are pro se prisoner petitions. But not all of those are 1983. Those include collateral attack on the criminal conviction as well as civil. Mr. Rogers. So, any version of prison litigation reform would have an impact on that workload; would it not? Justice Kennedy. Yes. It would. Mr. Rogers. It's a matter of degree; isn't it? Justice Kennedy. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Well, the 1996 law that we passed did include some Prisoner Litigation Reform. Have you noticed the impact of that? Justice Kennedy. We have seen no discernable reduction in the cases because of that. It's a little too early to tell. televising court proceedings Mr. Rogers. Now, Mr. Justice Souter, there are those who think that television cameras ought to be allowed in the Supreme Court. Justice Souter. Are you asking whether I've been converted? Mr. Rogers. I guess I am. Justice Souter. I'm right where I was a year ago. Mr. Rogers. Well, briefly state that position, please. Justice Souter. I have a number of reasons for it. One is, despite all of the protest to the contrary that I occasionally hear, I've had experience with cameras in Appellate Courts and I am convinced beyond a peradventure that they do affect the behavior of counsel and they do affect the behavior of the Bench. The entertainment value of it, and I use that term advisably, is not worth skewing the process. I think the entertainment value is in itself another reason not to have it. I think there is great importance in preserving for the country and its people, the confidence that a process which is supposed to be reasoned is going to remain as reasoned as it can be without the kind of influence that the aura of entertainment glitz brings to it. I think it is, thirdly, important for the Judicial Branch not to be subject to the same kind of publicity that isappropriate in the political Branches for the very reason that much of that publicity is appropriate because the other Branches are political. We are not, so far as it is humanly possible to isolate us from the political process. And I think it's important to preserve the kind of symbolism, negative symbolism if you will, that makes that distinction. Mr. Rogers. Well, we have used television in the House of Congress going some years back. Are you saying that Members of Congress show off for the cameras? Justice Souter. Far be it from me to say that Members of Congress show off to the cameras. It's not a question in my--in the experience that I've had. I think I may have mentioned this before. It's not a question of showing off necessarily. It's a question of changing the process sometimes for good reason. I think I used the example, when we were talking about this before, of some times that I can recall when I was on the New Hampshire Supreme Court which does allow TV in. I tend to ask a fair number of questions, and I did then. I can remember instances in which I decided not to ask a question because what I was afraid of was that the only thing that was going to be shown on the news that evening was going to be my question, out of context, quite probably giving a wrong impression either of my partiality or impartiality, or the point that I was trying to get at by the question. So, I can attest to the fact that it changed my behavior, not by showing off, but by becoming reticent about something, about a part of a process that is very valuable to me in making a decision. And I don't want to see the process skewed that way. Mr. Rogers. How do you distinguish between that point of view and the freedom of the printed press? Justice Souter. I suppose it's not only a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. The printing press simply doesn't lend itself--take the example that I just used to that kind of extreme excerpting treatment that is likely to mislead. And I know how that works because I've been in public life and in Judicial life for a long time now. But I also know from experience how the TV cameras work and they work differently. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Justice Kennedy, would you like to comment on that question? Justice Kennedy. I've always thought, and I've indicated this before today, that this is a very close issue and a very hard issue. There is much merit in what my colleague, Justice Souter says. By having the cameras out of our courtroom, we in effect teach a lesson. The lesson we teach is that our Branch is different. We operate with a different rationale, a different timeline, a different logic, a different grammar, a different language. And I think the public knows and understands that. That is one reason the Court's judgments are held in respect. And the only authority a Court has is the respect the people wish to give to its judgments. On the other hand, I think it's very valuable for the public to know what goes on in certain trial Courts and in their public institutions generally. If those Courts aren't working well, television seems to show it. It seems odd in a trial context that we would exclude cameras from the most rational, dispassionate part of the trial process and then allow a commentary outside the courtroom. That seems to have it upside down. Our Court, I'm willing to say recognizing that there is some inconsistency in my position, can operate the way it does now in part because my colleauges are so confident in our traditional procedures. I have said, so long as any of my colleagues are concerned that it will change the way in which the Court decides or hears its cases, or the way the Court behaves, the way counsel behaves, I am willing to accept that judgment. It would be--I used to teach--and we could get the cassettes of, audio cassettes, of the Supreme Court arguments. In those days you couldn't get them until the arguments were five years old. I think we now make them available at the end of the term. But the students would be huddled around this little cassette recorder. And they'd say, who is that? And I'd say, well, that's Justice Stuart asking a question or Chief Justice Burger or whatever. And it was a marvelous teaching tool. And it would be a very good teaching tool for oral advocates who are trying to prepare for their argument and to see how better to understand our function and to relate to it in their own presentation. So, there are a lot of plusses to it. But for now, I'm quite willing to acknowledge that the Supreme Court is particularly bound to traditions. The public holds it in esteem in part because it reveres its own traditions. For that reason I am not a strong objector at all to the policy to exclude the cameras from our Court. Mr. Rogers. Well, we've found that Congress more or less can control the cameras in our Body. With C-SPAN, the in-House direct system, we can minimize, Mr. Justices, the sensationalism that perhaps would exist otherwise. It may be worth you looking at down the pike to have your own cameras, if for no other purpose than for training the new students out there that will get the delayed tapes, perhaps, of oral arguments for that purpose. But that's your business. And I don't want to interfere. civil caseload Let me ask you this. The common assumption is that the driving factor in the increasing caseload in our court system is legislation that we passed increasing the crimes that can be prosecuted in the Federal system. But the finger seems to point to civil cases rather than criminal as the source of recent increases in caseload. For example, the caseloads in Federal Courts rose from 278,000 in 1992 to an estimated 305,000 in 1996. But the largest increase was in civil cases. The civil caseload rose from 230,000 in 1992 to 269,000 in 1996. The criminal cases actually declined from 48,300 to 47,900. Am I correct that the increasing caseload problem, it is a problem, is a function of the civil caseload? And if so, why is that happening? Justice Kennedy. It's not just the number of filings, of course, that we have to be concerned with, but with the median time that it takes to dispose of the case. I looked at the statistics that you did and I confess that I was somewhat surprised that those criminal filings had not increased to more. I expected to see that particularly because of the addition of new Federal crimes. Of course federal criminal prosecutions are a direct function of the number of United States Attorneys; especially where there is discretionary jurisdiction when the state has concurrent jurisdiction for prosecuting the same crime. If you increase the number of United States Attorneys, you would get an increase in criminal trials. One of the things we are concerned about is that the median time for disposing of the trials is increasing. The federal criminal cases are now more complex; drug dealerships, money laundering schemes. These take a long time to try. Just under 50 percent of the United States District Judges' trial time is spent in criminal matters, quite without reference to the disparity in filing. The median time for the disposition of civil cases has gone up. You're quite correct. I think the filings in the District Courts have gone up 7 percent in the civil area. And this slows down the median disposition times for all civil proceedings. Also, civil proceedings are becoming more complex and are taking longer to try. Why it is that there has been an increase in federal civil filings with no new federal statutes is not clear, other than in bankruptcy. As you know bankruptcy filings are now over 1,100,000 a year. We projected two years ago that they'd hit 1,000,000. Now, they're already 1,100,000. But the civil cases are up in part, I think, because of the awareness that the discovery rules in the Federal Court make this an advantageous forum for litigants. Justice Souter. May I throw out just a couple of anecdotal thoughts on that? And they are purely anecdotal. I think that we have to consider the fact that sometimes civil causes of action, like Constitutional causes of action, for reasons that sometimes it's hard to understand, at least on a legal plane as opposed to a social plane, just lay dormant for a long time before somebody wakes up to them. I remember years ago hearing former Solicitor General Griswold describe how, as a young man, he once mentioned voting rights to either a teacher or someone who was older than he was. And the response that he got was, oh yes, that's the right they don't enforce. And Dean Griswold said that he found that strange and irritating. Well, look at the voting rights litigation today. Another example I came upon oddly enough at breakfast this morning. I was reading through last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, which is devoted largely to aging, a subject whose interest increases for me every year. I started reading the article on age discrimination litigation. The person who wrote it said when age discrimination was included along with others in the bill of whatever it was 30 years ago that established basically the cause of action for it, nobody really noticed. There was very little litigation about age discrimination. Well, now the baby boomers are getting older. And there is a lot of age discrimination litigation going on. So, frequently these opportunities for civil litigation at the federal level just sit there for a long time until society or people with good ideas catch up to them and then they catch on. It may well be that a part of the explanation that we don't have in a systematic way may depend on sort of catch-up sorts of discoveries like these. Justice Kennedy. There are federal statutes that are on the books that remarkably reduce civil litigation. One is the Federal Arbitration Act. If you buy an automobile, if you buy stock from a stockbroker, if you go into a hospital and you sign these forms, you waive your right to sue. You go to arbitration, and this is a federal law. We have interpreted the law according to what it says and the states can't do anything about it. If that law would change, the states would certainly and perhaps the Federal Courts would see a tremendous increase in litigation. At some point, Congress ought to determine whether or not it's wise policy to be deferring so much litigation to the arbitral process. Judges, of course, like it because it reduces their workload. But it has serious policy implications. And I think the Congress ought to be aware of what's happening in the arbitration area. federalism Mr. Rogers. What is your sense of the overall balance of the workload in the courts between the States and the Federal system? Are we at the right balance, or are there issues that need to be aired? Justice Kennedy. Roughly 95 percent of the litigation-- criminal and civil--is in the state system. Again, federal criminal offenses are of the more serious character. I think under 4 percent of the felony trials in this country are in Federal Courts, yet we have 10 percent of the prisoners in our prison system. We have, in some of our recent cases, indicated that Congress must be very careful with reference to the federal balance. That the framers, after all, devised the federal system not just as a workload division, but in order to preserve the freedom of the citizens, so that the citizen can have a very direct contact with his or her government. That's the meaning of federalism. And the Court, in recent years, has reaffirmed that the states have certain areas of concern that must be left to them. So, we are continuing to explore the federal balance, but in large part the federal balance is remitted to the Congress. We have very few cases on the subject and can do very little about it. Congress must come to a sense of what is the appropriate balance. If we have 95 percent of the litigation in the state courts, that seems to me not an astounding federal intrusion. But as Justice Souter has indicated, you're not sure how some of these new federal acts will be interpreted and discovered to alter that balance. mandatory sentencing Mr. Rogers. One that has proved somewhat controversial is the sentencing guidelines, the mandatory sentencing, that Congress enacted sometime back. Do we need to take a second look at that procedure? Justice Kennedy. You're quite correct to identify that there are two problems; the sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentences. So far as the guidelines, I've always said the only thing worse than sentencing under the guidelines is sentencing without them. The perception and the fact, the reality, was that there was a lot of disparity in the sentencing depending on the Judge that you appeared before. And this was unfortunate. The sentencing guidelines, as complex, mechanical, and statistically oriented as they are, I think brought some balance into the system. Mandatory sentences are a quite different matter. I do not think that Judges should have their sentencing discretion controlled by mandatory sentences. We talk to the United States Marshals who are with us in other cities in the United States and they routinely will go to a home and take some young 20 year old away. And his mother and his relatives say, how long is he going to be gone? And they'll say 15 years. Why a 20 year old doesn't know how long 15 years is. And if you have a certain amount of drugs, plus your hunting rifle, plus a friend in the distribution network, these add up to a mandatory 15-year sentence for a first offense. And some Judges have resigned over this issue in a very principled way. Others have wept when they've imposed the decisions. I do not like mandatory sentences. I think they can lead to injustice. Mr. Rogers. Justice Souter. Justice Souter. Well, I can only echo that. I've never been a Federal Trial Judge so I have never personally done sentencing under the Federal Mandatory Minimums. But I know that in talking with the Trial Judges that I do at Circuit Conferences over the years, the principal concern is with the mandatory minimums because a substantial number, maybe all of the Judges, simply believe that ultimately they become instruments of injustice. I find that plausible because I was a State Trial Judge once, and I remember going through sentencing. And without getting bogged down in details, there was--I remember I had a general rule as a Sentencing Judge. I made no exceptions to it because I thought there was a very good, as we would now say, systemic reason for not making exceptions to it. The day came when I had to make one. I had someone in front of me whom, had I sentenced according to my general rules, I would have damaged so badly that it would have been unconscionable. And I had to sit there in open court and say, I have this general rule, for the exercise of my discretion in sentencing, but this is the case in which I cannot apply it. It would be wrong. A Federal Judge, under sentencing guidelines, cannot do what I did. The Sentencing Judge would have to do the wrong thing. And there are a lot of District Judges out there who believe they are forced into that position too much of the time. Presumptive sentencing is one thing, but absolute mandatory minimums are another thing. And of course, we're talking about really the first time offender. Justice Kennedy. There is no question that by incarcerating and incapacitating career criminals, society is safer. If you go down to the cell block and talk to new prisoners in any prison, federal prison or state prison, and say how many felonies did you commit in the year before the felony that you were arrested for, they will say 12; basically one serious felony a month. Burglars, I guess, they commit 30 burglaries for every one they're caught for. So, if you factor that in, there are some good reasons for incapacitating them. And the same thing happens in the drug system. It's necessary to incarcerate bad people. On the other hand the mandatory guidelines give the Judge no discretion for the exercise of that humanity and that compassion on which the laws are ultimately based. dividing the ninth circuit Mr. Rogers. On somewhat of a parochial question; there has been discussion about dividing up the Ninth Circuit, separating California from the other states in the West. Given your background in that state, what do you think about that? Justice Kennedy. I was on the Ninth Circuit. As you know it's a 28-Judge Court for nine states. It has over 22 percent of the nation's judicial business. The way it is now structured a three-Judge panel with one Judge dissenting can in effect bind over 20 percent of the nation's population to a decision. That Court, in my view, should take En Banc cases and invoke En Banc procedures more often. I am seriously concerned about the ability to attract a Judge who is a practicing lawyer, say, to become the Junior Judge on a 28-Judge Court. And I think we ought to look very hard at dividing the Ninth Circuit. I understand there is a Commission that's been appointed or being proposed for that purpose. And I'm going to await that report. The difficult problem, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is the State of California with its population of over 30 million people. It would require probably 15 Judges, so then you have a fairly big circuit just with that one state. The sensible way to do it, just from the workload standpoint, would be to divide the State of California as well, but then you would have to have some mechanisms for an inter- Circuit reconciliation of Public Law decisions that affect the State of California that come out differently. So, it's a complex problem. I know the Judges in that Circuit are very dedicated and many of them oppose the idea of a split. But my--when I originally came on that Court, I thought that we should experiment with a large Circuit to see if we could find some efficiencies in the allocation of Judgeship resources. I've now come to the conclusion that the Circuit is larger than it ought to be for that collegiality, that deliberation, that accountability that's required of a Circuit Court. I recognize most of the Judges in the Ninth Circuit do not share that view. And I'm willing to await the report of the Commission. Mr. Rogers. Justice Souter, what do you think about the West Coast? Justice Souter. I echo what Justice Kennedy says about the West Coast. I don't have, as you probably know, I don't have any personal experience with the Ninth Circuit. So, I have nothing that I can usefully add. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. TELEVISING COURT PROCEEDINGS Mr. Latham. I'd like to return to the line of questioning you had earlier regarding television in the Court. I was interested when you talked about tapes, that after five years or after the session was over with, are now available for educational uses. If you were to hear proceedings and then grant a release, let's say, five years later in the same way you do now with the audio system, would that affect your line of questioning knowing that someday it was found to be helpful? Justice Souter. Well, in part, I think that would depend on whether I could control the use of the tapes after they got out. Because part of the line of questioning problem is not the impression that would be given by a complete hearing or screening or taping, but by the problem of editing and excerpting. I suppose with a long delay the temptation to edit and excerpt for the same of sort of the immediate entertainment value will wane. But I suppose it's still the case that ultimately whether it's going to be used for good or ill is going to depend on whether there is editing and who does it. The fact is that there has never been much of any problem that I know of in the audio tape because it just doesn't present the kind of temptation to be an entertainment vehicle which the visual image brings to it. So, personally I wouldn't take the chance. The proceedings are public. Anybody can walk in off the street and hear a Supreme Court argument. They have to wait in line. They have to get there early for a given case, but anybody can get in. The audio tapes are made available as soon as the term is over now. I just wouldn't take a chance on losing, what I described a moment ago, that it was important to preserve in the process. Mr. Latham. So, you think it could possibly have an effect on your line of questioning? Justice Kennedy. Yes. I think it could. We have to be frank. I think we value our relative anonymity. It's helpful to us in day-to-day life and for security reasons. It's helpful for us to do our work and to concentrate on writing our opinion without a lot of distractions. Justice Souter. That's true. Mr. Latham. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. We have had the pleasure of having C-SPAN with us today and I don't think it's hindered either one of you. Perhaps without the cameras, it would more likely show a different perspective. Justice Souter. We'll never know. Mr. Rogers. Well, we're thankful for your being here today. This is probably the only interface that exists between these two Branches of government. It is a unique situation that we are in on this Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, to appropriate funds for a whole separate Branch. And the framers of the Constitution couldn't get around that fact that there has to be somebody that counts the dollars and decides how to spend it in some fashion. It's always been the policy of this Subcommittee, and frankly of the Congress, to give the Court, the Supreme Court especially, its budget without too many questions. So, we don't want to be seen as in any way trying to push some position of the Court. So, we will be generous and do the best we can, especially on the security needs of the Supreme Court that should be taken care of without any doubt or question. Justice Kennedy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The framers of the Constitution were quite conscious of the fact that the Congress, at various points in the exercise of its responsibilities, is the last in line and must exercise its Constitutional responsibilities in a principled fashion. And the Congress of the United States has done that for 200 years. And we appreciate being a very small part of that history and of that process. Thank you for your courtesy. Mr. Rogers. Thank you both. Thank you very much. We will be in recess for five minutes. [Pages 26 - 27--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday, March 13, 1997. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS WITNESSES ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL W. STUART PREGNALL III, BUDGET OFFICER Mr. Rogers. The hearing will come to order. We are pleased to have with us and I congratulate, the new Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, who has jurisdiction over the care of the Supreme Court building and grounds. Mr. Hantman, welcome. We will make your written statement a part of the record, and if you would like to summarize your statement briefly, will you please begin. Opening Statement Mr. Hantman. Thank you. First, may I introduce Stuart Pregnall, our Budget Officer. And we have behind us a crew of people who are very competent in their areas. Dan Hanlon, Director of Engineering; William Holmes, our Superintendent of Construction; and Jim Miller, who is the Building Facilities Manager for the Supreme Court. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, under provisions of Public Law 101-163 which was enacted on November 21, 1989, I was named the primary candidate of three candidates sent to the President for consideration for the bipartisan, bicameral, Architect of the Capitol Search Commission. I've been greatly honored by the faith the Commission placed in me through their recommendation, by the President's formal nomination, and by the subsequent confirmation by the Senate. I officially assumed my duties on February 3rd; just over a month ago. And as you can appreciate, the process of mastering the complexities of my new position will take a bit longer than that. Mr. Chairman, as you know, a significant part of the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol was given by the authority of the Act of May 7, 1934. And that's for the Judiciary Branch, which encompasses the structural, mechanical care of the United States Supreme Court building and grounds. And clearly that's the reason for my appearance before this Committee today. We are not charged with responsibility for custodial care, which is under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of the Supreme Court, and is provided for in the Supreme Court's salaries and expenses appropriation. The core mission of the AOC is to provide for the Congress, as well as the Judiciary, on a bicameral, non-partisan basis, expertise and advice relating to preserving the physical environment and operating the infrastructure supporting the jurisdictional areas. In so doing, the AOC utilizes staff and consultants with architectural and engineering professional expertise to provide the Congress and the Judiciary with appropriate, timely, and cost effective recommendations. building improvements study This is precisely why the new budget includes $225,000 for a study of building improvements and utility system upgrades. As Justice Kennedy stated, the need for this is readily apparent and is supported by the Court in full. As you know, the Supreme Court building was initially occupied in 1935. And there have been various alterations to the building systems in that time. The roof was worked on some 15 years ago. The marble terrace pavers have been taken care of. But a complete evaluation and upgrade of all systems within the building has not been performed. After more than 60 years of operation I believe this will be a prudent path to follow. It's anticipated that this will confirm the need to replace systems such as outdated electrical equipment and wiring, the installation of new conduits and wire ways for data and telecommunications, installation of high efficiency lighting, security, and HVAC improvements, plumbing systems, ADA compliance. The Schematic Design Study that we're requesting in this budget will be submitted to the Supreme Court Officials in 1998 for approval with the likely request for fiscal year 1999 to follow, which would include approximately $2 million to prepare full detailed architectural and engineering drawings, which would serve as the basis for an accurate estimate for follow through on construction funding which would come in the year 2000 and beyond. This would be done in the context of a five-year capital budget for the care of the building and grounds of the Supreme Court. Now, this was a process wisely begun by Bill Ensign who has recently retired as Acting Architect of the Capitol. I applaud Mr. Ensign for having initiated this systematic, agency-wide planning effort, which has also included in-depth involvement by all of the managers and their clients. This effort has been coordinated with the Marshal and approved by the Chief Justice. The budget presented to you today was, of course, prepared under the stewardship of Mr. Ensign. And I'm in the process of evaluating these needs in detail, reviewing the priority level assigned to them, and assessing their budgetary implications. As a point of information, please note that a request for $130,000 is being removed from the budget request for prototypical development of a lab for the data systems office. This can be dealt with internally and will not be a part of the final budget. Also, a request of $20,000 for uniforms is withdrawn. I look forward to working with this Subcommittee on this process as it continues, and I'd be pleased to answer whatever questions I can at this point. [The biography and statement of Mr. Hantman follows:] [Pages 32 - 41--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] capital reinvestment issues Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your testimony. I know, as you've said, your budget was not prepared under your watch, since you've just come on board. But you're starting out with a bang as your request reflects a 43 percent increase in the budget prepared for the building and the grounds of the Supreme Court. How is it that decision was made to request a whole series of facility projects, eight in number, compared to what was in last year's budget? Mr. Hantman. I think that there has clearly been a drive within the Congress and all agencies that work with the Congress to keep the budgets down; to make sure that issues are not brought before Congressional committees that, in all likelihood, would not be approved. When I testified before the House Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, similar questions were asked. The budget overall for the Capitol Complex was structured to be something like $54 million, up from $14 million in the prior year. One of the cases I try to put forth more clearly is we're dealing with an aging infrastructure here. Clearly, 1935 for the Supreme Court is one date that we've heard. Certainly, the U.S. Capitol goes back a lot further than that as do some of the Library buildings. My sense is that over the past several years, some of the cyclical maintenance issues have really not been dealt with as they probably should have been. We tried to deal with the issues on a case-by-case basis in terms of the merits of each individual project for which that funding is requested. But before the Appropriations Committee, I did try to give a benchmark that gave us some sense of the magnitude of dollars that might need to be reinvested for cyclical maintenance of this aging infrastructure. And I referred to a study that had been done back in 1992. I tried to compare similar campuses, if you will. And three university campuses were measured and discussed in terms of what kind of reinvestment do they make on an annual basis relative to the value of their campus. The percentage investment was 1.7% of replacement value as an average of those campuses, in terms of dollars that they reinvest on an annual basis. If we look at the total value of the Capitol Complex, we're looking at a value conservatively estimated in excess of $3 billion. So, the argument there was 1.7 percent of $3 billion was roughly $50 million a year. If we look at the Supreme Court, although Justice Kennedy mentioned that there was roughly a $9 million cost in 1935; back when the study was done in 1992, the replacement value for the Supreme Court was estimated to be in the range of $170 million to $175 million. If we escalate that to today's dollars, we're talking in the range of $200 million as a replacement value for the building. If we look at the 1.7 percent value on $200 million that's roughly $3.5 million per year, on an average, that might be a reasonable number to take a look at in terms of reinvestment in the basic infrastructure. That's the facades, the roofs, the electrical and mechanical equipment in the building. Clearly, when we look at the charts over the past several years, for 1997 there was an estimate of $410,000 requested. 1996 was $565,000; $260,000 in 1995; fairly low levels of expenditure for keeping a facility of that magnitude and value up. A building of 60 years old needs to be inspected in real detail. Then we can come back to you and come back to the Supreme Court with issues that really make sense. That is, whether it's an ADA compliance issue; whether it's other regulatory issues that we need to comply with; whether it's a new communication age that needs to be taken into account, or life safety issues. All of these issues, as well as replacement of mechanical equipment are things that need to be looked at. So, I certainly support Justice Kennedy's comment that certainly the study at a minimum should be funded. In time, my sense is that the $20 million that goes out in the five-year plan may well be an order of magnitude that goes up or goes down. It's really just a target at this point. And our intention is certainly that this five-year plan gets updated on an annual basis. So that we're trying to give this Committee a real target to look at over time and see how it fits into an overall package of upgrading and maintaining this facility as it should be. Mr. Rogers. Well, it's quite a shocker, a total of $26,754,000 over the next five years just for the building and grounds of the Supreme Court. Having gone through what you've just said about the total value, it's still a shocker. But I do congratulate you on five years of a capital budget outline as a part of the budget this year. Can you give us a little bit of the reason why you went to a capital budget system? 5-year capital budget Mr. Hantman. Once again, Bill Ensign did initiate this project and the five-year plan prior to my coming on. We're actually speaking about putting band aids and Scotch tape on problems on an annual basis, I don't think that was really doing justice to this subcommittee or to any of the other appropriations subcommittees. To see just a little snapshot in time of what's needed right now I think, again, we really need to take a look at the big picture; what needs to be done for all of our buildings, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the entire Capitol Complex that we have here and try to put it into a perspective that makes sense. Whether we try to measure it against a benchmark of true replacement value or reinvestment of cyclical costs, we need still to take project-by-project and evaluate it for its merits. And that's what we plan to do. We're going to look at all of these projects, come back to you, and have the back-up that says why we are recommending to you, sir, that we need to expend dollars of this nature. Mr. Rogers. Your capital budget request includes $225,000 to do the initial study for building improvements and utility systems upgrades for the Court. I know you weren't here, but a similar study was proposed last year on which we deferred. Last year the estimated cost of the improvements that would come out of the study were $7 million. This year it's $22 million estimated; more than triple from just last year. What's the reason for that huge increase? Mr. Hantman. I'd have to defer to my Budget Officer on that. Mr. Pregnall. Mr. Chairman, as we undertook this full building-wide analysis of all of the systems, we incorporated the talents of all of our engineers, our Facility Manager there, our Architectural Division, and we talked with the Marshal and his staff to find out exactly what the Court might have in the way of projected needs in the future for some of their infrastructure requirements. As you heard, the Justices this morning discussed their needs for increased computer and telecommunications support. The building does not now support pathways to install those wiring situations. We need to find architecturally sensitive solutions that can provide those pathways. We've also undertaken a full-scale systematic analysis of all of the systems in the building; HVAC, electrical, and so forth. Based on our order of magnitude, best guess at this time, and using similar renovations that we've done in the Cannon and Longworth House Office Buildings, the Russell Senate Office Building, we now feel that $20 million is an order of magnitude range of cost. The schematic design will give us more facts to bring back to this Subcommittee next year when we ask for design funding. And that design will, as Mr. Hantman stated, give us firm project cost estimates which we will then bring to the Committee when we ask for construction funding. Mr. Rogers. We have a vote on the Floor. I must go register my vote and I will be back in just a few minutes. So, we will stand in recess for a few minutes. [Recess.] building improvements study, further discussion Mr. Rogers. We're back on the record. Give us a summary or a brief description, if you will, of the components of the project, and a rough idea of the cost of those components. Mr. Hantman. Of the study projects? Mr. Rogers. On the building and grounds--the overall project. Mr. Hantman. Well, the project is going to include, most likely, the replacement of outdated electrical equipment and wiring; the installation of increased and improved conduits and wire ways for data and telecommunications; replacement lighting, modern, high efficiency lighting. There will be a cost saving accrued from that. I think our study came back indicting that new lighting supplied on the House and the Senate sides will approximate close to $1 million savings in energy efficiency. Security issues and improvements are a part of that, as well as HVAC, that's heating, ventilating, air conditioning improvements, to improve control and energy efficiency. Renovations to the plumbing system, 60-plus year old plumbing system. One of the worst enemies of an architect or an engineer, Mr. Chairman, is water; whether it's internal water through a plumbing system or external water that comes through the facade. It has no mercy on any building and it is something that needs to be addressed clearly. The nature of the water in the District, especially, we're talking about pipes that do clog up fairly quickly. The high chlorine level in the pipes also causes problems in terms of the zinc leaching out from some of the fittings and things of that nature. These are issues we've looked at in some of the other buildings that Mr. Pregnall has mentioned. And my instinct is we're going to find them in the Supreme Court as well. We will also be looking at modifications and compliance with ADA and other pertinent code requirements. We're basically going to have to bring this building up to the 21st Century. That's the sense of it. Mr. Rogers. Any external improvements or projects? Mr. Hantman. Stuart? security improvements Mr. Pregnall. Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 1999 we have a guesstimate at this point, quite frankly, of $1 million for perimeter security improvements. That estimate will be refined based on a study which is now underway that was discussed earlier today. Once that design is completed, the evaluation of what needs to be done will be gone over with the Marshal of the Court. We will bring that to the Justices and we'll bring back any recommendations that may come out of that study to this Subcommittee as we prepare our fiscal year 1999 budget. We do have some existing exterior security improvements underway at this time. This Committee funded guard houses in the last fiscal year. That's underway at this time. But additional security improvements, those will be added in the future. Mr. Rogers. Well, I was over at the Court yesterday for a meeting of the Judicial Conference and I noticed that the marble plaza in front of the Court had noticeable deterioration, I gather from freezing and all of that. It's quite rough over there. I was wondering if that was in here? Mr. Hantman. I think the schematic building study should certainly address items like that. And if remediation is needed, that certainly would be the case. But in terms of the site information that Mr. Pregnall just talked about, it is quite separate from the dollars that Justice Kennedy was talking about for his internal forces and internal security. A task group has been created of the Capitol Police Board and others to study security issues campus-wide; perimeter security issues. And I'm well-aware that the Library of Congress also has just retained a new security person two weeks ago. We're going to be working together in the Legislative Branch to try to come up with something that makes sense to satisfy the needs of the individual buildings such as the Library of Congress, the Capitol, all of the office buildings, as well as taking a look at a comprehensive plan for the entire complex. Closing Comments Mr. Rogers. Well, Mr. Hantman, you've certainly grabbed our attention with your proposal, because of the dollar figures. I'm sure we will be discussing this in greater detail as we go along. We look forward to working with you. I congratulate you on your position. I wish you well. Mr. Hantman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. Mr. Rogers. It is good to have you with us. We're adjourned. Thursday, March 6, 1997. JUDICIARY WITNESSES JUDGE JOHN G. HEYBURN II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF WESTERN KENTUCKY, CHAIRMAN, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET JUDGE WILLIAM G. YOUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, CO-CHAIRMAN, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, ECONOMY SUBCOMMITTEE LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS JUDGE RYA W. ZOBEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER Chairman's Opening Statement Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We are pleased to welcome to the Subcommittee the distinguished members of the Federal Judiciary to discuss the Judiciary's fiscal year 1998 budget request. I am particularly pleased today to have Judge John Heyburn, a fellow Kentuckian, graduate of my own alma mater and a personal friend, who has been ably serving the people of our state for many years, most recently as the District Court Judge for Western Kentucky. He is appearing before us today in his new capacity as Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget and so, John, we want to congratulate you on that lofty chore. In the Army, we had another name for that job. Also joining us are two very distinguished jurists from the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, Judge William Young, the Co-Chairman of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee, Economy Subcommittee, and Judge Rya Zobel, the Director of the Federal Judicial Center. And accompanying them is Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who in his capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has ably appeared before this Subcommittee for the past two or three years. We are pleased to have all of you here today and many of your staff people as well. Judge Heyburn, if you would like to proceed with your opening statement, and if the other panelists would like to make additional comments, we would welcome them and we will insert your written prepared statements into the record. If you would like to informally summarize them, that would be preferred. Statement of Judge John Heyburn Judge Heyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have a few words I would like to say because this is my first time to appear before you and it is for me personally indeed an honor and a privilege in two respects. First, to appear on behalf of the Judiciary, representing the many fine men and women of the third branch who do so much to assure equal justice to law-abiding citizens and swift punishment for those who are not. And, second, to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, for whom I have such great personal admiration and friendship. That makes this a special privilege for me. It really is. I want to thank you also for the appropriation that we received last year. While we did not receive everything that we requested, after the fee collections and the carryover and with the aid of what we believe to be sound conservative management of our resources, we were able to adequately cover our essential services. I am particularly pleased to say to you that we have set our request for FY 1998 at a 7.8 percent increase over the estimated FY 1997 obligated funds. It is certainly our lowest appropriations request in 12 years, and I am happy about that. dual responsibilities of the judiciary We have accomplished this, I believe, by carefully balancing our dual responsibilities as an independent constitutional branch. The first of these is our essential role in law enforcement which the statutes and the Constitution require. And the second, which we take equally seriously, is to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. The first among these responsibilities is law enforcement and those responsibilities, as you know, have continued to increase as the complexity and the number of cases have risen each year. Those under supervision or probation are at an all- time high. The Justice Department continues to bring to bear substantial new crime-fighting resources which tend to increase our workload and our request recognizes these realities. Equally important in my view is our continuing Judiciary- wide efforts to be more efficient. Our Budget Committee and our Economy Subcommittee, of which Judge Young is a co-chairman, is leading an effort to sensitize the Judiciary to the new budget constraints. We recognize those, we take them seriously, and we believe our efforts have already borne fruit. We recognize that the search for more efficiency is a continuing one and we are not finished with our efforts by a long shot. I want to pledge on behalf of the Judiciary to continue to make efforts to make more efficient use of courtroom facilities, of our personnel and of defender services just to mention a few. However, I would be remiss if I did not say that there may be a limit to what we can accomplish by diminishing the resources to our system which remains today, even with its faults, the most accessible and the fairest judicial system in the world. Although we are a co-equal branch within our constitutional system, we are the smallest branch, our role is important but it is circumscribed. Our powers are appropriately limited. I know of and respect, Mr. Chairman, your deep belief in and understanding of these relationships which we have discussed. All the more reason, in my view, for the Judiciary to receive the limited funds that are necessary for us to do our part in law enforcement. I want to make a brief mention of judicial compensation. I always feel funny about asking for money, particularly when it is for myself. And it would be easier for me not to mention this at all, I suppose, however I do so without hesitation because I believe it is important for the long term good of the Judiciary and the country. We don't become judges for the money, you know that. But progressive cost of living increases, I believe, are vital for judges to maintain their stature in the profession and for the Judiciary, over time, to continue to recruit outstanding nominees. federal judicial center and administrative office Before closing, I want to also make a special plea for two relatively small accounts in funding terms but big in terms of what they do for the Judiciary and that is the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office. The FJC's funding, as you know, has remained about the same as it was five years ago but its work is vital to the Judicial branch and I believe you will see that it has worked hard to enhance its record of using alternatives to travel-based education in the work that it does. We believe that it deserves additional funding. The Administrative Office, as you are well aware, is the backbone of the administrative and policy support for the entire Judicial Branch and it spearheads the efforts to economize and make our work more efficient. The Administrative Office provides vital personnel, payroll and financial support for the courts and has helped us develop some of our new automation programs and technologies, such as satellite downlink for video conferencing which we hope, over time, is going to help us be more efficient. They do invaluable work and we think they deserve an increase. Mr. Chairman, I would like, as you suggested, to submit my written testimony for the record and also that of Judge Zobel and Director Mecham. In addition, I am appearing on behalf of two other accounts and would like to therefore submit the testimony of Chief Judge Glenn L. Archer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Chief Judge Gregory W. Carman of the United States Court of International Trade. That completes my brief remarks. It is a pleasure to appear before you and to work with you in a cooperative spirit for the good of our country. [The information follows:] [Pages 50 - 132--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Judge. Does anyone else care to say anything? Mr. Mecham. administrative office needs Mr. Mecham. I would like to say one brief word. First of all, believe it or not, it is 12 times I have had the good fortune of appearing before you. Two times before that I appeared before the inestimable John Rooney. I would not have been able to appear before him the first time had not Senator Jennings Randolph managed to get me confirmed by the Senate 24 hours after my nomination got up there. If we could just get our judges approved that fast, there would be no vacancies. But it is an honor, an honor to be here. I would just like to stress, as I am sure you know, the Judiciary is unique in government. It may have a hierarchy in deciding cases but the organization is essentially flat. We don't have field offices and therefore the AO, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, ends up seeming like a headquarters unit, but we don't view ourselves as headquarters. Since there really are no field offices, we provide the kind of direct support to the courts that, traditionally, field offices would supply. To support the courts' growing workload, the Judiciary has added, through your good offices, about 3,900 people in the last two years, but staffing for the Administrative Office has gone down 23, even though you were kind enough to increase our appropriation last year by 4 percent for the first time in several years. But we find it difficult when the courts grow and we do not, since our work is related to the work of the courts. When the courts grow our service needs and responsibilities increase and so I would hope that you would look at us with some favor. The closest analogy I can figure to our role, is the U.S. attorneys and they receive 3.8 percent of their total budget for central administration. The FBI receives 5.3 percent; INS, 7.6 percent; DEA, 7.1 percent. And the Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts which is not only our Washington office but our field office as well, is only 2.6 percent of the Judiciary budget, a third of DEA or INS. We are not seeking parity. But we would seek a minor increase so that we could get back up, with 23 new positions, to our authorized level in FY 1995. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan. [The information follows:] [Pages 134 - 145--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mecham. Well, we are happy to have you here again. I know last year, or in previous years, you have not gotten as much money as you would have liked or perhaps even deserved. But, as Red Skelton once said, bad breath is better than no breath at all. Mr. Mecham. We have halitosis, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] budget presentation in obligations Mr. Rogers. This year you are presenting your budget in a somewhat different manner than in previous years. Tell us what that change is and what you are trying to accomplish this time. Judge Heyburn. Judge Heyburn. The change is that we are presenting our budget in terms of obligations rather than merely appropriations. I think this symbolizes the cooperative spirit of our approach to the budgetary process. This was actually a change which, of course as you know, the Subcommittee recommended because in your view, and in my view, it more accurately represents the expenditures of the Judiciary related to a previous year. I might also say that it's a positive development because it is easier, certainly for me and I assume for you, to see the changes in our budget over time. It reflects the reality of the way we manage and the way we budget. When we receive an appropriation in a particular year it is certainly not our objective to spend all of that money in order to then say at the end of the year, see, the amount we asked for was the correct amount. If the money is not needed, if we are able to accomplish by good management a savings throughout the year, then that produces a carryover. We are proud about that and happy about that because it can be used to offset next year's appropriation. The bottom line is that we look at the budget in terms of total obligations as a fairer and more realistic assessment of what we are doing from year to year, and we are doing it in cooperation with your staff. Mr. Rogers. Well, in the current fiscal year, 1997, we appropriated $2.566 billion, which was a 5.4 percent increase for salaries and expenses instead of the 13 percent increase originally requested, and I think you're able to fund about every program increase you wanted, even though the appropriation is nearly $200 million below the original request, is that right? Judge Heyburn. Yes, that's correct. Mr. Rogers. And that is what you are getting at, that you hope to present a more realistic needs-based, bottom line budget request, and I think that is the way to go, as you and I have talked. There is a unique relationship that we are dealing with here--one branch of the government funding an independent branch, and that presents, you know, the Constitution's basic design laying right out in front of us here. It's a sensitive kind of balance because I don't want, the Framing Fathers didn't want, and neither do you want, to have the Congress extorting out of the courts some bias in your rulings on something. We may want that, but it wouldn't be proper. [Laughter.] Mr. Rogers. So we have to respect the independence of the two branches, and so it would be very helpful to us particularly if we have your honest-to-goodness, bottom line, no-holds-barred, honest presentation--which we have always had--but I think this method will be better because it will get us away from actions that would be interpreted as affecting that sensitive balance every year, hopefully. sources of carryover funds Judge Heyburn. I agree with you entirely. Let me just say that we here today represent two independent branches of our Constitutional Government. As I said in my opening statement, that gives us certain powers, although under our Constitutional system as the forefathers envisioned it, those powers are limited and circumscribed. It also gives us, I believe, a responsibility, the responsibility that you have just discussed. The way that we have worked with your staff is, as we get closer to the end of the fiscal year, we are able to more specifically define what funds we had anticipated needing which may not now be used. For instance, who could have foreseen when we made our request for FY 1997 that there would be only the few number of nominees for Judicial offices confirmed during this fiscal year--just something that couldn't be predicted. To a certain extent, that is going to result in a carryover of funds, and by the time you consider our final appropriation, your staff will know exactly what that is. There were some other things that happened, even in FY 1996, that helped us accomplish all our objectives in 1997. Because of the Government shutdown we put a stop to certain expenditures. That resulted in a larger carryover from FY 1996 to 1997 and that helped us accomplish, as I suggested, really all of our essential objectives even though the appropriation was less than we asked for. I would also like to attribute that to good management. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you in a fair and efficient manner on our funding needs. justification for the judiciary's requested increase Mr. Rogers. For Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and other Judicial Services account you are requesting $3.067 billion. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. That is an increase of $212 million, or a 7.4 percent increase. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Now how can we justify that? Judge Heyburn. Well, I think you can justify it this way. I try to simplify everything so that I can understand it. For the Judiciary as a whole, we are talking about an increase of roughly $260 million or so. About $150 million of that, give or take, is an adjustment to the base. That is, increases that are directly related to inflation, pay increases, increases in rent, that sort of thing. Now that does include $20 million for Defender Services, which I guess you could categorize as an adjustment to base, at least I would. After that, the additional $110 million, roughly, can be broken down into four categories--about $40 million to take care of Bankruptcy staffing--as you know we have had a 40 percent increase in bankruptcy filings over the last two years; Probation, $30 million--a very, very important job and there's been an increase in the number of folks who are supervised on probation, and more importantly, those who are being supervised are sometimes coming off longer custody terms than they used to so there more serious types of supervision--that's $30 million; $20 million for Court Security; and then another $20 million for various different smaller increases in workload, reflecting enhancements necessitated under our workload formula. So that's where it is. One interesting question is what will we do if we don't get all the appropriations we are asking for and I certainly would be delighted to discuss that with you. Mr. Rogers. Please do. impact of appropriations cuts Judge Heyburn. Well, the answer to that is as follows. Number one, let's say for instance that you decided on providing us with an appropriation that would give us the same increase in appropriations that you gave us last year. That would be 7 percent. We are actually asking for 11 percent, so that would be 4 percent less. You figure roughly $35 million a percentage point so that is a reduction of $140 million. The first thing we would do is hope that some of the things we have projected to occur don't happen. In other words, we would hope that some of the space we anticipate won't come along and we will save some money there. We don't hope that Judges won't be confirmed but if there are fewer Judges confirmed than we think, that saves us money also. Of course, you get to a point where there is a serious difficulty with that. There are a few other items. There's a relatively small amount of money in the Court Security area that we are negotiating with the Department of Labor, which could save a certain amount of money--we'll be letting you know about that before the end of the fiscal year. But at that point, even assuming we can save a little bit there, we're faced with some tough choices. Do we underfund Bankruptcy Clerks? There are certain consequences of that with the tremendous increase in bankruptcies. We don't know the impact of potential cuts exactly. We are asking for about 800 new personnel. If we don't fund all those, how much will that slow down the processing of bankruptcy cases? The increases are mostly in personal bankruptcies--how much will a cut slow down the processing of those bankruptcies and prevent honest citizens from moving on with their lives, getting through bankruptcy, and debtors from getting paid? How long can we not fund that before it has a real consequence? If I knew that answer I would tell you. I really don't. In the Probation area, as you know, more people are on supervision. We could not fully fund that, I suppose, but we have asked for an increase there. That is a very high stress job. It involves the security of citizens. There's some risk there by not providing adequate supervision. Regarding Court Security--our staff has talked with your staff. We are in sort of the final stage of implementing the Marshal Service security recommendations for the existing facilities and for new facilities. We could tinker with that recommendation. However, there is a heightened concern about security nowadays. Who knows how much is enough security? We are constantly revisiting that and who can say whether what we have suggested is precisely the right amount, whether we could do with less and not incur a substantial risk, but those are the kinds of choices that we would have to make. I might have a say in them, but the Executive Committee, the Judicial Conference would have to make those decisions. optimal utilization of judicial resources Mr. Rogers. Well, one way to save money of course is through efficiencies. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And last year we asked for a study on the optimal utilization of judicial resources, which the Administrative Office asked to do itself rather than hiring an outside contractor. That was delivered last November. Could you summarize the findings in that report for us? Judge Heyburn. I would be glad to ask Judge Young to follow on after me. He might have a few comments because he is the cochairman of the Economy Subcommittee. I think this report shows our efficiencies in all of the different areas--in automation, the use of contract services and temporary personnel, and the space area. We are trying to be more sensitive to the fact that space is not a free good, that we need to justify it within our own organization. It details a variety of different areas where we have become more efficient, in some cases saving dollars directly and in other cases avoiding additional costs. It's a priority for us. Judge Young, do you have a comment perhaps? Judge Young. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan, we took this study very seriously. I will simply add, and we can provide more detail to the extent you wish, we were also asked to look at the distribution of judicial resources. Where the judges are located of course we have no control over that. We only make recommendations as to where judgeships should be created and the like. However, for the first time, as a result of this exercise, the Committee on Judicial Resources is looking at the necessity of continuing judgeships in certain areas if they are no longer needed. That will be considered by the Judicial Conference next week. There will also be biennial surveys of the actual work to use in considering whether it is advisable to continue judgeships in particular areas. At the same time, to be absolutely straightforward, there are various areas in the country that need additional judgeships by anyone's measure, and we are trying to carefully scrutinize the formulae that we use to justify that. The space area is particularly significant because our budget is primarily for personnel and buildings. Judge Heyburn said, and I would simply emphasize, that we have put in place a space rental cost-containment program. We have undertaken a detailed inventory and survey of the various space needs of the courts throughout the Nation. We have considered whether we need all the court space and indeed all the court locations that we presently occupy. As a result of that we have given up various locations or space within locations which should save us approximately $12 million a year in space rental costs. We do not think that is enough, even within the space that we presently occupy. Some is special-use space, and by that I refer to the courtrooms and the ancillary security facilities, the cells for people in custody and the like. That is special use. But if you look at the actual space that is occupied, the bulk of it is office space, clerks' and probation offices. We are aggressively trying to explore whether we can cooperate with agencies in the other branch of the Federal Government or our cognate State court systems to sublease that space, to the extent we are not actually using it at any one period of time. We will be able to get it back in the future if we need it. If the current trends continue we will need it. In automation, we are experimenting with a variety of automated services for some of our own infrastructure. We are about to roll out a new financial accounting system that will put all the courts on the same fiscal accounting system. This will facilitate both AO oversight and management in the local areas, which is important because much of the savings that we talk about are the result of our budget decentralization program, a program that puts the responsibility for managing the money at the area where it actually is used in the public interest. Those are some of the steps we have taken. We can identify savings in the area of well over $200 million. The bulk of that is due to the fact that we operate at well below what established workload formulae tell us is appropriate to discharge the job that we have to do. And there is a cost to that, but we are absorbing that through specific efficiencies. I will end by saying we have an ongoing program to identify better practices and identify those to the individual courts so that we reward efficiency, we do not have a business as usual mentality. We can give you much more detail, but those are the major areas. I think I can say without hesitation that we are seriously trying to identify areas where we can economize without affecting the quality of justice, and then to adopt those throughout the judiciary. implementation of efficiencies Mr. Rogers. What happens to that report now? It is a good report, and I think it identifies some very, very usable ideas that are already under way or perhaps will be under way. But then does it just go on a dusty shelf somewhere? Judge Heyburn. I think that it does not. Most of what is in the report is already ongoing in some form or fashion, and I refer back to my opening statement. We believe that we are making efforts to economize and be more efficient, but, I will be frank with you, it is an ongoing effort. I think you appreciate that you do not implement a plan, you do not sensitize an entire branch to be more efficient, and it happens the next day. We are constantly pushing the areas that have been identified here. We think we have made some progress in personnel, space, automation and many other areas. We believe that the plans that we have already begun are going to continue to help us this year and next year and the year after to be more efficient and to be able to request funds that are within reason. Judge Young. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add briefly, you have cut to the heart of it. Judge Heyburn will be overseeing implementation of the Optimal Utilization report on an ongoing basis. He of course will attend, and for all the time that he is chair of our Budget Committee, will attend the meetings of the Judicial Conference, which is the governing body of the Judiciary. We also ask a member of the Budget Committee to attend the educational meetings of the chief district judges. The effort to have a cost-benefit analysis apply to every step that we take is one that we are trying to implement throughout the Judiciary. Let me give an example. One of the important things that we are experimenting with, a program enhancement, if you will, is to take experience that we have had in some huge asbestos cases with electronic filing, and to see if we cannot apply that automation technology more generally in other courts. Now that means a different way of doing business, but there are savings that may be identified there. I do not promise those savings today. It is too early. Any program that we are working on has got to justify itself both in the service to the public, the justice component, and also in how much it will cost us. I appreciate your comment that it is a good report. We will not let it lie. I think you can ask us at any stage what we have implemented. Our responsibility, and you have recognized it, is to achieve balance between justice and efficiency. Those serving on the Economy Subcommittee, for instance, must weigh security requirements against their cost. You cannot simply have wall-to-wall court security officers throughout a courthouse. But we are a small branch of government. We know the judges and the court family throughout the United States. When something like Oklahoma City happens, I know the judges who were across the square, and called to see how they were. Now that is a small point, but I make it because it demonstrates the balance we try to achieve between concern for the court family and cost. If we are striking it wrong, we deserve to be told. We will follow what we are told. However, we have reasons for striking the balance we do. Mr. Rogers. Well, I would remind us all that the lady in the scales of justice is a very slender lady. In fact some say she is skinny. But anyway, we will be asking that question, I assure you of that, what have you done lately, and where are you and what is happening next, on implementing this report. Judge Young. I appreciate it. need for judgeships and court facilities Mr. Mecham. Mr. Chairman, we could use your help and Mr. Mollohan's on a couple of things. We had some judges who testified that the Senate did not need to fill some vacancies in a court last year, that they had more judges than they needed. I regret to say that the local Senators wanted to fill those vacancies, and they got them filled. Now I can understand that, but we did not need to fill those vacancies. Now I think it was Judge Young who mentioned that we have come up with some court facilities which we would like to shut down. We have already heard from the local Congressmen and Senators and mayors. They are saying do not do this, it is a matter of community pride. We could use your help on some of these things, if you would care to assist us. Mr. Rogers. I will be happy to. The study in fact indicates that there are at least six visiting facilities that are probably not warranted in terms of caseload and that the Judicial Conference would review that situation again in the near future. What about that, before I yield to Mr. Mollohan? Judge Heyburn. The Judicial Conference is meeting next week, and they are going to consider criteria for circuit judicial councils to use in determining whether to establish or maintain a facility without a resident judge. So they are going to be discussing that. I do not know what the result will be, but this is something we have been asked to do, and this is something the Judicial Conference is going to look into. [The information follows:] At its March 1997 session, the Judicial Conference approved criteria to use henceforth for closing facilities without a resident judicial officer. The Conference adopted two levels of criteria to use in determining whether to establish or maintain a facility without a resident judge. The first level of criteria will be used to evaluate the necessity of a facility and includes (1) the number of miles from the nearest facility within the district, (2) the number of days the facility is used for court-related proceedings, and (3) the cost per day of use. If this first level indicates that a facility should be considered for closure, a second level of criteria will be used to perform a cost-benefit test. The decision to close a facility will be based on the results of this test. In addition, the Conference agreed to close facilities in the following locations: Clarksdale, Mississippi; Joplin, Missouri; St. Joseph, Missouri; Ardmore, Oklahoma; and Guthrie, Oklahoma. The Conference also agreed to downsize one location as a result of the criteria regarding facilities without resident judicial officers. Mr. Rogers. We can recommend to you, Mr. Mollohan and I can recommend to you, a base-closings commission as a way to do that. Well, Judge Heyburn, welcome to your new position, and welcome to all of you. I know at home Judge Heyburn lives in Louisville, you are having a tragedy occur there, and this may be a record flood in the city of Louisville. Judge Heyburn. Yes, close to it. Mr. Rogers. We are glad you were able to swim up here to be with us. Judge Heyburn. Well, we have a few extra people in our house, as a matter of fact, so it was just as well that I was able to leave. We have double the number of people. Some family members had to move in because they were flooded out. Mr. Rogers. You are not renting out your bedroom? Judge Heyburn. No, so far we are doing it free of charge, but if they eat too much food, we may tack on something. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. impact of judgeship vacancies Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Heyburn, Judge Young, Judge Zobel, Mr. Mecham, I would like to join the Chairman in welcoming you to the Committee. Following up on the comments about new judgeships, how has the slow approval rate of new judges affected you? First of all, what kind of carryover do you project from 1997 as a result of not having these judgeships? Judge Heyburn. Well, of course it affects us in two ways; it affects our financial needs and the ability to perform the judicial work that we have. The current projected carryover assumed in our FY 1998 request is about $65 million. In terms of the non- confirmations, I understand there may have been two that were passed through today, but if the slow pace continues that will increase the carryover and we can calculate that. I am not exactly sure what the number is--it's not a huge number in the overall scheme of things. Worst case scenario or best case scenario, whichever way you look at it, I suppose the carryover for judges' salaries could be an additional $2.3 million. Of course, there will be an additional amount carried over for the salaries of the staff associated with these judges. We don't know the nature of the vacancies that may occur and the reason they occur, and we don't know the degree of the confirmations. Of course depending upon the district, the lack of confirmations has a serious impact upon the ability to get the work done. Looking at the overall scheme of things, that's why the caseload and the civil caseload is up, of course. Whenever you have a situation where vacancies aren't filled for a long time, what happens is you have cases grow older and you have many more cases that are pending, as we say. That hurts the whole situation. It's hard to catch up and that is a problem. Mr. Mollohan. That's common sense, but is it happening out there? Do you have any anecdotal evidence of it? Judge Heyburn. Yes. You can see that the cases pending in certain districts are rising---- Mr. Mollohan. Where, for example? Judge Heyburn. I couldn't tell you exactly. You can ask Judge Young. Judge Young. Arizona, Eastern New York, Southern Florida, West Texas--and many of those are drug courts. An interesting example that I am aware of involves a case in our district where the City of Phoenix got into a dispute with its insurance company. The insurance company started the suit in Massachusetts. The City of Phoenix wanted to try it in Phoenix. The suit properly can be tried in either district. It is appropriate for judges to look at the caseload when assigning such cases to courts. The actual cases pending and the length of time needed is ranked for the 94 district courts. We do this to ourselves. We know just where every district court stands as far as speed of disposition and types of cases. So when you look at Arizona you see that they warrant more judicial resources than they have. A judge must weigh sending the case to Arizona, where of course the City wants it, where the jury will be empaneled, but where it will not be reached for such and such a length of time or keeping it in Massachusetts which has its full complement of judges. That has been due to the Senior Senator and the President coming from the same party. We were behind, but we now have all the judges we need and we have worked down the backlog that Judge Heyburn refers to. We can get that case to trial in Massachusetts, but is that what we want? This was an insurance company maneuver, but I raise it simply because it shows the analysis judges go through. They look to see how fast cases can come to trial. Mr. Mollohan. In how many districts is that a problem would you estimate? Judge Young. Well, at least eight. Mr. Mollohan. How many districts have judicial emergencies right now? Judge Heyburn. Judicial emergencies are defined as a judgeship being vacant for 18 months and there are several. I have forgotten how many, but I can tell you that the Judicial Conference we will be looking at the judgeship legislation and they have identified areas where we need 36 new district court judges because of the backlog and workload. There are 18 courts that have judicial emergencies by the way. Mr. Mecham. Out of 94. Judge Heyburn. Out of 94 districts. It's a very good question. Certain policies or actions sometimes are delayed, such as filling judgeships, and both the good effects and the bad effects are delayed. If there is a judicial emergency that doesn't stop a lawsuit from being filed. It may not even delay the beginning of the route to justice, but it could mean that it could take forever to get an actual trial date. The complications are different in different areas but it is a good question. It is something we are concerned about in particular districts. courthouse construction and renovation Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. You were talking about space a little bit. You understand that we don't deal with courthouse construction and rehabilitation at this Subcommittee, but I am on the Budget Committee and I noted, Mr. Chairman, when the budget came through that courthouse construction was zeroed out. I think there was some money for renovation though. Judge Heyburn. I don't think so. Mr. Mollohan. It was zeroed out also? Judge Heyburn. I don't know whether that was zeroed out. Mr. Mecham. Except for a very small amount. Mr. Mollohan. Yes, there was a small amount. Anyway, that has got to be a problem and are you all addressing that in the appropriate Subcommittees? Judge Heyburn. We are. As you probably know, we have been asked in the past to scrutinize the courthouse projects that we believe were really important for the Judiciary and to prioritize them and we have done that. The projects we have listed are part of our submittal after calculating the future rents and considering how that is going to affect the future budget because we think those projects are important. We are doing everything we can to convince the appropriate persons that they ought to go forward with these projects. Mr. Mollohan. Well, at the risk of being accused of trying to solicit some self-serving testimony, do you have a list of any of those projects? Judge Heyburn. There are and I can tell you that of course there are some of particular importance. The renovation project in Wheeling, West Virginia is on our priority list---- Mr. Mollohan. Did you hear that, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.] Judge Heyburn. There are some other very important projects on the list also, but in particular the one from Wheeling is on the priority list. It's on there for a reason. Mr. Mollohan. Who develops that priority list? Judge Heyburn. The Space and Facilities Committee of the Judicial Conference. Mr. Mecham. With the General Services Administration and the local judges and so on. Judge Heyburn. And then it is finally approved by the Judicial Conference. Mr. Mollohan. Would you kindly submit that? Judge Heyburn. We would be glad to. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] [Pages 157 - 159--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] fjc's use of technology Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Judge Zobel, you have been awfully quiet over there. You are involved with some technology and training programs incorporating technology into this. I know the Committee is interested in that. I wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about to what extent you are incorporating new technology and telecommunications methods into your training program, to what extent you think that's going to work, and what are the limitations associated with that? Judge Zobel. Thank you very much. To the extent that justice is a thin lady I can guarantee to this Committee that we have been dieting furiously. We have for many, many years provided education in the technologically advanced way and the education that we provide focuses on increasing the expertise and efficiency of judges and court staffs. We have done it for court staffs for some long period of time by means of videos, CD ROMs, multimedia mechanisms, and we are now adding to that in a very big way satellite television. We did last year, both satellite television program and also two-way video, which is really like a telephone conference with video. Two-way video does not work very well for the kinds of programs that we do, at least as the technology exists now because it is very hard to hook-up more than three or four at most stations at one time, so we are focusing very much on the satellite mechanism whereby we can reach many people all around the country for programs that are suitable for that sort of thing. Not everything is suitable. But we for example did a four hour, which was much too long, a four hour program on the new habeas and prisoner statutes. We intend to do eight such programs this year and the coming year. They will focus on providing information such as a Supreme Court update, updates on statutes, and so on. We can reach many more people by this mechanism than we were ever able to reach before. For the first time we are able to educate law clerks for example and staff attorneys on substantive issues of law, and we are very pleased to have the cooperation of the Administrative Office, the Judicial Conference committees and the Sentencing Commission, all of whom intend to use this technology in conjunction with us. Mr. Mollohan. For this effort what is your budget request for 1998? Are you asking for any increases? Judge Zobel. Well, we are asking for a total increase of $930,000--$630,000 of that is simply adjustments to base; $300,000 of it is devoted to this effort, $100,000 of it for hardware and $200,000 of it for additional personnel to help us produce these programs. It's a different way of teaching people and it requires different expertise, of which we do not now have enough. It also requires that additional personnel in order for us to do the standard videocassette programs that we project. Excuse me--I should add that we have succeeded in reducing travel costs and we have done it by given fewer travel-based programs and by shortening the time of those that we have put on and are putting on. Mr. Mollohan. And how much have you reduced travel costs? Judge Zobel. We are down from 1995, 22 percent, down by $1.2 million so the projected 1998 budget is below $4 million-- $3.9 million for travel, which is a major reduction for us. Judge Young. As the Co-Chair of the Economy Subcommittee, could I simply add that among their efforts is a very helpful effort on training relative to productivity which deals with specific courts and is very important. Judge Zobel. Also, the education we do really is designed to achieve the aims that Judges Heyburn and Young talked about, including for example the Conference of Chief District Judges, which is one that we put on and is designed to help them become more efficient in their courts. death penalty defense costs Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. We closed the post-conviction offender organizations or the death penalty resource centers last year and I would like for you all to comment on the impact that has had. Judge Heyburn. The impact of closing? Mr. Mollohan. Yes, the impact of closing, whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing in your judgment, what you think about the availability of representation in those cases, and is it available to the extent it's needed, or was the Defender Service serving a need that is no longer available? Judge Heyburn. As you know, we respectfully said last year that we thought it was a bad thing, but we understand that it is your job to decide certain matters of policy and we have implemented your decision. We cannot say at this time whether that change has caused additional expense. I am not certain whether we will ever be able to tell to what extent, if any, it is causing additional expense. We do know that it is difficult to find appropriately qualified people to represent the defendants in those kinds of cases. But it was difficult before and it is still difficult. We have reorganized the way in which defense is provided. As you may know, we have recently done a study of defense costs related to death penalty cases. The reason we were asked to do that study is because it appeared as though the average cost per case was increasing. That appears to be true and we wanted to find out why that was so. We have done a very, very thorough analysis and it is difficult to determine exactly why the cost per case is increasing. I can offer to you a number of possibilities and we are still looking into it. Number one, there are more death penalty cases than before and, as time goes on, those cases are more mature cases. The expense at the beginning of a case is going to be less than the expense one year later in the same case as it comes closer to trial. Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me, just so I understand that, if you allow me to? Judge Heyburn. Yes, sure. Mr. Mollohan. On a per case basis, you are observing that the cost has increased? Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. So there are more of those cases coming, and you said perhaps the explanation for the cost increase is that as they mature they get more costly? Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. If there are more cases, doesn't that suggest the reason there are more cases is because you have more coming in the front end? Judge Heyburn. That is partly true but, as time goes on-- excuse me. Mr. Mollohan. No, no, excuse me. They would be less mature and therefore the opposite would be true or am I missing something? Judge Heyburn. Well, a little bit of both is happening. The fact of the matter is that as cases get more mature we think the cost per case increases. Mr. Mollohan. What is the base period here? You are comparing what period with what period saying it is getting more expensive? Judge Heyburn. Well, I think we are just comparing one fiscal year to the next fiscal year. Mr. Mollohan. More mature is closer to trial. Judge Heyburn. Yes, that is what I mean. Mr. Mollohan. You have to invest a lot into these cases to begin with and then, of course, more as they come on for trial, especially if they don't plead. Judge Heyburn. Well, the real increase that we have identified is in the death penalty trial case as opposed to the habeas. Another factor which could come into play is that with federal death penalty cases, as you probably know, there is a process before the case even begins where the Attorney General determines whether the case is to be tried as a death penalty case. It has been determined that the defendants are entitled to representation during that process. So we have built in an entirely new kind of expense that occurs even before the case starts, in essence. Another factor, and again I am just throwing out some possibilities, is that for us as federal judges, these cases are new. So it is possible that because we are not used to handling death penalty cases we may be taking more time with them. We may be doing things that, after some experience, we won't do and would result in less defense costs. Another factor could be that because of the disbandment of the death penalty resources centers, we are getting slightly less experienced counsel. We have tried to develop some really innovative ways of using the Federal Defenders Office to lessen the expense. But it is possible that less experienced counsel could raise the cost. These are all possibilities. Mr. Mollohan. You will have more to say on this as time goes on. Judge Heyburn. Yes. And it may be just too early to tell, quite frankly. Certainly your initial question about the impact of the elimination of the PCDOs is difficult to answer because we are barely a year from that and who knows. We will be glad to come before you and say that it was a bad idea and wrong if that turns out to be the case. Judge Zobel. Might I add that the Center is a major player in this area as well. As we are speaking here, we are working with the Judicial Conference Committee for Defender Services on programs to teach judges how to better manage these cases. That, of course, has been the focus of a lot of our case management programs in the past. But we are now going specifically to the death penalty cases and we have also put out publications to help judges understand how to deal with these cases, focusing really very much on the management part of it, we have a clearinghouse for judges so that they can learn and thus reduce the learning curve of which Judge Heyburn speaks. Judge Heyburn. Congressman, I might mention one other thing. I think what I am going to mention teaches us all a lesson to look at things in a longer term perspective. For instance, the new Habeas Reform Act, which many judges think is a good idea, is going to help us deal with difficult habeas cases easier. But the short-term impact of it is, there is a certain deadline before the Act goes into full force, and the immediate consequence of it is that more habeas cases are being filed which is going to be more of an expense. Now that doesn't make the Act a bad idea, it just means that we have to take a longer term view of looking at it. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. fjc teleconferences Mr. Rogers. Now, Judge Zobel, I have the circular on the habeas corpus presentation by satellite teleconference you put on. Do you know how many attendees took part in that? Judge Zobel. 1,400 is our estimate. Mr. Rogers. That is staff and judges? Judge Zobel. Law clerks, staff attorneys, judges, some clerks. Mr. Rogers. How many different cities did you hook up? Judge Zobel. I think 80, wasn't it? About 70 to 80. Mr. Rogers. Do you think it was a success? Judge Zobel. I think it was an enormous success for us. It wasn't perfect by any means. Four hours was simply too long. One cannot sit and watch television for four hours. I think we may not have built in enough question time. But it was our very first effort in this regard and, as a first effort, I would, without appearing too humble, give us an A-plus. Mr. Rogers. Was this a two-way conversation? Judge Zobel. No, this was satellite. Mr. Rogers. Satellite, one way. Judge Zobel. Right. Mr. Rogers. Could they talk back to you verbally? Judge Zobel. We had telephone lines set up for people to call in questions. Mr. Rogers. And did they do that? Judge Zobel. They did do it but we didn't allow enough time for it. But people have asked us to have a follow-up sometime around nine months down the line and we are working on that. Mr. Rogers. Have you done any other teleconferences? Judge Zobel. Well, we did one for staff attorneys on case closings--or appellate clerks on case closings, which was two- way. But that becomes really too complicated. We were able to do that with enormous effort. We went to 12 different sites and it is simply too much. That technology is not yet at the point where you can have that many sites. Mr. Rogers. Well, I want to encourage you as we have in the past. I just think that telecommunications is the way to go these days. It is much more inexpensive than travel, not that we don't need some travel but we can achieve a lot of the everyday things of life so much better, I think, with the telecommunications method. Judge Zobel. Well, Mr. Chairman, we may have begun reluctantly but we very much agree with you and we feel very strongly that although there are certain things that can best be done in person, there are many, many things that are much better done by this technology. Mr. Rogers. And the Chief Justice agrees with this. Judge Zobel. Yes, and we are doing it. Mr. Rogers. And that is no insignificant amount of support. Judge Zobel. Right. Mr. Rogers. So I hope that we can greatly expand, taking advantage of the new ways of communicating, whether it be computers or teleconferencing. And lawyers and the legal system will be the last thing on earth to take the modern methods of communications and I am a lawyer and I am saying that about myself as well. But we've got to do it. the ao's teleconferencing program Judge Heyburn. Mr. Chairman, I might add, on a smaller scale, the AO has identified 21 districts where we believe that teleconferencing, because of the economies of scale, can be effectively used in prisoner litigation for pretrial conferences and that sort of thing. We are just starting that program. I think one of the districts in Kentucky is included. I don't know who it helps the most. It helps the judges because we don't have to go to the state prisons and it helps the state attorneys because they don't have to travel around. It does help mediate and resolve these disputes. Mr. Rogers. I think some of the state courts are utilizing television quite extensively both for arraignment. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. As well as appellate hearings perhaps, to some degree. And parole hearings. Judge Heyburn. That is right. Judge Young. One advantage a state court has, of course, is they tend to have fewer places of incarceration. Now, our places of incarceration are fixed but the people who have the right to call the court's attention to their case may be held in various places of confinement. The districts are just larger and so the equipment has to be present in more places. Mr. Rogers. Channel 13 has no problem getting to the scene of a fire. Judge Heyburn. Maybe we will have to---- Mr. Rogers. Get you a truck and---- Judge Heyburn. Sky 11, go directly to the prison. Judge Young. We are also experimenting with our own intranet and communicating through the Internet with respect to our public data. There are security concerns with these technologies but I want to make clear that we are trying to use all the new methods of communication. courtroom sharing Mr. Rogers. We talked briefly about courtroom sharing. We didn't get into it in detail. The Optimal Utilization report indicates that recommendations about courtroom sharing will be made in March to the Conference. Tell us briefly what is in the report about the possibility of courtroom sharing. Judge Young. It will be the report of the Committee on Judicial Resources to the Judicial Conference, and the Budget Committee concurs with this, that we should continue to provide a courtroom for each active judge but that we should analyze the ability to share courtrooms among senior judges. Now, we have a number of senior judges and 20 percent of our cases are processed by senior judges. So that is not an insignificant amount. But it is the view of the Judicial Resources Committee and the Budget Committee and it will go before the Conference that each active district judge should have a courtroom in which to conduct judicial business. Mr. Rogers. Do the senior judges have their own courtroom? Judge Young. Not in every court, but in some. Speaking just on my personal knowledge and recognizing that a new building is being built in Boston, we have more judicial officers than we have courtrooms. So we currently share courtrooms. Judge Heyburn. It really varies. For instance, in Louisville, Judge Allen, who is a senior judge, does not have his own courtroom. That is primarily because we do not have a courtroom for him, but also, although he handles about 100 cases a year, he does not handle trials. Judge Johnstone, who is our other senior judge, has a courtroom in Paducah, but because he handles only trials he uses it quite extensively. So it really varies from judge to judge. I might add just as a postscript that in Kentucky, for instance, as you know, down in Bowling Green there is no sitting Federal judge. Recently I went down for a trial. There are two courtrooms down there, one of which was being used by a bankruptcy judge, one of which was being used by Judge Russell to try a big arson case. So I tried my case in a State courthouse for 2 days, and I think that is appropriate. You know, it is very seldom that we have three judges there, but usually you can make do, and they were glad to accommodate us, and we worked it out just fine. I think that is being done elsewhere as well. Mr. Mecham. You might be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that the senior judges currently carry the fulltime work of an equivalent of 102 to 139 district judges, and 25 circuit judges. They basically do not have to do any work, they get paid anyway, but they are carrying an immense load. If it were not for them, the case backlogs would really be colossal, especially with the delay in getting new judges confirmed. Mr. Rogers. Now, for the record, provide us the current schedule of new courthouse space coming on line, and how that schedule compares with what is contained in your budget submission. Judge Heyburn. We can certainly do that, and will do that. Mr. Rogers. And also a similar list about the marshals and any discrepancies that may exist there. Judge Heyburn. Exactly what--we can---- Mr. Rogers. New space. Judge Heyburn. Yes, we can. Mr. Rogers. New space for marshals. Judge Heyburn. Yes, we can certainly do that, based on the additional personnel. [The Information follows:] [Page 167--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] carryover estimate Mr. Rogers. I certainly want to commend you for beginning to anticipate the availability of carryover in your budget this year and for holding $30 million of the carryover until this fiscal year for use in fiscal year 1998. What is your best current estimate of the total amount of carryover that will be available at the end of this current fiscal year? Judge Heyburn. Our current estimate is $65 million. My guess would be that it is going to be more than that. Exactly how much it is going to be, I do not know. Let me say that I think we would all be better off if the rest of the Government operated in terms of how we arrive at our budget. In the spirit of cooperation, before we get our appropriation, of course you will have our absolute up-to-date best estimate of what the carryover will be. As we get closer to the end of the fiscal year, we will know better what it is going to be. The positive thing about it is that we have no incentive to spend the money in order to justify our last year appropriation. Our incentive is to only spend what we need and to carry over the rest, because it helps us and it certainly helps you in your budgeting process. Does that respond appropriately? Mr. Rogers. Yes. impact of major death penalty cases Now, to follow up on Mr. Mollohan's line of questioning, the Defender Service account has rapidly rising costs, about which we are very concerned. It seems to have moderated in the 1998 budget request. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And you talked about the capital case phenomenon there. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. But between 1995 and 1996, for example, the average cost increased from $62,000 to $104,000. Judge Heyburn. Is that on capital cases? Yes, that is capital cases. That is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Mr. Rogers. I am assuming that may have been driven to some degree by these spectacular cases like Oklahoma City. How much of a factor are these enormous single cases having on that figure do you think? Judge Heyburn. Well, I think I can answer that in two ways. Number 1, it is having an impact, and number 2, we do not know precisely yet what that impact is, because while the cases are ongoing, the costs are not fully known. But there is no question that big cases such as that have a significant impact on the Defender budget. Judge Young. The judge of course has sealed the expenditures in Oklahoma City, lest it reveal the defense strategy and we respect that, even though we are responsible for paying. We have not questioned such decisions. If you strip out inflation, and you strip out workload increases, virtually the entire rest of the increase is due to death penalty cases. I am in the middle of a death-eligible case. I suspended a case regarding two attempted murders that is death-eligible because it also involved racketeering and drug conspiracy. Now there are 55 death penalties on the Federal books, 55 offenses that potentially carry the death penalty. The Attorney General decides in every case whether the Government will seek the death penalty. In every death-eligible case, you must under the statute appoint two counsel. Those counsel go through a complicated process to see whether the person will be prosecuted in a fashion that seeks the death penalty. In my case, having gone through this process, they decided not to seek the death penalty. The cases are long. Using this as an example, we started in early February. We will end in late March. Mr. Rogers. The Administrative Office of the Courts is still not doing an analysis of its actual experience in order to give us a firm sense of what is going on with the Defender Service increases. I think we can get a better handle on this. We must, because we just have to know. I know in certain cases like Oklahoma City you are going to have these anomalies take place where you do not know, but that is the rarity. I just think that we need the AO to give us a better analysis of the Defender Service round-up, because that is beginning to eat up a big portion of the budget. In fact it went from an appropriation of $240 million in fiscal year 1995 to $329 million in your current 1998 request, and that ain't hay. That is a lot of money. Judge Heyburn. The actual expenditures were $305 million in 1996, $333 million is projected in 1997, and $354 million is projected in 1998, roughly. That is in terms of the actual expenditure. We were underappropriated in, I think, each year and we have transferred funds from our fee accounts into Defender Services. But I would agree with you entirely, it is a good question. We are trying to be on top of it, and we will try to get you the answers you need as soon as we can find out what the answers are. Mr. Mecham. Mr. Chairman, we are working on the General Accounting Office comments on the report. We are modernizing the antiquated CJA attorney payment system, which frankly does not provide the detailed information we need. We also are undertaking a study at the request of Senator Domenici and Senator Gregg. We have been looking at 250 death penalty or murder-charge cases. We have gone to every court. We are trying to isolate the cost for every one. Frankly, we have not had very good data to work with. Mr. Rogers. Well, we are going to have to get better data, because we have got to get a handle on some equation to bring this under some sort of cost control. I mean, we cannot sustain these kinds of increases, especially that we cannot anticipate. Mr. Mecham. I agree with you. need for court security increase Mr. Rogers. Now court security was mentioned briefly. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Why does there remain such a large need to add further security officers to existing buildings? Judge Heyburn. The reason is that after the bombing in Oklahoma City the Marshals Service did a security assessment for us. As it turned out, security was deficient in existing buildings. Over the two subsequent years we have attempted to fully fund those Marshals Service recommendations, and this is the last year. If you are able to fully fund our request, that will provide the personnel to meet the Marshals Service recommendations. We have this year requested a $29 million increase in obligations for security. About $7 million of that is the additions to the base, that is, cost of living. Mr. Rogers. What I am getting at is, that the increase here is very large. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. From $127 million to $170 million. Judge Heyburn. The actual expenditures, the actual obligations are $141 million to $170 million. Mr. Rogers. Oh, you used some carryover. Judge Heyburn. Right. I was going to tell you how it breaks down. Mr. Rogers. Well, of the 426 new court security officers that you are requesting, 119 are with new facilities. Judge Heyburn. Yes. Mr. Rogers. But 274 are additions to existing courthouses. Judge Heyburn. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. Now that is why I am puzzled. Judge Heyburn. As I said, the explanation is that this is the final process of implementation of the Marshals Service recommendation that was given to us. I recognize it is a lot of people. We are always looking at those recommendations to see whether they are accurate and responsible and we are going to continue to do that. Mr. Rogers. Well, we will need to look at that. That is an enormous increase. Judge Heyburn. It is. Mr. Rogers. Maybe it is justified. Judge Heyburn. It is. Mr. Rogers. We just need to look at it carefully. Do you think those are realistic, or is that excessive? Judge Heyburn. I have every reason to believe that it is a realistic assessment. Again, if you say, well, could you do with 100 less, I don't know. I don't know at what point security is compromised but this is the Marshals Service recommendation and, unfortunately, not a question that I think is subject to a precise answer. We are doing the best we can. Mr. Rogers. Certainly, we don't want to short change security. That is the one thing that we want to be sure is adequate for you. And no one can ever, I guess, find enough money for it. But by the same token, we don't want to add extra security that is not necessary. Judge Young. It is the Marshals Service's recommendation and we felt it incumbent to come before you to ask for the funds. Mr. Rogers. We will have a chance to talk to them about it too, so we'll see. reimbursements for shared security Mr. Rogers. Now, other agencies occupy the same space that you do. What is the amount that could be collected from those other agencies for their share of security costs in buildings where you have common occupancy? Judge Heyburn. Well, the answer to that is depending on the agency and depending on the building, quite a bit. I guess the followup question is, other than decreasing the Judiciary's obligations, what would you actually accomplish in looking at the government as a whole? Although certainly we believe that we are providing security for a lot of other agencies, if we tried to get reimbursement for that security, we would just start trading money back and forth among various agencies. I know an argument could be made that the Judiciaryshould be reimbursed. I believe it would be a complex task to do it fairly. Whether the result would be worth the effort is a question I cannot give an affirmative answer to. Mr. Rogers. You are really hesitant. You have always been hesitant to do this. We are making the State Department do this now in our embassies overseas. You know, we have Agriculture Department and Commerce and everybody else and the military, occupying the embassies, but the State Department has to pay the entire cost. And we are making them, now, allocate the costs among the agencies in each embassy. It is complicated, sure. But I will tell you what it does, among other things. It makes those other agencies, when they are sitting back here allocating resources--it makes them say, well, by golly, you know, we would like to be able to put people out there in the courthouses doing such and so but it is going to cost us some money so we are going to hold back on that. It just makes things more efficient government-wide. That is one aspect of it. Judge Heyburn. You raise an excellent point and a very valid point. Judge Young. Actually, courthouses are maintained at a level of security higher than most executive agencies because of the need to safeguard jurors and witnesses and indeed to prevent the escape of defendants. It is not clear that these other agencies want the level of security that we believe we are required to maintain. Many of the agencies are within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. You will be able to track it and track the administrative costs. We would like to avoid getting in a situation where we are responsible for collecting the money from some other agency and taking the hit in our budget if we don't get it. fjc improvements Mr. Rogers. Now, is my information correct that a FJC conference that was receiving federal funds last year is no longer being supported with federal money. Judge Zobel. Are you referring to a program at Princeton? Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. Judge Zobel. It is indeed not being funded with appropriated funds. Mr. Rogers. Good. Now, I want to pat you on the back on reducing travel costs. You've got that down from $4.5 to $4 million. That's great. Judge Zobel. I think $3.9, in fact? Mr. Rogers. $3.996 million. Judge Zobel. Mr. Chairman, might I also leave with the Committee this publication which just has come out, not in anticipation of this meeting, it just happened to come out right now, talking about all of our teleconferencing and satellite efforts. Mr. Rogers. Good. Let's file that with the record. [The information follows:] [Pages 173 - 180--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. I want to compliment you on reducing the travel costs, getting some teleconferencing things going, but you can do more. Judge Zobel. We understand that. But I hope it won't be reflected in our appropriation. Mr. Rogers. Well, you know, they say the difference between a pat on the back and a slap on the wrist is about 18 inches. Judge Zobel. That's right. We hope. Mr. Rogers. Now, for the Administrative Office, you are requesting again an additional 23 people to get to the level that the conference authorized in 1995. What we need to know is for what purpose each of those positions is required and why that position can't be filled by juggling existing resources. You can do that for the record, if you would like. Mr. Mecham. I have a submission which I would be happy to provide. Mr. Rogers. Submit it for the record. [The information follows:] [Pages 182 - 186--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] d.c. courts funding Mr. Rogers. Now, as far as you know, what is the current status of the proposal for the Federal government to take over the funding of the D.C. courts? Judge Heyburn. We hope it has no status at all, that it is not going anywhere. As a matter of fact at our most recent Budget Committee meeting we discussed it and concluded that it was a bad idea from the Judiciary's point of view and from the Federal government's point of view. The committee recommended against it and the Judicial Conference has agreed with that recommendation. My understanding is that we are actively working with or at least have had some discussions with those who put forward the proposal and suggested better ways of accomplishing the same objectives that did not involve the Judiciary becoming responsible for the D.C. courts. Mr. Mecham. Mr. Raines, the head of OMB, has said that if it looks like they are going to try to reinsert us, they will give us a week notice so that we can appeal it. I guess they meant to the President, I'm not sure. But I might say your colleague, Mr. Hyde, has written a very good and strong letter to Mr. Raines and the Attorney General suggesting it is inappropriate and if you and Mr. Mollohan wish to join in that, we would be very pleased. Mr. Rogers. Well, we don't write letters much. Mr. Mecham. We would be glad to draft one for you. Mr. Rogers. We have other ways of communicating. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions. Mr. Mecham, when did you testify before Chairman Rooney? Mr. Mecham. It would have been 1969, 1970. Mr. Mollohan. Not in this capacity? Mr. Mecham. No, interestingly enough, part of my portfolio included the Appalachian Regional Commission and I was an advocate for funding. I don't know if any of you are interested in that. Plus a few other regional commissions. I think most of them have gone out of existence but the Appalachian Commission has continued and I guess thrived reasonably well. I appeared for the Commerce Department in support of Regional Commissions and Related Programs. Mr. Mollohan. Just one question. What are you doing about the Year 2000 problem, the computer problem that everybody is talking about, thinking about, planning for? Mr. Mecham. Pam White, our assistant director for automation, and our chairman of our Automation Committee, Judge Forrester from Georgia, have anticipated this and have been working on it for a couple of years. The last I heard, they felt they were going to be prepared for the year 2000. I had a report as recently as a week ago and if the chairman already has more detailed information than I have, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Judge Heyburn. We would be glad to give you more on it but I guess the bottom line is we are working on it, we think we have got an answer and if I could explain the answer to you I would. I might also be able to make a lot of money on the outside, too. Mr. Mollohan. I just wanted to get on the record you were aware of it and working on it and think you have it under control. Judge Heyburn. We are working on it. Absolutely. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Well, you can certainly patent that information. No one else seems to have gotten it under control. Well, we thank you for your appearance here today. Judge Heyburn, you have made a good early splash in the water here, your maiden voyage. You have come very quickly up to speed on a very complex undertaking. We did not suspect that that would not be the case. I knew Judge Heyburn's father and his family in Louisville. They are a great asset to that community and always have been. The Heyburns go back to the early days of Louisville and John is only the most recent reincarnation of a long line of patriots and great citizens of our state and country. Judge, we are very proud of you. You have done a very wonderful job here today. All of you have and we appreciate your time. Judge Heyburn. Thank you. It is an honor to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Mollohan. We look forward to working with you in a cooperative spirit in the future. Mr. Rogers. And to close out this session, I am reminded of an old saying. They say a good chicken don't stop scratching just 'cause the worms are scarce. Judge Heyburn. We're going to keep on scratching. [Pages 189 - 198--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Tuesday, March 4, 1997. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL WITNESSES HON. JANET RENO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE STEPHEN R. COLGATE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL J. ROPER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ADRIAN A. CURTIS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF Opening Statement by Mr. Rogers Mr. Rogers. Today we welcome to the Committee, Attorney General, Janet Reno. We're glad to have you with us, Madam Attorney General. But I have to tell you that we've got a problem. This Subcommittee and I, personally, have been one of the strongest supporters of the Department of Justice and your law enforcement agencies, and in fact, of you. We've gone out of our way, in fact, giving you more money than you requested in some cases, in the last two years alone. We've increased your budget by $4 billion, a 33 percent increase. We've given you the necessary tools to fight crime, at a time when the budget is so tight that we're eliminating agencies and severely cutting funding for many other programs. We've absorbed criticism on the floor of the House, in public sessions, in private meetings. We've attempted to smooth over problems at the Department of Justice. But I have to tell you, that alone I think, gives me credentials to speak up today and to ask very hard questions about the patterns of action and inaction that we're witnessing, and the repeated allegations, that Justice agencies are being used for political purposes. In some of the most critical areas of law enforcement that this nation depends upon, it strikes at the very basic trust that Americans have, which is the right to expect the objectivity and independence of the Department of Justice. I want to be specific, and hopefully, brief. There are two areas that I want to ask you about. One, the agencies under your command, in the Department of Justice, are guilty of gross violations of the public trust, if these allegations are anywhere near the truth. FBI The FBI, carte blanche, turned over sensitive background files on American citizens to the White House political operation, alerted the White House to potentially damaging information about its employees, and then, sicced agents on a former FBI agent involved in the matter. That's serious. The FBI lab, the premier crime lab in the country, is under intense scrutiny for allegedly using sloppy procedures, pressuring lab employees to alter their findings, having supervisors change findings to support criminal prosecutions, and potentially jeopardizing significant investigations and criminal convictions. That's serious. In a rush to conclusion of the Olympic bombing investigation, the FBI falsely accused an innocent man, Richard Jewel. That's serious. INS Thirteen senior INS managers intentionally deceived the people's Congress, on a task force visit to Miami. That's serious. The Inspector General's office in the Justice Department handled over 600 investigations of misconduct by INS employees, from bribery and extortion, to fraud, theft, drug and alien smuggling. Madam Attorney General, that's serious. And the latest is a very significant disaster. INS gave the most precious benefit an immigrant and anyone in the world can receive, U.S. citizenship, to thousands of people with criminal records. We think they weren't checked, because they decided it was more important to push people through the system for Election Day, we're told, than it was to wait for the FBI to do a basic criminal record check. And that's serious. investigations concerning other agencies The second area of concern is this--as the Nation's Attorney General you are charged with the responsibility to investigate and prosecute allegations of wrongdoing by government officials of other agencies, in addition to the ones you supervise. We don't know where or when to expect results of your investigations into fundraising activities of the Democratic National Committee and agency and White House officials, involving millions of dollars of tainted donations, perhaps even directed by a foreign government. That's serious. Attempts by foreign governments to influence U.S. policy in return for campaign donations, removal of classified and very sensitive CIA material by high-ranking departing Commerce Department officials, with ties to John Huang. That's serious. Granting of security clearances involving access to classified information to non-federal employees, a White House official directing donors to channel soft money contributions to voter registration groups for immigrants, who coincidentally, had just been naturalized. That's improper; and with directions to get as many done before election day, as possible. That's serious. Use of publicly-funded White House databases for fundraising by a political party. That's illegal. Allegations of the White House premises itself being used for fundraising, that's illegal; and it's also unethical. The Vice President's admission yesterday that he used taxpayer paid facilities, premises and funds for campaign fundraising. That's not allowed. That's illegal. The First Lady's reported endorsement of the use of the White House database for fundraising activities. And we could go on. A laundry list of investigations and allegations potentially interconnected, overlapping, being conducted throughout the Department, out of public view, and in some cases, by agencies within the Department, that are themselves, under investigation, which seems to be a new matter requiring investigation. We've seen no results. We've seen no process leading to possible results. We've been given no timetables. We're asked to have confidence in the conduct of this mounting list of investigations by a Department that has significant management problems of its own. I have to tell you that my faith and trust is waning. And I fear that the faith and trust of the American people is waning. We have a right to expect complete independence in the Office of the Attorney General and in the Department of Justice. We have fought for that. We have died for that, and we will do so again if necessary. But I will not stand by, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice, I will not sit idly by and watch it happen, without doing everything in my power to stop it. We need to know whether the Department of Justice is up to the job and whether its objectivity can be guaranteed, even after the events of the past year that make it apparent that politics has made its way into the actions of the Department. We need to know why you insist on handling this myriad of investigations in one ad hoc task force after another, sometimes connected, sometimes not, instead of turning these matters, all of them, from every branch of the government it seems, over to the mechanism designed to investigate the possibility of wrongdoing in the highest places spread across the entire government, the Special Prosecutor. Attorney General Reno, we're facing a serious problem. A problem of management, the question of integrity, at the very time that the Department is undertaking investigations of unprecedented scope, that require unquestioned management capability, integrity and independence. We can't look at your 1998 budget request at this point in time. That's going to have to take a few more days. We've got some matters much more important than that. I'm not worried yet about 1998; I'm worried about 1997, March the 4th and March the 5th. We need to decide whether it's appropriate for your Department to follow the trail whose signs are so apparent, and whether the Department is capable of doing so, because I have to say to you, up until this point, we haven't seen much. Mr. Mollohan, do you want to make a statement or proceed with questions. Opening Statement by Mr. Mollohan Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, Commissioner Meissner, welcome to the hearing today. I join the Chairman in welcoming you, and note the attendance of a very able, authorizing Chairman, Mr. Smith from Texas. And I think that it is very constructive for him to participate in this hearing, because obviously, a lot of the issues before the Committee are authorizing issues, and are under his very capable leadership and jurisdiction. I know that there has been a certain anxiety associated with this hearing, a foreboding, if you will, that INS's problems might dominate the hearing. There has been concern that critical questioning would dominate and overshadow the very positive results that our law enforcement agencies are doing to assist the nation in crime fighting and to get control of illegal immigration. I would like to note the tremendous accomplishments that the Department of Justice has achieved under the capable leadership of the Attorney General. She has managed an incredible growth of significant resources, over 70 percent, I believe, in a very capable way. I think there is an awful lot of consensus about the good things that have been achieved, the coordination among law enforcement agencies, with regard to fighting drug crime, the targeting of problems as they arise very aggressively, like youth and juvenile crime, as well as street crime. I think the implementation of the very popular and successful COPS program is evidence of the good job, not to mention the overall decrease in crime across the nation. That reality overlays all of the individual problems that are bound to exist when we are increasing the size of budgets and trying to manage the kind of growth that Justice and all of its components are tasked with. concerns There are concerns, to be sure, looking at INS. And I don't contend here, Mr. Chairman, to be an apologist for a group of Federal employees who attempt to deceive Congress. I won't do that. I don't tolerate that any more than anybody else. It does not exemplify the conduct of Federal employees generally or INS employees generally. I certainly don't condone it, nor am I an apologist for a naturalization program that cavalierly disregards candidate screening as an integral essential part of becoming a United States citizen. Those issues should be explored thoroughly and appropriate action taken. And I'm pleased that the Department has, for the most part, punished the individuals involved, along the lines recommended by the Inspector General, as we heard his testimony here several days ago. It would be easy, too easy, to belabor these issues. And certainly, we might even succumb to the temptation to belabor them. That, I'm sure, will be avoided. job performance of commissioner meissner To imply that these instances accurately depict the Immigration and Naturalization Service or reflect on the job its very capable Commissioner is doing on two fronts, I think would be misdirected. On the first front, the Commissioner, I would note is very successfully managing mind-boggling rapid growth within the agency. And to put all of this in perspective, I think this has to be understood. Mind-boggling growth in the agency, which has experienced a 104 percent budget increase between fiscal year 1993 and 1994. Second, it would ignore the fact that simultaneously, with managing this growth, she has distinguished herself, from any Commissioner that I know before her, by instituting systemic agency reform, and frankly, as I observe it, in the face of imbedded obstacles. But that's not an easy thing to do. That's in real time, trying to develop an adequate management system to manage incredible growth. To that extent, she is to be commended. Congress has, in the past, been very good at recognizing INS's quantitative needs. And this Committee, under the very able leadership of Chairman Rogers, has been generous with its resources and demanding with regard to output measurement. We have, in the process, laid greater demands, both personnel demands and jurisdictional demands. In my judgment, this should be looked at. We need to look at overwhelming the capacity of INS, which study after study has identified or characterized as being inadequate for more modest missions in the past. national academy of public administration study The most recent study of INS, the NAPA study, Mr. Chairman, the National Academy of Public Administration study, which I spent some time looking at last night, details the progress that Doris Meissner has made in reforming INS. She has achieved success where others, even a former Marine Corps General appointed by President Nixon, have failed. This NAPA study points to real progress. It is apparent, that Congress has been of assistance in time of need, to INS and Justice, with regard to their quantitative requirements. But it's apparent that INS needs help looking at its reorganizational efforts. That would be a constructive approach, and I frankly, hope will be the outcome of this hearing and the authorizing hearings to follow. I look forward to exploring those questions with the witnesses here today and working with the Chairman and others toward that positive end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. campaign fundraising Mr. Rogers. Now, Attorney General Reno, the revelations of the past few days point to serious evidence that the White House is being used, or was used, for campaign fundraising. The Vice President has admitted to making calls from a White House telephone, on White House premises to solicit campaign contributions. The First Lady reportedly endorsed the use of the White House computer for partisan fundraising activities. Before you get to your statement, can you tell us, do you intend to recommend the appointment of an independent counsel to begin to investigate and bring together these separate events which are all throughout the government? Attorney General's Opening Remarks Attorney General Reno. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. I always appreciate your thoughtful comments and I understand your perspective, and really appreciate what you and the entire Committee have done, in terms of providing us the resources that I think have significantly helped to reduce crime in this country. And I look forward to working with you in a thoughtful, constructive, principled way in the future, in addressing the concerns that we share, and in developing the best efforts possible on behalf of the people of the United States. campaign financing investigation With respect to the campaign financing investigation, when we received evidence, we immediately commenced an investigation in to every allegation that we received. I am constantly in with the group that is investigating. You asked, when will we learn? We're doing it in secret. Mr. Chairman, you're a former prosecutor. You know that a prosecutor doesn't go down and stand on the courthouse steps or in a House hearing and tell people what's happening in an investigation. That would be wrong. And what we have tried to do, is to pursue every lead, working with the FBI, making sure that we take every effective action. We have made that clear on a number of occasions and have not tried to hide that at all. As late as last Thursday, I explained that I have not foreclosed the appointment of an independent counsel. If the evidence and the law, as required by the statute, trigger it, and I have asked the people who are involved, to let me know if there is any indication that it is triggered. And I continue to work with them with that question in mind. But until the evidence and the law dictate appointment of an independent counsel, as required by the statute, I'm going to do everything I can to pursue the allegations as vigorously as possible, consistent with the evidence and the law. Mr. Rogers. Well, I have a number of questions, but we want to hear the testimony that you've prepared. We will make your written testimony a part of the record. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, if you would prefer, I'll go right on with your questions, sir. [The statement of Attorney General Reno follows:] [Pages 205 - 393--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] immigration and naturalization service Mr. Rogers. Well, we will have your full statement in the record. And so, we will proceed in that fashion, if the others are in agreement with that. With that in mind then, I will proceed. Now, I want to talk first to you about the INS. And we've asked Commissioner Doris Meissner, to be with us today, in the event that there are questions that you would like for her to answer. We have poured money into the INS. In the last two years, we've increased the INS budget by 52 percent, a $500 million increase each year, in 1996 and 1997. We've been extremely supportive of the INS. We've been patient to a fault with the new management. But Madam Attorney General, INS is out of control and it pains me to say that. It's taken me a long time to make myself conclude that but I've concluded now that INS is out of control. And I'll tell you why I think that. illegal immigrants Recent INS estimates indicate there are five million illegal immigrants now living in the country, the same peak level we witnessed in 1986. And that's the reason why Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, wherein we granted amnesty to those presently living here, and added requirements for those employers who would perhaps employ illegal aliens in the country. INS has triple the level of resources it had in 1986, to do its job. The Administration's strategy to deal with illegal aliens living in the country is antiquated and ineffective. INS only deported 77,000 people last year, only 1\1/2\ percent of the illegal population. And it still fell short by 34 percent of its goal to deport illegal aliens from the country. border patrol We can't be assured that the border is any more under control now, than it was four years ago. Despite the fact that we've added 1,700 more border patrol agents, an increase of 37 percent. Statistics used, to herald the success of Operation Gatekeeper, the INS border patrol strategy are being questioned by the border patrol themselves. misconduct by ins employees Unethical practices are occurring among INS senior employees. Thirteen senior INS managers engaged in activities to deceive the Congress on a task force visit to Miami. And the Inspector General's office at the Justice Department conducted over 600 investigations of misconduct by INS employees, for bribery, extortion, fraud theft drugs and alien smuggling and so on. naturalization of criminals And the latest, and in my opinion, the most significant INS disaster, INS granted citizenship this past year to criminals, because they decided it was more important to make sure that they were entitled to vote than it was to check if they had a criminal record. They weren't checked. deception of congressional officials by ins officials Now, these are all serious allegations. And it pains me to bring them up, but I feel I must. First, I want to ask you about the Miami matter. The Inspector General told us that a delegation of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform--I don't know whether Chairman Smith was in the group or not--was deceived by INS officials when it did a fact-finding tour to the INS Miami District Office. The investigation found--and I am, more or less, generally quoting from his report--that aliens were moved out of detention holding cells in order to create a false impression that the Krome detention facility was not overcrowded. In order to move these aliens quickly, the managers released many of them out into the community without complete criminal and/or medical checks. Inspectors were assigned to the Miami Airport, to make it appear that the airport was well staffed, and INS could process passengers without delay. Evidence showed that senior managers in the Miami District, the Eastern Region and INS Headquarters, either ordered the deception or knowingly failed to stop it. And senior INS managers failed to cooperate with the OIG investigation, and in some cases, obstructed that investigation. I need to know how this came about, and what actions have been taken against those responsible. gao report on immigration management Attorney General Reno. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me go back to your opening statement and to your more general comments about INS, and put it into perspective, because I think it is important. And you and I have shared concerns over the years. Let me describe, from a GAO report to Congress, from immigration management, what we inherited and what Commissioner Meissner inherited when she took office. Its January 1991 report said, over the past decade, weak management systems and inconsistent leadership have allowed serious problems to go unresolved. Without coherent, overall direction and basic management reforms, the organization has been unable to effectively address changing enforcement responsibilities and long-standing service delivery problems. improvements made since issuance of the gao report When she took office and when I took office, that was the situation. I went to the border, to San Diego. It was totally out of control, Mr. Chairman. It's a lot different now. I went to the border and saw Border Patrol agents without radios, without the tools they needed to do the job. It's a lot different now. Thanks, in part, to this Committee's real commitment, in terms of resources. And for that, we are very grateful. But following that, came a peso crisis, and came an exodus from Cuba and from Haiti. And in each instance, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was there dealing with the issue. Yes, there are challenges. But in addition to all of these challenges, they have also had to absorb extraordinary growth. And we have worked to make sure that people are brought on board, who are well trained and who are prepared for the task that lies ahead for them. It is not something, after so many years of inattention, that can be accomplished overnight. But I think there has been significant progress made. actions taken after receipt of congressional letter of concern With respect to your concerns, let me point out to you, that I received Chairman Smith's letter, I believe, on July the 11th or July the 12th. And on July the 14th, I referred it to the Inspector General. You expressed concern earlier, Mr. Chairman, about the Department of Justice not proceeding as vigorously as it might. I told the Inspector General to take that matter wherever it led. And when he presented me with the report, to ensure objectivity, I asked Steve Colgate, the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Management Division, to become the recommending or proposing authority, to ensure that it was done the right way, without any hint of conflict. You have heard from Mr. Bromwich, and I believe as well, from Mr. Colgate, as to the results. When we see wrongdoing, we are going to pursue it. With respect to the 600 investigations, if you went to a major police agency in this country, their internal affairs or equivalent of the Inspector General, may have a significant number of investigations. The question is, where do they lead? But the real point is, Mr. Chairman, that there have been investigations. We don't put things under the rug. actions taken against employees for misleading congress Mr. Rogers. I need to know what happened to these people. Let's get to the bottom line here. What happened to the people that misled the Congress. What are their names and where are they now? And Commissioner Meissner can assist if you would prefer. Attorney General Reno. Valerie Blake was removed. Dan Cadman elected a voluntary demotion to GS-15, Criminal Investigator at Headquarters Field Operations. Mr. Rogers. Where is he now? Attorney General Reno. I cannot tell you precisely. Mr. Rogers. Is he still working? Attorney General Reno. He accepted a voluntary demotion, sir. So, I would assume he is still working. Mr. Rogers. He is still a Justice Department official. Correct? Attorney General Reno. So far as I know, sir. Mr. Rogers. He misled the Congress and still works for the Justice Department. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, we have followed the procedures that dictate the discipline of employees, and have followed them according to precedent of the Merit System's Protection Board. I think it is so important that you look at these disciplines based on the facts. May I give you the copy? And we'll be happy to sit down with you, and review the facts, to the extent that we can. Mr. Rogers. I'll be happy to do that. [The information follows:] [Pages 398 - 400--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Attorney General Reno. To the extent that we can, so that we do not prejudice action before the merit system. Mr. Rogers. Well, I'm very protective of their rights. We want to protect their rights. I'm also protective of the people's right to have truthful Federal employees, reporting truthfully to their people's representatives here in the Congress. When they lie to the Congress and mislead the Congress, the people's representatives, and they maintain their employment with the Justice Department, people have a right to be suspect. That's all I have to say about that. Now, we need to know whether or not you and the Commissioner are satisfied with the disciplinary actions taken against these employees. Do you agree with the discipline and can we be assured that this will never ever happen again? Attorney General Reno. I'm satisfied with the discipline procedure that has removed one employee from the Federal service, demoted five employees, which is a more severe penalty than suspension. Six employees have been suspended without pay for periods ranging from two days to fifteen days. And two employees were not disciplined. I am satisfied with that, based on the information that has been furnished to me. I will continue to do everything I can to uphold this discipline. And I will continue to do everything in my power to see that events like this do not happen again. But if I am to do that, Mr. Chairman, I need to make sure that I obtain discipline that will stick on review. And the worst thing I can do is go off on something that is not based on the facts and the evidence and get reversed. That will send the worst signal, in terms of preventing further occurrences, of anything I know. Mr. Rogers. Well, while we're trying to make policy in the Congress, on what to do about illegal aliens and their deportation and the jailing of criminal aliens and all of the other policies on this problem, which you know is one of the big major undertakings of the present government, it just seems to me that it's absolutely critical that we not be lied to by our own employees and misled and made to believe, such as in Miami, that there was not overcrowding, that things were fine, and everything was going wonderfully. And all the while, they instead opened the doors and let out many prisoners onto the streets of Miami and the country. How can we make policy when our own officials are misleading us like that? Attorney General Reno. For those that misled, Mr. Chairman, you have seen the penalties imposed. We are going to do everything we can to uphold those penalties, because what was done was very, very wrong. Mr. Rogers. I need to ask the Commissioner if she was lied to by those employees? And are you satisfied with the disciplinary actions that have been taken? Ms. Meissner. The disciplinary process that was set up was a very thorough process. As the Attorney General has said, we are implementing it where the individuals are concerned and are very clear about the consequences involved. Mr. Rogers. And I'm told that initially, at least one of these employees, not only was not dismissed or disciplined, but in fact was given a promotion. Attorney General Reno. Who are you referring to, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Rogers. Valerie Blake. Attorney General Reno. Ms. Blake--she has been removed from the Federal service. What you're referring to, Mr. Chairman is, that while the investigation was pending, she was promoted. But upon disciplinary action being enforced, she was removed from the Federal service. Mr. Rogers. I don't understand how she could have been promoted to the District Director of Minnesota, at a time when she was accused. That one's a puzzle. Attorney General Reno. In America, we're innocent until we're proven guilty. Mr. Rogers. What about the message that other employees must have gotten when they saw a person who was charged suddenly elevated? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, it is important that the disciplinary process take its course, and that people have their right to be heard before judgment is made. When judgment is made, as it was in this case, it was the most severe penalty that could be imposed. I think that justice has been done. Obviously, if Ms. Meissner had had the opportunity to know what the end result would be, she wouldn't have done it. failure to cooperate with the inspector general Mr. Rogers. Now, the Inspector General told us that INS, as an agency, and not just particular individuals, but as an agency, failed to cooperate with his investigation, particularly in the matter of complying with document requests. He said, the response by senior managers was, ``abysmal.'' I wonder if the Commissioner can respond to that? Attorney General Reno. Why don't you---- Ms. Meissner. Shall I come forward? Mr. Rogers. Please. Please have a seat. Ms. Meissner. This is the question on document requests, during the course of the investigation. It is, of course, the responsibility of the agency and a responsibility that we take very seriously, to produce whatever documents in a timely fashion, that are requested in an investigation. We did that. We did that from the standpoint of informing our employees of the necessity to comply with investigations, with gathering the responses, and producing them within the time frames that were requested. It is the case that some employees, those involved in this disciplinary process, who have now been disciplined, failed to provide the full range of documents. That was discovered in the course of the investigation. Clearly, if we had known that people were withholding documents, we would have taken action. We had no way of knowing that. There were E-mails, which were not in paper files and were not available, and were discovered in the investigation. That is clearly wrong. Mr. Rogers. Well, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, in a hearing with Mr. Chairman Lamar Smith, who sits with us today, he says, in response to Mr. Smith's question, that in a general sense, and I'm quoting, ``just as I would be responsible for the failure of people in my office to do it, whether or not I, or in this case, Commissioner Meissner, had any actual knowledge of whether such documents were being withheld'' What I'm trying to say is, when he says, the Department's response to his investigation was abysmal, I think he's saying that you're included. Do you agree? Ms. Meissner. I do not agree. I believe that we complied as fully as we could. And I believe that the record is clear on that. I would be happy to provide the documentation for the various actions that we took. [The information follows:] [Pages 404 - 408--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Ms. Meissner. The Inspector General and I can talk about these matters if he has concerns about the way in which we are handling an investigation. We have an ongoing relationship, as well as formal liaison between our Office of Internal Audit and the Inspector General. We would invite whatever suggestions and criticism need to be made. responsibility for misleading congress Mr. Rogers. Well, let me just say, the visit by the congressional delegation to one of your facilities was not a secret event. I mean, it was noted in the highest echelons of your department. I dare say you knew that the group was visiting the Krome facility in Miami. Your managers in the Miami district office, and your managers along the way, including the INS liaison with the Congress helped set up the visit, and also participated, according to the IG, in the coverup and misleading of Members of the Congress that went to Miami to investigate the Krome facility. Who's responsible, for this lack of oversight over your manager? And these are high level managers? Who is finally responsible Attorney General? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Bromwich suggested to you, when he was before you last week--I don't want to suggest for a moment, that I lay at the feet of Ms. Meissner, many or most of the problems that we have identified. Far from it. Most, if not all, of these problems originated years and years ago and are regrettably the product of substantial neglect over time, by top INS management, by Justice Department top management, and frankly, by the Congress as well. So, I don't, for a moment, want to suggest that the responsibility for the manifold problems that we find can be laid properly at the feet of Commissioner Meissner. Mr. Rogers. Are you saying that the misleading of Congress, in Miami last July, had its roots five years ago? Attorney General Reno. I am suggesting to you---- Mr. Rogers. It was not five years ago that these people misled the Congress. It was your present management of INS that lied to the U.S. Congress. Attorney General Reno. And it was---- Mr. Rogers. Who is responsible for cleaning that up? Attorney General Reno. I am, Mr. Chairman. And I told you the steps that I've taken. I have told you that career people in the Department have told me that these are very serious disciplinary steps that have been taken. If there are additional steps and you want me to have additional authority, I'd love to sit down with Ms. McAuliffe and see what can be done to improve the adverse action procedures. But until then, I will do everything in my power, because the buck stops with me. We have identified the managers who are responsible, based on the evidence. And that's where it stands now. If anybody has additional evidence about any other manager, then I want to know about it. But when I find action like that, it is my responsibility to do something about it. I have been told that we have taken the most significant action we could. OPERATION GATEKEEPER Mr. Rogers. All right. Quickly moving to Operation Gatekeeper which is INS's term for the border control strategy on the San Diego border. INS measures if it's successful by the number of aliens the Border Patrol apprehends. In June of 1996, members of the Border Patrol union publicly said that Border Patrol supervisors were improperly manipulating Gatekeeper-related procedures, to create the false impression that Operation Gatekeeper had successfully deterred illegal border crossings at San Diego. They said they were being instructed not to apprehend aliens, so that the level of apprehensions, the number of arrests would appear to have dropped, thereby implying that they were being very successful. They said that supervisors submitted falsified reports, showing those inaccurate arrest records. The union alleged that a congressional delegation had visited Gatekeeper facilities in April and was intentionally misled to believe that efforts had succeeded in controlling illegal immigration problems in the Imperial Beach border region. What are we to believe about this? Attorney General Reno. Again, Mr. Chairman, when we heard about this, I immediately asked Mr. Bromwich to undertake an investigation. That investigation is pending. As he pointed out to you though, I can't comment. And I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment while it's pending. But he indicated to you, that at least a tentative provisional conclusion, and I'm giving it to you, he said, because I know you need it for what you're dealing with. He said they are not finding the pervasive falsification of data or the distortion of procedures that have been alleged. Mr. Rogers. Well, that's certainly not all of what he told us last week. Attorney General Reno. This is from the transcript of his testimony before you, sir. Mr. Rogers. Well, you're not reading the entire thing. Attorney General Reno. I would make it available to you because I read it. Mr. Rogers. Well, I have it here at the desk. There's much more in there than what you refer to. Attorney General Reno. Look at page 81, Mr. Chairman. And I'll be happy to come up and discuss it with you at your convenience. INS EMPLOYEE ALLEGATIONS Mr. Rogers. Well, we'll do that at some point in time. But I also want to know if you have taken any actions, at all, other than the IG's investigation, on the allegations by your own employees, Border Patrol agents, that they were ordered to file false reports? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I asked the Inspector General to undertake the investigation. When an investigation is undertaken such as that, my involvement in any way, can be disruptive. I have asked Mr. Bromwich to let me know if there is, at any point, any action that I should take. Meanwhile, what I have done is to review again, because one of the great problems we have on the border is how you measure success. How can you show that you are getting all the aliens coming across? One of the old ways they used to do it, was by tracking people and tracking footprints. That is very difficult in this day and time, with the number. The whole purpose of its strategy, in San Diego, was to very carefully, beginning at Imperial Beach, staff the border patrol with sufficient personnel and resources, so that being one of the major crossing points, the aliens would move east into more difficult country. That has been accomplished and so as apprehensions go down, because they are moving further east, it is very difficult to measure one way or the other. But I am doing everything I can to develop the best measurements, understanding that nobody has been able to advise me of a measurement that is totally objective. SIZE OF OIG'S STAFF Mr. Rogers. We all know that the Inspector General of the Department of Justice is not the FBI. And it's not the Drug Enforcement Administration. It's a very small staff, designed to investigate wrongdoing within the Department. Surely, when you heard these allegations by Border Patrol agents, of falsifying documents to you and the U.S. Congress, surely you would have asked the FBI or somebody that has that kind of manpower, to investigate these very serious allegations. Was that done? Either one of you can respond. Attorney General Reno. With respect to Miami, did we ask the Inspector General to undertake the investigation, in accordance with Congress' dictates, that they should investigate internal fraud or internal wrongdoing. We have a procedure whereby that has now been referred to the Office of Public Integrity. His findings have been referred. Mr. Bromwich has, upon all occasions, because I have advised him, been told that at any time he needs additional investigative support in complex matters or matters that require the FBI, that he need only call them in. And indeed, along the border, he has done just that, for we have worked together in a comprehensive border initiative focused on corruption, focused on civil rights violations. And we will continue to use the resources in the Department as wisely as possible. CITIZENSHIP USA Mr. Rogers. Now quickly I want to ask, before I yield to someone else, about the operation of Citizenship USA. In fiscal year 1996, before November, INS granted citizenship to almost 1.1 million individuals. I'm told in a normal year, it might be 300,000 or so. But in that year, it was more than three times that. Congressional inquiries and investigations led to claims that INS did not follow procedures for obtaining criminal record checks on the applicants, which is the policy. The Justice Department has now acknowledged that 180,000 individuals were granted citizenship without a criminal record check. And over 70,000 individuals with criminal records were granted citizenship. I understand you're doing an audit now, to actually verify those numbers. But we need to know what happened. Attorney General Reno. Here's what I did when I learned of this matter. First of all, I called in Mr. Colgate to work through the issues, to try to come up with just what had happened and to keep Congress advised. I have instituted the following. I have asked the Inspector General to review all the allegations and take appropriate action, no matter where it leads. The INS field officers have been instructed to confirm that the FBI fingerprint check is completed, and that any FBI criminal history information is in the applicant's file before naturalization proceedings are completed. Secondly, INS is also instituting other new quality control and quality assurance measures, including the use of a uniform adjudicatory checklist, enhanced supervisory review, random internal case reviews and field review teams. Third, KPMG Peat Marwick, an independent management consulting and accounting firm, is monitoring a comprehensive INS review of the adjudication decisions on all persons with FBI records, listing the felony arrests, who were naturalized between August 31, 1995 and September 30, 1996, as well as a sample of all cases naturalized in that period. Fourth, the Department has competitively selected, or will announce this week, a business process re-engineering consulting firm, to assist INS with re-engineering all aspects of the naturalization process over the coming months. Therefore, I have asked Steve Colgate to coordinate between the INS and the FBI, to develop appropriate procedures, to ensure fingerprint checks are done in the appropriate manner. And fifth, it is understood that upon the determination of anyone who was inappropriately granted citizenship, we will take steps to revoke that citizenship. REASON FOR SURGE IN NATURALIZATION OF CITIZENS Mr. Rogers. Now, why did this take place? Why did we have a surge of more than three times the normal rate of naturalization of citizens in 1996? Why did that take place? Attorney General Reno. My understanding is that it was estimated that there would be an increase due to the amnesties granted in 1986. And that secondly, with the Proposition 187 concerns generated in California, that there was a rush by some to seek naturalization. Mr. Rogers. Was there any pressure, from anywhere, Commissioner Meissner, for you to speed up the process of granting citizenship last year? Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, the Citizenship USA program was designed and announced in 1995. We began the planning for Citizenship USA in March of 1995. We publicly announced it in August of 1995. It was a response to a doubling of the caseload in fiscal year 1995, over the prior year, 1994. That caseload was the result of the factors that the Attorney General has just mentioned to you. As you know, these are cases where people pay fees, in order to have their applications adjudicated. We were facing unconscionable backlogs. Had we not acted, the caseload waiting times would have gone from two to four years, depending on which office of the country we were talking about. There would have been an absolute abdication of responsibility, where our mission to adjudicate our applications is concerned. The Citizenship USA program was an effort to reduce the backlogs and to reinstitute a six-month processing program, from the filing of an application, to the swearing in. That six-month standard has been the agency's standard for more than a decade. The targets for the program were time targets and backlog reduction targets. They were not a rush to citizenship. The people that were naturalized in Citizenship USA were people that were in our caseload for more than a year, as I say, in some offices, for more than two years. We have barely managed to keep up with case filings, even with the extraordinary effort that Citizenship USA represented. I might add that the Committee was very supportive and we appreciate the support, in the way of two reprogrammings that were approved---- Mr. Rogers. Madam Commissioner---- Ms. Meissner [continuing]. For us to do the project. pressure to speed up naturalization process Mr. Rogers. We're under a time constraint here. I need to ask you, did anybody--you can answer this yes or no if you'd like--did anybody above your pay grade, pressure you to speed up the naturalization process? Ms. Meissner. We were under pressure from many quarters, where naturalization was concerned. Mr. Rogers. Do you want me to be specific? Ms. Meissner. The particular concern, that I'm sure you have, about pressures from the Vice President's Office---- Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Meissner [continuing]. Or from the White House, were manifest in the form of assistance that was offered from the National Performance Review, assistance with procedures and suggestions on ways that we might streamline the process. That assistance and those conversations did not occur until February and March of 1996. They occurred well after the program was designed and underway. The reprogrammings to finance it had been approved in the Congress. Mr. Rogers. Did members in the Office of the Vice President communicate a numerical goal of one million or any other figure of persons to be naturalized by Election Day? Ms. Meissner. No such target was ever communicated to me. No such target was ever set by the Vice President's Office. Mr. Rogers. Did members of the Office of the Vice President visit any Citizenship USA offices? Ms. Meissner. Yes, they did. Mr. Rogers. For what purpose? Ms. Meissner. Those visits occurred during February and March of 1996. I would have to check on how many offices were visited. My memory of it is probably four or five offices. We had five target offices, which represented 76 percent of the caseload. They were the big cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, New York, Chicago. And the NPR staff visited some, possibly all of those offices. I would have to check. Mr. Rogers. NPR? Ms. Meissner. National Performance Review, which is the group within the Vice President's Office, with whom we work. Mr. Rogers. With regard to the naturalization process? Ms. Meissner. We were given suggestions that had to do with streamlining our hiring procedures, and we were given suggestions that had to do with the actual decision processes and requirements for naturalization. We did not accept either of those sets of suggestions. We were already well down the path of streamlining procedures and making the handling of the paperwork more efficient. Mr. Rogers. Well, I'll ask you if this is not accurate. The report in this morning's Washington Post quotes Elaine Kamarck, a Senior Advisor to the Vice President, in March 1996, in an E- mail to Doug Farbrother, a Gore aide assigned to help reinvent Citizenship USA, she says, ``The President is sick of this and wants action.'' And Farbrother, in a subsequent E-mail to Gore and Kamarck, reported that the INS had agreed to speed up hiring adjudicators who interview applicants and decide who should be naturalized, but complained the agency had rebuffed his suggestions to use, ``temporary service agencies,'' for those guys. And then, the newspaper says, in a later message to Gore, he said, ``The INS was not doing enough to, quote, produce a million new citizens before Election Day.'' He said, ``Unless we blast INS headquarters loose from their grip on the front line managers, we're going to have way too many people still waiting for citizenship in November.'' Do you recollect that? Ms. Meissner. I was privy to none of those E-mails. The first that I read of those E-mails was in the press sometime late in November, when they were recounted in a particular article. Whatever was going on in that dialogue is not something that the INS participated in, in any way. The goal of Citizenship USA again, was to reduce backlogs and to reestablish a timely process. We had a doubling of the caseload. We were responding to consumer demand in market terms. I don't like to put it in market terms, but that is, we were dealing with a workload and with our responsibilities to carry out our mission. We were already in the process of streamlining our hiring procedures. We have streamlined our hiring procedures throughout the agency. We have taken what had been a very lengthy and protracted eight to nine month time to bring a person on, and brought it to about 45 days to two months. It's been a major management improvement. And we applied it in the Citizenship USA program. goal of one million new citizens by election day Mr. Rogers. Well, whether or not you knew the details of the E-mail that was going on, that's stating a goal of a million new citizens by Election Day, you met the goal, whether you knew it was the goal or not, didn't you? Ms. Meissner. Well, let me be clear about that. In doing workload projections, and obviously, in coming forward with the reprogrammings that we came forward with, required ultimately, the hiring of about 900 additional temporary personnel. Obviously, we had to make our best projections on what the caseload and what the completions would be. So, we did believe that, if our receipts continued at the level that we were seeing, as we did the workload projections, we were likely to be completing anywhere from 1 to 1.3 million cases. And those numbers are available in the reprogramming requests and in the budgeting planning that we did. But as I said, our effort here was a backlog clearing effort, in a timeliness in the process. It was not a numerical number of citizens. It was completions, case completions. And one would not even know, until you do the cases, what was the level of approvals---- Mr. Rogers. Do you know Doug Farbrother? Ms. Meissner. I have met him. Mr. Rogers. Has he talked to you about this in the past? Ms. Meissner. No. Mr. Rogers. Never? Ms. Meissner. No. I met him on one occasion, in my office, when he had an appointment. Mr. Rogers. Did he ask you to speed up hiring adjudicators? Ms. Meissner. It was a very short meeting. It had to do with hiring procedures. I don't recall that he asked specifically, that question. But he was concerned about our hiring process. This took place right after the government furloughs and the snow storms. And we were behind in our hiring plans. But as I say, we were catching up and we had designed a series of more effective procedures. And we were implementing them. Mr. Rogers. So, he was there---- Ms. Meissner. It would have happened apart from his visit. Mr. Rogers. But he was there, out of the interest of speeding up the process? Mr. Meissner. I can not---- Mr. Rogers. Is that the truth---- Ms. Meissner. I cannot comment on what his interest was. Mr. Rogers. But what was the purpose of his visit with you? Ms. Meissner. He was looking at our procedures, from the standpoint of efficiency. Mr. Rogers. So, he was wanting you to speed up and become more efficient? Ms. Meissner. I could infer that, yes. Mr. Rogers. And did you abide by his suggestions? Ms. Meissner. We were already streamlining our procedures. We had already established our targets and goals. We kept to our plan. Mr. Rogers. Now, he was the Vice President's aide, assigned to help Citizenship USA. Is that correct? Ms. Meissner. I'm not clear on what his assignment was. Mr. Rogers. Well, when he came to see you, how did he identify himself? Ms. Meissner. He identified himself as somebody who was working for the NPR team. Mr. Rogers. The Vice President's group? Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. And did he say what credentials he had? Ms. Meissner. I don't know whether I knew it at that time or whether I've learned it since, but my understanding is that he is a career government employee, with a Defense Department background. He was detailed to the NPR staff for the purposes of reinvention activities across the government. Mr. Rogers. Do you know Elaine Kamarck? Ms. Meissner. I do know Elaine Kamarck, yes. We've met. Mr. Rogers. Did she ever visit with you, about the naturalization process? Ms. Meissner. Yes, she did. Mr. Rogers. More than once? Ms. Meissner. Very few, maybe a few times, but not many. Mr. Rogers. And what was the---- Ms. Meissner. But probably not more than once. Mr. Rogers. What was the nature of that conversation? Ms. Meissner. Again, the Citizenship USA program is a program that we had asked to be treated as an NPR reinvention laboratory. We had asked for that in September of 1995. That is to say, we were going through a series of innovations. Those innovations could have been improved by other innovations around the government, that would have been applicable. So, the NPR staff is a staff with whom we have had some contact. The visits that Elaine Kamarck made and the inquiries that she made were, as far as I knew at the time, based on an effort to be certain that our reinvention was as aggressive and effective as possible. Mr. Rogers. When did Elaine Kamarck visit with you? Ms. Meissner. Well, I would have to check. It's in that February, March period, 1996. Mr. Rogers. All right. Well, I'll have other questions, but I've overstayed my time. development of citizenship usa program Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Meissner, just picking up on this Citizenship USA issue, Ms. Meissner, I would like to explore it a bit. You indicated that it was a program developed at INS. Could you tell us when it was developed? Ms. Meissner. The actual Citizenship USA planning began in earnest, in March of 1995. As we looked at our caseload numbers during fiscal year 1995, in other words, the fiscal year that began in October of 1994, we saw really mediocre increases. It was very clear that we needed to do something dramatic. Mr. Mollohan. So, you're suggesting the motive for the initiative was to clean up backlogs of naturalization cases? Ms. Meissner. The motive was to clean up the backlog and to be current in our handling of naturalization applications. Mr. Mollohan. Right. Who was involved in that planning? Ms. Meissner. It was internal. It was internally carried out in our examinations program. Mr. Mollohan. You say it was internal. You mean, it was developed solely among INS personnel? Ms. Meissner. It was developed within the Immigration Service. Let me give a little background to that. I had come to the agency with a strong interest in naturalization. I have, I think, probably been quoted on a number of occasions, saying that I wanted to put the N, back into INS. And so, the interest in naturalization---- Mr. Mollohan. You brought with---- Ms. Meissner. I brought with me. And it was reflected in some earlier work that the INS had done in the budget, for instance, in the fiscal year 1994 budget. We asked for an appropriation for naturalization, which had never occurred before, for the purposes of improving the system. But in terms of this specific program, the origins of it were early in 1995, in response to this caseload. We did bring in an outside contractor at that point, to help us with our planning, because we were still very focused on reinvention and on a total redesign of the naturalization program. That contract did not produce very helpful results. By the time it was completed, which was, by then, maybe May or June of 1995, we were still seeing such huge increases, that we decided we could not do a full scale redesign of the program. We needed to do a series of improvements. And at the same time, we needed to deal with the volume of cases and management of that caseload. Mr. Mollohan. There's been an unpleasant suggestion, in a number of places, including here at this hearing,that there is some relationship between this initiative and some benefit to the Administration in the election. You're noting here that this planning process began at least 18 months ago, I guess, before the election. Can you just comment on that directly? Was there any motivation? Was naturalizing individuals so they could participate in that election, in any way, a part of your motivation? Ms. Meissner. There was not and it was not. As I said, I came to the agency with an interest in naturalization. Our very first budget in which I participated was 1994; it had a request for funding. We saw this incredible explosion in receipts, beginning in 1995. It resulted, as we said, from legalization, which we had planned for and were predicting, but in addition, what began then, and has continued ever since is an unprecedented demand historically, for naturalization. Our motive was a workload and a mission motive. Collaboration with Congress Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me commend you for bringing that mission to INS. It long needed that, quite frankly. As this process went forward, did you collaborate with Congress, with regard to this particular program? Ms. Meissner. We collaborated, yes. We sent forward two reprogramming requests. Mr. Mollohan. And did you detail what the program involved, in those reprogramming requests? Ms. Meissner. We did. Mr. Mollohan. Or otherwise, in your communication with the Congress, did you describe this program to the Congress? Ms. Meissner. We certainly described it in the reprogramming request. I would be happy to go back and check other oversight hearings and other hearing testimony. I'm certain that it has come up on a variety of occasions. It's always been an interest when I've met with state delegations, for instance. I do a lot of work with elected officials in the large states. In particular, they have always asked about naturalization and encouraged our being more responsive and more creative. Mr. Mollohan. Did you receive support from the Congress, with regard to this initiative? Ms. Meissner. Well, the Congress approved two reprogrammings, yes. One in, I believe, the summer of 1995; and the second, I believe, in--I have to check, but I believe in the end of 1995. Mr. Mollohan. Were those big reprogrammings? Ms. Meissner. They were substantial, yes. They allowed us, as I said earlier, to hire close to 900 temporary employees. Mr. Mollohan. In fact, the reprogramming requests for this program were in the neighborhood of $95 million; were they not? Ms. Meissner. I believe that is the total amount, yes. I should take this occasion to thank the Chairman and the Committee and the Senate for approving another reprogramming, where our citizenship work is concerned. That approval was just given last week. Mr. Mollohan. So, there was an interactive collaborative process involved with this Citizenship USA program, as you developed it, with open communication between you, as to its design and how you intended to implement it. Is that correct? Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Administration Communication Mr. Mollohan. The Chairman raised some issues with regard to communication from the administration. I believe the Chairman indicated that this was picked up on some kind of an E-mail communication. First of all, are you familiar with those E-mail communications personally, that the Chairman references? Ms. Meissner. I am now, from having read them in the press. Mr. Mollohan. I'm sorry. I should have asked that more precisely. At the time that these E-mails were communicated, were you aware of that communication? Ms. Meissner. I had no idea of it, none whatsoever. Mr. Mollohan. As I tried to write down what the Chairman said, it sounds like the Administration was disappointed that the agency rebuffed any contacts from them, with regard to the Citizenship USA program, and that, in order for them to be effective at INS, they'd have to blast INS headquarters, and that they would have to break loose from front line managers. Are you the front line manager? Ms. Meissner. No. The front line managers would be basically referring to District Directors and their subordinates. Mr. Mollohan. So, I'm asking you to interpret these comments as best you can. And you perhaps will not be able to do that. But these comments suggest to me, that there was a serious rebuff, a stark rebuff in the INS ranks, even without your knowledge of these contacts, to the extent that they existed. Ms. Meissner. Well, there was a rebuff. The rebuff actually was a rebuff by me, by my Deputy, Chris Sale. We were very proud of what we were doing with the Citizenship USA process. We believed we had a creative, aggressive plan, which we were properly putting into effect. We were and always are open to suggestions. If there had been useful suggestions, we would have taken them. We did not find these suggestions to be useful. Overhaul of INS Mr. Mollohan. Let me step back from this particular issue and get a little macro, with regard to the agency, if I might. I think it's fair to say, and you could probably develop a consensus pretty quickly, in this room, around this table, that when you took over INS, you took over a mess. I note, in reviewing some of the history of INS, that President Nixon even went so far as to assign a retired Marine Corps General to be the head of INS. Ms. Meissner. Commandant. Mr. Mollohan. The President appointed a Marine Corps Commandant to try to straighten out INS. What's impressive to me is that you have been, at least in my review of the history of INS, the first Commissioner to really bring a determination to this effort to overhaul the INS. I think we can agree that INS has had systematic problems and needs systemic reform, particularly with regard to management. ``Over the past decade, weak management systems and inconsistent leadership have allowed serious problems to go unresolved. Without coherent overall direction and basic management reforms, the organization has been unable to effectively address changing enforcement responsibilities and long-standing service delivery problems.'' Now, I want to emphasize the GAO report from which I am quoting, preceded your commissionership of the INS. This report was commenting on INS before you got there. And last night, Commissioner Meissner, I spent some time reviewing a report produced by the National Academy of Public Administration, ``Budgeting for Performance, Strategy, Flexibility and Accountability to Meet a Demanding Mission,'' which is a review of your budgeting process. Frankly, I was struck by this report, and you have to get into some of this detail. And this is not interesting or even light reading. But I was struck by the serious approach that you have taken in bringing about management reform. I was also struck by the true necessity for systematic reform in this agency. I'm not going to give a speech here. I want you to comment, if you will, on the new priorities in the management structure that you have brought to the agency, and how you are trying to bring management improvements which don't get the headlines, but which I think really go to the substance of this hearing. If I might just add as an aside, nobody here is going to apologize for Federal employees that lie to Congress. Boom. And nobody's going to apologize for efforts to contact INS. But I want to compliment you for your rebuffs, with regard to the Citizenship USA program, however many problems there are in that program. But I would like you to comment on the management reforms that you are instituting. Perhaps you should be giving them more visibility, so that policymakers up here in Congress, your overseers, as this document starts out by noting, more understand the kind of management you are trying to bring to INS. At the same time, you are also managing an incredible ramp-up of a 141 percent increase in your budget? Ms. Meissner. Well, thank you. Of course, I would be happy to comment on those matters, because they are what preoccupy me and the leadership team at INS most of the time. They are what we are committed to achieving. That is, a basic reform of an agency whose mission is crucial to the effective carrying out of the nation's immigration laws, a very important set of laws. That particular report was very reassuring. It is a report that we asked for. We asked NAPA to come in and look at our budget process and give us a report card on how we were doing, because reforming the budget process and creating fiscal accountability was one of the first efforts that we put into place. They've given us not only a good grade, in terms of the budget process, they've given us some very useful recommendations for the future. And we are in the process of implementing those recommendations. Now, the reference that they make in that report, to overall strategic planning, and to priorities management that flows from this strategic planning, is something that we have worked very hard to institute over the last three years. And it is going quite well. Basically, what we do is establish a set of what we call the Commissioner's priorities for the year. And we measure our managers and the results of what our offices are doing around the country against those priorities. They are numerical measures. They are carried out through a monitoring process that takes place on a monthly basis, but that is highlighted by a meeting that I have every quarter with all of the key field managers. During that quarterly meeting, we look at what is happening with the budget, vis-a-vis, what is happening with our overall performance priorities. The performance priorities are very straightforward things. They are a certain number of removals from the country. They are a certain number of asylum completions. Citizenship USA was one of the Commissioner's priorities last year, and continues to be this year. They are the hiring that has been required and has really been, as I always said, the first among equals, of the priorities we have. We have added seven thousand people to this agency in the last three years. That alone, would strain an organization, from the standpoint of recruiting, evaluating, equipping, deploying. And we've done it at the same time that we have entirely revamped the hiring process. We provided those people with the equipment and everything else that they need to operate effectively on the border, at the ports-of-entry, in asylum offices, and in our citizenship offices. Now, what we have learned is that we are doing quite well on the looking ahead and on the setting goals and timetables for our people, in terms of what they need to achieve on a day- to-day basis. What we have been lacking and what has been the source of some of the serious difficulties and setbacks that we've experienced, is the lack of an internal set of checks and balances that allow us to really go underneath and determine what is happening procedurally---- Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman. Ms. Meissner [continuing]. In each of our offices. REquest from Mr. Taylor Mr. Taylor. Excuse me, but, with all due respect we're into the hearing an hour and a half and I have two questions for the Attorney General. Would it be possible to receive this answer in writing? I don't mean to curtail your questions, but some Members unfortuntely have other hearings we need to chair and we would like to ask some questions. Mr. Mollohan. If my line of questioning is going to be cut off--Mr. Taylor---- Mr. Taylor. Your line of questioning---- Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me. I reclaim my time. Mr. Taylor. Well, the long response---- Mr. Mollohan. And I reclaim my time. I invited a long response. If my line of questioning is going to be cut off, it'll be cut off by the Chairman. And thank you. The time I had allotted, I'll control exactly the way I want to control it. Mr. Rogers. The Gentleman has the time. INS Management Reform Mr. Mollohan. Commissioner Meissner, because the real issue here is management and management reform. And perhaps it would be to the benefit of all of us, Mr. Taylor, to understand precisely what that's about. In addition to understanding the anomalies and the problems that INS is facing in management---- Mr. Taylor. Would the Gentleman yield? Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. To this--no, I will not yield. And I'll be pleased to sit here respectfully and patiently when you have your time. Continue, Ms. Meissner. Ms. Meissner. Well, let me just complete with the checks and balance question, because it is not only terribly important for INS, it is very relevant to the issues that are on the table today. We have not had the internal checks and balances that we need. We had a mechanism to follow whether procedures are being carried out properly within the agency. That capability was removed from the INS in the early nineties, with the creation of the Inspector General function at the Justice Department. That ability and the staff and the office, to do work like that, was relocated from the Immigration Service. For two years, we have been trying to rebuild that program. We have now come forward with an effort that is called INSPECT, which gives us an internal inspections capability, that required a reprogramming, which has just been approved. Again, I want to thank this Committee for supporting that effort. We are in the process now, of a very aggressive program, whereby every one of our offices will be checked on either, a two or three year cycle, as to their compliance with agency procedures and instructions across the board. This is the next piece, I believe, in management reform, that is substantial vis-a-vis some of the other items that are pointed out in that report. NEXUS BETWEEN HEADQUARTERS AND FIELD OPERATIONS Mr. Mollohan. A couple of points have been noted, specific problems you're having in your management organization. And I think it essentially has to do with the nexus between headquarters and field operations. I note in this report, it talks about credible evaluation capacity and it also recommends that you address the field management issue. Could you speak to those two issues and tell how that is impacting your ability to manage this agency? Ms. Meissner. We have had some difficulties with internal communication. That is a challenge for any large organization. It is a particular challenge in the Immigration Service, with the complexity of our mission and the far-flung nature of our work. However, there are steps that we need to take to more aggressively create the kind of two-way dialogue within the organization that is a characteristic of a healthy organization. We are, right now, reviewing our organizational structure, from the standpoint of structural changes that could improve those processes, as well as from the standpoint of the kind of personnel mix and additional processes that we need to overcome some of those difficulties. We'll be coming forward with some recommendations in the next month to six weeks. Mr. Mollohan. Well, even prior to that, have you identified field management as a problem area? Ms. Meissner. What do you mean when you say field management? Mr. Mollohan. I mean your field management. Ms. Meissner. Our overall field management, we have---- Mr. Mollohan. And have you taken any actions with regard to that---- Ms. Meissner. We have a lot of change going on in the Immigration Service. And we have a lot of old habits that need to be abandoned. And we have new habits that need to be installed. And some of that goes with personnel and with particular personalities. We have made a lot of personnel changes. Mr. Mollohan. Have you made any personnel changes in your field organization recently? Ms. Meissner. That's an ongoing matter. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Ms. Meissner. And I would be happy to provide some information on that. [The information follows:] Immigration and Naturalization Service Personnel Changes in Field Organizations The following is a listing of all District Directors, Chief Patrol Agents, Asylum Office Directors, and Service Center Directors appointed since October 1, 1996: District Director Currently, the positions of District Director, St. Paul, MN, and Boston, MA, are under recruitment. Selections have been made for the positions of District Director, Chicago, IL, and Newark, NJ. The individuals selected for those positions are currently acting in that capacity. Chief Patrol Agent Currently, the position of Chief Patrol Agent, Marfa, TX, is under recruitment. Asylum Office Director Selections have been made for the positions of Supervisory Asylum Officer in the New York, NY, and San Francisco, CA, Asylum Offices. The individuals selected were to enter on duty on March 16, 1997. Currently, the positions of Supervisory Asylum Officer in Arlington, VA, and Newark, NJ, are under recruitment. Service Center Director A selection was made for Service Center Director at the California Service Center. That individual entered on duty on October 24, 1996. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. All right. Mr. Rogers. If the Gentleman would yield briefly, I would point out that we will have the INS back up for a detailed hearing at another time. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to respond to some of the questioning that you're using. Mr. Rogers. I see. Your time. 1988 BUDGET REQUEST Mr. Mollohan. I understand that she's going to be back up. And I think she has to have an opportunity to speak to some of it. But let me go to the Attorney General. Attorney General, you did not--you chose not to make an opening statement. I'd like for you to summarize, for this Committee, the Justice Department's budget request and what your accomplishments have been this year and what you're going to--what new programs you might be requesting of this Committee. Attorney General Reno. For fiscal year 1998, we are seeking a budget that totals $19.3 billion, an $800 million or 4.9 percent increase in discretionary funding over 1997. During these times of continued fiscal restraint and reducing Federal spending, our fiscal year 1998 request demonstrates our resolve to escalate the fight against drugs, youth violence, terrorism and illegal immigration. I would like to address one of the points though, because the Chairman and I had spent an awful lot of time together in these last four years, addressing the issues of concern. I'm very sensitive to the management issues, whether it be with respect to the FBI, INS or any other component of the Department of Justice. We have developed, with the components, objectives, measurements. And we regularly meet with them where there are concerns, to identify what is happening in achieving those objectives. I'm told, by career people who've been in the Department for some time, that this is the first time, in over 20 years, that they've ever seen anything like this. And we're constantly trying to see what we can do to identify problems before they really develop, and take effective action to develop the most effective Department possible. I look forward to working with members of the Committee, in developing this initiative and sharing, on a continuing basis, our findings. We have on, for example, IAFIS and NCIC 2000, concerns the Chairman has had for some time, tried to keep staff advised of developments and what we were doing. I will continue with this close management oversight, to ensure that the resources that you've provided are properly used, and that intended results are achieved. The budget I present today builds on a commitment made consistently by this Committee over the past four years, to strengthen our fight against crime, particular crimes of violence. What this Committee has done over the last four years, I think, merits a lot of the credit for a decline in the crime rate for five years running, across this country. And for the first time last year, a decline in youth violence, arrest rates, which I think are significant. But I don't want that to be a blip on the screen. And neither does the President. And for that reason, we are committed to an initiative that will provide $200 million for prosecutors to focus on gang prosecution and the elimination of gangs within the communities. We would increase amounts for children at risk and for programs for children at risk, truancy prevention programs, intervention programs, court programs, from $25 million to $75 million. And we would provide monies of $50 million for courts across the country to develop special programs aimed at youth violence. We have worked with the State Chief Justices Conference and a number of initiatives and find that the courts are anxious to pursue these areas, particularly as they have been overwhelmed. Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you, Madam Attorney General, are you suggesting, anywhere in your testimony here today, a refocus of resources in a particular direction? Attorney General Reno. Just a continuing effort in terms of violence against women, the COPS program, those programs that have been proven successful. We need to continue our efforts to be able to provide for the increasing inmate population. In our efforts on the southwest border, what we're trying to do is to build on the successes that we have had with this Committee's support and help in the last four years. But the particular focus is a continuation of our efforts focused on youth violence. We have seen programs that work in communities across this nation. Police chiefs, sheriffs, tell us that this is where we must focus our resources. And that is the basis for our requests. INS MANAGEMENT CONCERNS Mr. Mollohan. You've heard the testimony and concerns expressed about INS management and the systemic concerns associated with that. This National Academy of Public Administration report that I referenced earlier, and quoted from, deals primarily with budgeting for the agency. It notes the organizational problems and it comments on the long-standing nature of them. I assume that you have had an opportunity to look at theses management challenges. And it just occurs to me that if we had an outside independent nonpartisan look at exactly what management changes INS ought to be implementing, if they are the ones that Commissioner Meissner is implementing, fine. If there are any additional suggestions, that would be very helpful. And I'm wondering what your comment on that might be, having an independent look at this situation, and perhaps the Congress, as it has been very helpful in providing additional resources to INS, to perform its mission. We might be refocused and be helpful with regard to the administration challenges that are certainly historically apparent, and that could perhaps need addressing even today. Attorney General Reno. We would welcome any such review. I think it is always extraordinarily helpful for an organization to have a review of that nature, have somebody with an independent, objective perspective review the issue. And we would be happy to work with the Committee in that regard. I would also point out, that as the Department has grown so dramatically, the capacity to develop the checks and balances, to the Inspector General's office, has not grown concurrently. And we've tried to patch and in different ways, we've asked for transfers to the Inspector General's office, for funding, so that we could pursue the development of checks and balances, audits and reviews. And I would look forward to working with the Committee, with Committee staff, in continuing to design these initiatives, such as INSPECT, such as internal procedures that can address the concerns as well. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Reno. CHECKING FOR CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Before yielding to Mr. Latham, let me quickly ask Commissioner Meissner, I believe you said something to the effect that internal procedures need to be revamped. Are you referring to the fact that, at some point in time last year, you stopped checking criminal records for illegal immigrants who had made application for naturalization? Ms. Meissner. Illegal immigrants are not eligible to naturalize. Mr. Rogers. Well, immigrants; applicants for naturalization? Ms. Meissner. Applicants for naturalization? Mr. Rogers. Did you stop checking criminal records? Ms. Meissner. We did not stop checking criminal records. It is a requirement that a fingerprint card be submitted for all naturalization applicants. That fingerprint card is checked by the FBI and an answer, where there is a criminal record, comes to the Immigration Service. Now, there have been some deficiencies in that process. And Mr. Chairman, you may have been making reference to 1994, at the time there was a decline in the Exams fee account. And I believe they stopped briefly. But that was immediately reinstituted. Mr. Rogers. Let me see if I can reconstruct this and tell me if this is accurate. Ms. Meissner. Okay. Mr. Rogers. The policy was to seek the FBI fingerprint check. Ms. Meissner. Right. Mr. Rogers. And you did that. But during the year, the FBI was becoming flooded with the volume being sent. And they could not respond on the fingerprint check in the time frame that you wanted. So, at some point in time, you stopped checking and you went ahead with the processing of the naturalization application. Now, that's my understanding---- Ms. Meissner. Okay. Let me try to---- Mr. Rogers. Is that accurate or not? Ms. Meissner. That is not quite accurate. Let me try to succinctly---- Mr. Rogers. Briefly. Ms. Meissner. I will try. The policy, since 1982, which we continued, has been to send a fingerprint card to the FBI. The FBI processes the card within 60 days. We hold the file for 60 days. If we do not receive a response after 60 days, we go forward. That had been the policy. That is no longer the policy. But that is the policy that we have learned was insufficient. Mr. Rogers. Well, at any point in time, in 1996, was INS informed by the FBI, that a criminal record check may not be completed in that time frame? Ms. Meissner. No. What occurred is that we began in the summer of 1996, to receive some criminal records on people that had already been naturalized. In other words, the 60-day period, during which we held the file, waiting for an FBI response, had elapsed; we had not heard anything. Mr. Rogers. And you went ahead and naturalized---- Ms. Meissner. And we then went ahead, which as I say, had been the policy since 1982. When we began to receive criminal records under those circumstances, we re-examined the policy, and in September, shifted to a 120-day period to wait for the FBI to respond. Mr. Rogers. Why did you change? Ms. Meissner. We changed because we realized that the 60- day period was not catching everybody. It was not enough time for all of the cases. So, we doubled the amount of time. Mr. Rogers. Let me see if I've got this straight. At some point in time in 1996, when it became apparent the FBI was not going to be able to get you the fingerprint checks in the 60- day policy time frame that you'd always worked under, you decided to go ahead and naturalize, even though they had not responded, after the 60-day waiting period? Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. Then, you later began to learn, when the FBI got back with you, that in fact, some of these people that you had naturalized, were in fact, criminals? Commissioner Meissner. Well, they had a criminal record. That doesn't mean they were criminals, but had a record. Mr. Rogers. All right. So, you then changed your policy to 120 days. Ms. Meissner. That's correct. NUMBERS OF DELAYED RECORDS CHECKS Mr. Rogers. This would give the FBI time to catch up. Now, how many people were naturalized out of the 1.1 million who did not have a proper criminal records check? Ms. Meissner. We do not yet know the answer to that question. That is the subject of the audit of all of thework that we did in 1996, so that we can be absolutely sure that it was done properly, or where it might not have been done properly, that naturalization can be revoked. Mr. Rogers. Well, maybe the Attorney General knows the number; or Assistant Attorney General Colgate. Attorney General Reno. Seventy-one thousand rap sheets have been identified as having FBI records; 34,700 individuals have been arrested only for administrative violations; 20,500 individuals have been arrested for at least one misdemeanor, but no felonies, 10,800 individuals have been arrested for at least one felony. Mr. Rogers. And how many were not checked? Attorney General Reno. 113,126 persons have not had definitive criminal history checks conducted, because their fingerprint cards were rejected by the FBI; and 2,573 persons, whose records checks are still being processed by the FBI at the time that this data was produced; and finally, 55,398 persons, we cannot determine whether or not FBI record checks were ever conducted. Mr. Rogers. So, when we rushed to naturalize these applicants, because you did so without the criminal records check, you must have known that you were going to naturalize some criminals. Ms. Meissner. Had we known that, Mr. Chairman, we would not---- Mr. Rogers. Well, you must have known that. Ms. Meissner. We would not have proceeded. We did not know that. Mr. Rogers. Well, how could you not know it? If you were naturalizing 1.1 million, you'd have to know that you were going to get some criminals in the crowd, wouldn't you? Ms. Meissner. No, not unless you receive a record back from the FBI. See, the failing is---- Mr. Rogers. Wait. Ms. Meissner. And this has now been corrected, what we did then, in November was require a 100 percent response from the FBI. In other words, we get an answer for every case. Prior to that, we got an answer only when there was a record. The presumption was, based on the FBI's processing estimates, the presumption was that if there was a record, it would be identified in 60 days and returned to us. If we did not hear anything, we assumed there was no record. That is the system that we had been operating under. Mr. Rogers. But the system doesn't work, because today, we've got at least 10,000 felons on the streets of our country, thanks to your incompetence. Ms. Meissner. We agree that system did not work. That is why we changed the system. However, there are not 10,000 felons on the streets. There are 10,000 cases that might have disqualifying arrests that we are reviewing. Just because somebody had an arrest, does not disqualify them from naturalization. So, all of those cases are being individually reviewed, to be absolutely certain. And when we have the answer, we will revoke the citizenship on those that were improperly decided. Mr. Rogers. If you can find them. Ms. Meissner. Yes. They will be findable. We have the biographic information on them. Mr. Rogers. Well, before I yield to Mr. Latham, let me just say, the policies that you had in effect, that were changed during the course of the year, as you tried to meet this million-plus goal by Election Day, waived all normal standard common sense procedures to check these people for criminal records. You waived that in order to get them naturalized so they could vote in the election. And I find that reprehensible. Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, I must dispute that assertion. That is not what occurred. We, at every step along the way, strengthened the procedures where fingerprints were concerned. We were strengthening a system, as I say, that had been functioning since 1982. Mr. Rogers. You naturalized them without even hearing from the FBI. Ms. Meissner. Based on the method that we were using at that time, and until we began to see criminal records returned after the 60 days, we did not realize it was a system vulnerability. That, in retrospect, clearly, is something we wish we had foreseen. Mr. Rogers. The GAO and the Inspector General told you in 1994 that it was a problem. Ms. Meissner. That is correct. And we took---- Mr. Rogers. They told you three years ago. Ms. Meissner. A series of steps were put into place, between 1994 and 1996, to strengthen it. The whole difficulty is that we did not have a 100-percent reply policy. We now do, because the fixes that we made clearly were insufficient to the infrastructure and to the caseload that we're dealing with today. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. attorney general's responsibility Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, I haven't had a chance to meet you before, but my impression of you has always been that you've been the one person in the Administration that is very independent, very tough. And I have to tell you today, I'm deeply disappointed. You know, you talked earlier and said, ``the buck stops here.'' And then, when we talk about the problems, your first response is to pass the buck on to problems that were here before you, just passing the buck again. Attorney General Reno. No, sir. I didn't do that. I described what I inherited and then described what steps we were taking. You might not have heard me, but what I indicated to the Committee was, and you might not have gotten here yet-- -- Mr. Latham. No, I was here. Attorney General Reno. Okay. We don't pass the buck, sir. We take steps to do whatever we can to fix problems and identify systemic problems. So, I can assure you that I accept responsibility, sir. independent counsel Mr. Latham. I have a question about the special counsel situation. You talked about a trigger earlier. Attorney General Reno. Talked about what? Mr. Latham. A trigger, as to what triggers the special counsel. Attorney General Reno. A trigger. Mr. Latham. I was here for that. What is it exactly? Would you explain that procedure? What actually---- Attorney General Reno. The statute provides that there must be specific and credible evidence involving acovered person or person with whom I would have conflict. Mr. Latham. And a known violation of law, obviously, would be a conflict. Is it---- Attorney General Reno. I'm not sure I understand your statement. Mr. Latham. Well, there has to be something broken some place to have an investigation, or at least the charge that there is something broken. Attorney General Reno. There has to be specific and credible evidence, not just the charge, sir. soliciting funds on government property Mr. Latham. Is it legal to solicit funds on government property? Attorney General Reno. Sir, the matter is under investigation now, so---- Mr. Latham. I'm not asking about the investigation. Attorney General Reno. I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Latham. I'm not asking about the investigation. I'm asking about a point of---- Attorney General Reno. I'm sorry, sir. I cannot answer it because the---- Mr. Latham. A point of law. Attorney General Reno. I cannot answer it, sir, because that matter is under investigation now, by the Department of Justice. Mr. Latham. Is there not a statute on the books, that prohibits---- Aty. General Reno. But let me explain to you that there has always been---- Mr. Latham. No, I am asking just a simple question, and you're---- Attorney General Reno. Let me explain to you that there has always been---- Mr. Latham. No, I am just asking a simple question, and you're---- Attorney General Reno. Let me explain to you what has always been my policy, that I take the evidence and the law, research it and make the appropriate judgment. It is inappropriate for me to comment about a pending investigation. It is very---- Mr. Latham. I'm not asking about a pending investigation. I'm asking about a point involving---- Attorney General Reno. Sir, the whole matter today, based on the Chairman's state---- Mr. Rogers. The Gentleman has the time. The question is, is it illegal to solicit funds on government property? Attorney General Reno. And I will not answer the question, sir, because it is a matter relating to a pending investigation to which you and other members of the Committee have made statements. I just---- Mr. Rogers. The Gentleman is not asking about an investigation. He's asking whether or not there is a statute that prohibits fundraising on governmental property. It's not related to anything. Attorney General Reno. I'll be happy to provide you with whatever statute is appropriate, sir. Mr. Rogers. You're saying you do not know? Attorney General Reno. I'm not going to comment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Latham. And the basis for not commenting is that there is a case pending? Attorney General Reno. That is correct. Mr. Latham. Is it illegal to speed? Attorney General Reno. Sir---- Mr. Latham. I mean, there are cases pending. Attorney General Reno. It depends. Mr. Latham. It's just the same---- Attorney General Reno. When I conduct an investigation, I don't do it in a congressional hearing room. I try to conduct it in a professional way. Mr. Latham. I'm not asking specifically about any case. I'm saying, as a point of law. Attorney General Reno. Well then, let me explain to you, that if you ask me that question and I answer it, it's going to be taken in the context of a major investigation that I had been questioned about today. And as I had indicated, on numerous occasions in the past, that is wrong for me to comment, until the matter is concluded. Mr. Latham. I just have to tell you, while I haven't been here that long, and I'm not a lawyer, I can tell you that when I first came here, the first thing that was told to me and emphasized over and over and over again, is that it is illegal to solicit money on government property. And when someone even mentions that, and I'm on government property, I say, I can't talk about that. I don't do that here. I know it's wrong; the American people know it's wrong. And you won't even answer a question, a simple question. And again, I'm very disappointed today. Attorney General Reno. I'm sorry you are, sir. Mr. Latham. Well, I think a lot of people are, but---- Attorney General Reno. And I think most people will understand that we're trying to do this the right way, and that we're going to comply with the law, based on the evidence in the law. And we're going to make every effort to do that, sir. Mr. Latham. And as you're probably well aware, there seems to be systematic amnesia of the things that have not been straightforward, answers to direct questions for years now. And I think the American people are fine in saying there is something certainly wrong here. And the problem is, there are a lot of people who are very honest, very straightforward, who don't engage in these type of practices, who are being cast and painted with the same brush. And I think that's extraordinarily unfortunate. I really do. Attorney General Reno. I decide them based on the evidence and the law. And I'm going to continue to do that, sir. Mr. Latham. It's very difficult when people--and I'm not referring to you necessarily, become very evasive. Attorney General Reno. I'm not being evasive, sir. I'm just telling you why I can't answer the question. contract with local law enforcement Mr. Latham. Okay. Ms. Meissner, and I'll be brief here. I had an amendment last year, in the immigration bill, that would allow the Department of Justice to contract with local law enforcement. Can you tell me if you're familiar with it? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Latham. And are the rules being written? Ms. Meissner. The rules are being written. We have a draft regulation that is circulating internally. We have a draft memorandum of understanding that is circulating. It has not yet come to me. But it is proceeding on pace, in terms of the entire regulatory fabric of the new bill that we are working on. Mr. Latham. You don't have a timetable or anything, at this point? Ms. Meissner. I don't, but I would be happy to get back to you with a timetable. Mr. Latham. I appreciate that. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The information follows:] Immigration and Naturalization Service Timetable for Actions Taken Regarding Last Year's Amendment in the Immigration Bill that Would Allow the Department of Justice to Enter Into Agreements With State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Sections 133, 372, and 373 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 permit the Attorney General to enter into agreements with States, any political subdivision of a State, and with local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of authorizing their assistance in enforcing the immigration laws. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has developed a draft regulation reflecting the Attorney General's authority in this regard, as well as a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be utilized in implementing this regulatory provision. Both documents are presently under executive level review within the INS, prior to being finalized. Based on past regulatory activities of the INS, it is anticipated that publication, public comment, appropriate revision, and eventual promulgation of this regulation will take about nine months with a final rule in effect by December 1997. The MOU is more general in nature and provides a suggested parameter for the parties to utilize in their implementation discussions. Accordingly, it is not entirely dependent on the specific content of the final regulation. However, the INS will not be in a position to fully utilize the MOU until the regulation becomes final. Because of the sensitivity and complexity of the relationships and authorities involved, it is anticipated that after the regulation becomes final, it would take at least six months to negotiate the first MOU on this subject. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon. comment on pending matters Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome both of you ladies to the Committee. I for one, have admired the position that the Attorney General has taken, and it certainly has worked for Commissioner Meissner on several issues. Madam Attorney General, I would give you any part of my time, uninterrupted, to make any statement on the issues that Mr. Latham has brought forward here. Attorney General Reno. As I told him, I can't comment on a pending matter, sir. Mr. Dixon. Right. Attorney General Reno. And I thank you for that opportunity. fbi fingerprint checks Mr. Dixon. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Commissioner, let me back up, because I think the facts have come out in bits and pieces. For instance, you indicated that the policy had been to apply to the FBI for fingerprint check. And then, if you did not hear back in 60 days, there was a presumption that the person had no criminal record. Ms. Meissner. That is correct. Mr. Dixon. And did you implement that policy? How far back does that policy go? Ms. Meissner. That policy began in 1982. It had been used by the agency for 15 years. Mr. Dixon. And then, when you took over the responsibilities at the INS, you implemented a new program. Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Dixon. And that program was called Citizenship USA. Ms. Meissner. That's right. Mr. Dixon. Did the FBI ever tell you that 60 days would not be sufficient in the future, after reviewing what your program would be? Ms. Meissner. The FBI had, through long-standing interaction, depended on the 60-day time frame. In other words, the percentages of workload that the FBI is able to complete within 60 days, is in the high 90 percentiles. And so, we have a level of confidence that that was adequate. It has turned out to have been inadequate. But at the time, it seemed sufficient. We were, as the Chairman mentioned, in receipt of an Inspector General report, in 1994, that asked for particular strengthening in the fingerprint process. We were aware that there were weaknesses. We were taking steps to adjust and to strengthen the procedures. We did not appreciate, at that time the need for a 100-percent verification. policy on fingerprint checks Mr. Dixon. Well, that's what I was trying to get to Commissioner. It would appear to me, that the report of the Inspector General is at odds with what the policy was. For instance, it says here, that the INS could not know whether fingerprints it sent to the FBI actually belonged to the applicant. Secondly, it says INS approved applications without knowing if the applicants had criminal histories, because INS did not wait for a report from the FBI. Now, what I heard you say was, that in 1994, when this report that I'm referring to was issued, you didn't wait for a response from the FBI. The absence of a report indicated a clean record. All I'm asking is that, it seems that you and the Inspector General are on a different page. And I would think that this would clearly point that out. Am I correct? You were not waiting for a report from the FBI. If you got a report back, you pulled that applicant? Ms. Meissner. The policy was to wait for 60 days, which was the FBI's own standard of what period they believe they needed in order to process fingerprints adequately. The difficulty is that it was an exception. It was basically managing by exception, rather than having a 100- percent assurance. And it's that 100-percent assurance that we clearly needed to have and have now instituted. Mr. Dixon. Now, a criminal record in and of itself is not, as I understand it, a bar to taking citizenship? Ms. Meissner. That is correct. estimate of applicants with criminal records Mr. Dixon. Can you give us an estimate of how many people that came back with a criminal record, that you have already put into the system for citizenship, would have, in fact, been prohibited from taking citizenship? Large amount? Ms. Meissner. Well, at the present time, as the Attorney General said, of the 71,000 cases that did have a criminal record, 10,000 of those were felony crimes. Mr. Dixon. All right. Now, all felony crimes are not a bar to citizenship. Ms. Meissner. But all felony crimes are not a bar to participation. Mr. Dixon. Okay. So, let's focus in on the 10,000. Ms. Meissner. So then, you have to reduce from that 10,000 and we have not reviewed every one of those cases. Mr. Dixon. Have you done a random sampling? Ms. Meissner. No, we've reviewed more than 9,500 of those 10,000 cases. Mr. Dixon. So, you have reviewed all but about 500? Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Dixon. Okay. Now of that group, how many would have been prohibited from taking citizens? Ms. Meissner. One hundred sixty-eight that were improperly decided, we believe. Mr. Dixon. So, of the 180,000, is that the number that---- Ms. Meissner. One hundred eighty thousand is another category of people. What I'm telling you, in what we just talked about, has to do with---- Mr. Dixon. I guess I'm working off of the newspaper's number. The newspaper says that 180,000 people, slipped through the cracks, without the check. Ms. Meissner. Right. The 180,000 is the number that we cannot verify. Mr. Dixon. Okay. Well, let's use the biggest number possible. Ms. Meissner. Okay. You can use 180,000. Mr. Dixon. Okay, 180,000. There are actually, as far as you know, about 168 that would have been barred from---- Ms. Meissner. No, those two numbers are not connected. And you just set aside what I said. If we now go to the 180,000, the 180,000 is made up of 113,000, who have had a name check. That is a threshold check, but it is not a full fingerprint check. The reason they have had a name check is because their fingerprint cards were rejected. They were unclassifiable for one reason or another. So, as far as we have been able to go with them is a name check. From that name check, we have some level of confidence that they are not criminals. But that is not a 100-percent level of confidence. The 113,000 is added to by 66,000, which brings you roughly, to 180,000. That 66,000 is the group that we cannot account for at this point. In other words, those are fingerprints that were either not submitted or they were submitted. And there are data inaccuracies in the FBI's billing records that we have been using as our audit trail here. It is that group, that 66,000, that we are working with most intensively right now, from the standpoint of trying to determine whether they were properly checked. Mr. Dixon. You completely lost me with all the figures. But---- Ms. Meissner. I'm sorry. Mr. Dixon. What I am trying to establish in my own mind, is whether those would have been barred, not withstanding what happened. Was it small or was it a gigantic figure? That's what I'm asking. As I understand what you're saying is, out of the 10,000 that had criminal records, that you've checked, that 170 odd would have been prohibited from taking citizenship, and there are an additional 66,000 that you don't know about, because they're in the process of having their criminal records checked. Is that correct? Ms. Meissner. That is a fair summary. But I must say that I also don't want to, in any way, reach any conclusions here on this. I know that the Attorney General does not want to reach any conclusions here. Mr. Dixon. Why? Ms. Meissner. Because we are in the process of doing this audit. voting in elections by new citizens Mr. Dixon. But we do know, that of the 10,000, approximately 9,500 were checked and approximately 170 would have been prohibited from taking citizenship? Ms. Meissner. That is our best information at this time. Mr. Dixon. Now, let me ask you just one other question, and then, I'll yield, Mr. Chairman. It's been my experience, in California, that people who are applying for citizenship, one of the things that they are anxious to do is vote in elections. Ms. Meissner. I don't ask or have any basis for knowing what the motives of people are, who apply for citizenship. I know what our caseload is and I know how it has grown and I know what the public events are that seem to be connected to that. That's as far as I would like to go. Mr. Dixon. You don't get more phone calls in an election year, about where appliants are on the ladder of becoming a citizen? It doesn't increase in an election year? Ms. Meissner. We have no system for tracking that. It's not a question that we would ask or an issue in which we would be interested. Voter registration and voting is not my responsibility. It's the responsibility of States and State registrars. Mr. Dixon. So, the fact that it was an election year, and that this process was enhanced has no significance to you? Ms. Meissner. In our caseload, when we look at our caseload, we see it has a direct---- Mr. Dixon. That's the allegation here. The paper and others here are saying that you, in fact, accelerated this process, because an election was coming along. Ms. Meissner. That is not true. We did not accelerate the process. We handled it in the way that it should have been handled all these many years, which is within six months, because that is a reasonable time period in which to make a decision. That was not being done by the Immigration Service for a long time. It should be done. People have a right to have their case decided. They have a right to become a citizen. When they become a citizen, the Government has a responsibility to satisfy itself that the requirements have been met. But the work should be done. We did our work. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm very proud of your statement. 60-day fbi fingerprint check Mr. Rogers. Before yielding to Mr. Kolbe, now what's your policy, this moment, on the 60-day FBI fingerprint check? Ms. Meissner. At this moment and as of November 29th, 1996, the policy is that all files are held until there is a response, either yes or no, from the FBI, regarding the existence of a criminal history. Mr. Rogers. Regardless of the 60-day? Ms. Meissner. The 60 days is history. reason for abandoning 60-day policy Mr. Rogers. Why did you abandon the 60-day policy? Ms. Meissner. Why did we abandon it? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Meissner. We abandoned it because it became clear, in looking at the matching of records, that it was not reliable. If we all had been able to foresee or had a crystal ball a year or two ago, and realized the weaknesses, we would have abandoned it earlier. We knew that it was a system that had weaknesses, but we were making a series of improvements in the ways in which we were handling the fingerprints. We finally realized we had to simply abandon it. Mr. Rogers. It's a simple question that requires a simple answer. We've always had the 60-day waiting period for the FBI to check fingerprints and see if they're criminals. We always had that. And yet, somewhere in 1996, and you were under pressure to speed this program along, somebody decided to change the 60-day policy and extend it to 120 days. Was that your decision? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Yes, that was. Mr. Rogers. And when was that? Ms. Meissner. It was changed in September. Mr. Rogers. Why did you do that? Ms. Meissner. Because in July and August, our field offices reported to us that they were beginning to receive criminal history records from the FBI, after the 60 days. Mr. Rogers. No, my question is, why did you go ahead and naturalize people at the end of 60 days, even though the FBI had not reported? Ms. Meissner. Because the procedure was if they did not answer us within 60 days, we assumed that there was no criminal history, record. Our experience over 15 years was, that we received the criminal history within 60 days. If we heard nothing, it was okay. That was the working arrangement with the FBI. Mr. Rogers. But the GAO told you, in 1994 that, that was a very serious problem. Ms. Meissner. That is correct. They pointed that out as a problem. It was a problem that we were correcting, from the standpoint of centralizing our capability to send records, and centralizing our capability to receive rap sheets back. We didn't have, nor did the FBI have the capability to do a 100-percent verification. We have now created that capability. reports from field offices regarding the receipt of criminal records Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, General Reno, Ms. Meissner. I just want to follow up on a couple of those questions. I'm not sure I understand. What is it that you believe caused this--had this been a practice that was going on all along? Why did you suddenly get--with these reports from the field office--that there were criminal records coming back if there wasn't a sudden surge in the Immigration Naturalization process that caused the FBI to be unable to meet the 60-day requirement? Or was there something else internally in the FBI, that caused this to happen? You follow what I'm saying? I mean, why---- Ms. Meissner. We believe that the reason we began to receive responses later than the 60 days, was because finally this summer, we became timely. Mr. Kolbe. You were processing more of them more rapidly. Ms. Meissner. We were processing them within the six-month period. We had increased our volume by at least double. That put a strain on the infrastructure that it was not capable of handling. Mr. Kolbe. I'm sorry. You increased what volume by double? Ms. Meissner. Well, the number of applicants that had filed whose cases we were adjudicating, had doubled from the prior year. Mr. Kolbe. And the fact that you were able to process double the number, in a timely fashion, you hadn't been able to do that before. If you'd had a doubling before, you wouldn't have been able to process it in a timely fashion, would you have? And then, you wouldn't have run into the 60-day problem. Ms. Meissner. That's right. Mr. Kolbe. I mean, if you'd been pushing the same number through the system, you wouldn't have run into this. So, we pushed a large number through the system. How were you able to accomplish that? Ms. Meissner. We accomplished that by substantially increasing our processing capacity. We opened nine new offices. We hired 900 additional employees through reprogrammings and funding that this Committee reviewed and approved. We added a great deal of automated support to our district offices, as well as our processing centers that handle these applications. In other words, we increased our capacity commensurate with the caseload that we had begun to receive. It was skyrocketing. Mr. Kolbe. And when did this begin, this speedup, this added capacity to process these? When did this begin? Ms. Meissner. Well again, I want to be sure that it's understood, that the speeding up was purely a matter of handling the applications timely. It would have been in March of 1995. It was in response to what, by that time, in fiscal year 1995, was becoming double the number of receipts that we had gotten, the number of cases that had been filed the prior year. Mr. Kolbe. March of 1995? Ms. Meissner. March of 1995. legal immigration Mr. Kolbe. In March of 1996, your press operation issued a press release saying, legal immigration had dropped by 10 percent. Ms. Meissner. That's quite separate from the naturalization process. Mr. Kolbe. It is? Ms. Meissner. Well---- Mr. Kolbe. Immigration and naturalization don't go kind of hand in hand? Ms. Meissner. The legal immigration numbers referred to, by and large, referred to people who legally immigrate. In other words, people who have become permanent residents.Once a permanent resident is here for five years, he becomes eligible to be naturalized. reduction in illegal immigration Mr. Kolbe. Your press materials quoted you as saying that your approach to reducing illegal immigration was working. Ms. Meissner. Well, people who have become naturalized citizens, can petition for certain family members, spouses and children, without being subject to numerical limits. And so, it is true that your legal immigration levels are somewhat affected by your naturalization levels. But that was not related to increasing capacity to handle naturalization applicants. voter registration Mr. Kolbe. Well, you said earlier, in response to another question, that voting is not your responsibility. But I believe you do track, since you do registration, I've participated in many of these seminars. They're wonderful ceremonies. And there's always registrars right there at the election. Do you not survey, to see how many register to vote? Ms. Meissner. Absolutely not. These are citizens. Once people are citizens---- Mr. Kolbe. I understand that. Ms. Meissner. They are not under our authority. Mr. Kolbe. I understand that, but I mean, it's' a common thing to do. For example, motor voter, to test how many are registering when they get their licenses, and track that number to see whether this is working or whether people are registering at this office. There's no---- Ms. Meissner. We may accept---- Mr. Kolbe. No survey of any sort? Ms. Meissner. None. Traditionally judges, because traditionally naturalization has been done by the Judiciary, by Federal judges, in courthouses and so forth. Some naturalization now, because the law changed, we do administratively. But by and large, they are done by judges. The naturalization ceremony setting is one where traditionally, organizations like the DAR and the League of Women Voters and so forth, have come to offer registration to the new applicants. The Immigration Service is not involved in that. We are at the naturalization ceremony, in order to recommend to the judge who the new citizens are. The matter of voter registration taking place after the ceremonies is something that does not involve INS personnel. Mr. Kolbe. Does the naturalization form contain any information, or any of the materials you've given, contain any information about registering to vote? Ms. Meissner. No. Mr. Kolbe. Are you planning to do that, to change the form? Ms. Meissner. No, the form has nothing on it about voting. Mr. Kolbe. Is there any plan, to include in the materials, voter registration? Ms. Meissner. At naturalization ceremonies, either registrars or legal voter registration personnel or whatever, will put voter packets or voter information on the seats, of people who are at the ceremony. But again, that is the community. That is local registrars. That is not the Immigration Service that does that. Mr. Kolbe. There is not on the form, or any plan to put on the form, a box to check or something to check, do you plan to register to vote? Ms. Meissner. Absolutely not. revocation of citizenship Mr. Kolbe. Just wanted to ask. General Reno, how many cases have you actually so far, proceeded to revoke citizenship, based on the late data which came in from the FBI fingerprints check? Attorney General Reno. I have just gotten that data. So, I do not know whether revocation proceedings have been commenced or not, I just received the data. Mr. Kolbe. Received which data? Attorney General Reno. The data with respect to the---- Mr. Kolbe. Numbers? Attorney General Reno. Yes. Mr. Kolbe. That you gave us, but you don't know whether any, since November, or since July, when these first reports started to come in, whether a single revocation has begun at this point? Attorney General Reno. No, I don't. Be happy to---- Mr. Kolbe. I have the list. Ms. Meissner. We can provide that to the Committee. [The information follows:] Immigration and Naturalization Service Report on Number of Cases in Which the INS Has Proceeded to Revoke Citizenship The INS is in the process of conducting a full review of cases of persons with FBI records listing a felony arrest, who were naturalized between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996. If additional information confirms that there was a disqualifying conviction, INS will administratively revoke the citizenship of that person. The National Review Team at the Lincoln, Nebraska Service Center has not completed its review of naturalization cases and, therefore, does not have a final count that will require their naturalization to be revoked administratively at this time. 120-day policy Mr. Kolbe. Either one, provide that for the Committee. I think we should know whether there were actual proceedings to revoke registration, naturalization, citizenship. Ms. Meissner, you said that the field managed to solve the problem in July. You promulgated the change in September? But I think, it didn't actually go into the 120-day. You wrote the new policy in September, but it didn't go into effect until November. Is that right? Ms. Meissner. No. In September, we changed to 120 days. Mr. Kolbe. You gave November---- Ms. Meissner. In November, we completely changed the policy. In other words, in September, we realized that we needed to give the FBI more time to answer back. And so, we doubled the amount of time in which we would hold a file before proceeding we doubled it to 120 days. Mr. Kolbe. Written policy, in place, at that point---- Ms. Meissner. In September? Mr. Kolbe. Yes, in September, was that a written policy? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Kolbe. In November then---- Ms. Meissner. And in November, we changed the paradigm. In November, we said, no more presumption; no more waiting a period of time period. We're going to have a 100 percent answer. Mr. Kolbe. No more 60, 120, 180 or 1,200 days? Ms. Meissner. That's right. Mr. Kolbe. Until you get an answer back? Ms. Meissner. We are going to have an answer yes or no. And that's what's in place now. Mr. Kolbe. Why? Why not take from July to September to make first change, and from September to November to make second changes? When you get the reports back--if I had gotten two reports back, one report back saying, whoops, we slipped; and here is somebody who has a criminal record. I would have said, umph, something is wrong with this policy. Let's change that instantly. Ms. Meissner. Well, you have to first find out whether it's, in fact, a problem or whether it's an aberration of some kind. Frankly, I believe we turned around very quickly on this. Once we began to see that it wasn't working, we checked to see why. When it became quite clear that the procedure needed to be changed, we changed it. discussion with fbi regarding processing time for increased volume of fingerprint checks requested Mr. Kolbe. You described earlier your tremendous increase in resources to process these people more rapidly, that you opened new centers, that this Committee reprogrammed some money. You were going to reprocess the backlog a lot more rapidly on naturalization. Did you--did anyone on your staff have any conversation with the FBI, about whether they would be able to handle these things in a timely fashion, would they be able to get them back to you in a timely way? Or did you just do it without--or just totally forgotten that this was part of the process? Ms. Meissner. We were doing it more rapidly than we had been in the prior year. But we were doing it at the pace that we should have been doing it. Mr. Kolbe. That doesn't answer my question. This was faster than you had done it in the past. You were processing them at a---- Ms. Meissner. We were treating them timely. We were attempting to reduce a backlog and treat cases timely. Mr. Kolbe. You were processing--you were moving them through the process, I think you said, at about double the rate. And was there any conversation---- Ms. Meissner. No, we had doubled the caseload. Mr. Kolbe. Caseload. Ms. Meissner. Doubled the caseload, moving them through the process. Mr. Kolbe. But you told me that's because there were more moving through, that's why you suddenly ran into this, that the FBI wasn't able to meet the 120-day requirement. At least, you thought that was part of it. Ms. Meissner. We had doubled the caseload. So, it put a strain on a system that was not sufficiently initiated. Mr. Kolbe. Prior to doubling the load, prior to putting the strain, was there any conversation with the FBI, to alert them that you were going to be doing this, to try to avoid this problem? Ms. Meissner. I think it's fair to say that neither we nor the FBI sufficiently appreciated what this new caseload and the demands that it would put on the system's---- Mr. Kolbe. Well, the FBI couldn't anticipate. I mean, they didn't know what you were up to over there. You hadn't sent a memo saying, we're going to do this tremendous increase. That's my point. Ms. Meissner. Well, there is ongoing discussion. I mean, there is staff level discussion. Mr. Kolbe. Now. Ms. Meissner. No. Always has been. Mr. Kolbe. So, they were totally aware of this ramping up of the numbers that were coming through the system. Is that correct? Ms. Meissner. At a working level, there would have been an awareness. The feeling was, that the deficiency created was the result of neither the Immigration Service or in the FBI, sufficiently grasping at a management level, at a decision level, what difficulties this would pose. san clemente checkpoint Mr. Kolbe. Okay. Just one other line of questioning, totally aside from proving the old adage that all politics is local here. You and I have had more than just a few conversations about permanent checkpoints on INS border patrol checkpoints. And this does involve both the Attorney General and the Commissioner, probably much more, who should be prepared to answer the specifics of this. Much of the argument that you have given us, for the checkpoint in Arizona, on Interstate 19, has been the successful operation of the San Clemente checkpoint. The first question I want to ask is, you testified last May, that the checkpoint, San Clemente now, we're talking about, complied with law and would have a commuter lane up in one month. Did that occur? Did you have a commuter lane operating within one month, at that time? Ms. Meissner. We had---- Mr. Kolbe. Do you have a commuter lane operating now? Ms. Meissner. We actually, in June, will be opening a commuter lane, in San Clemente. Mr. Kolbe. But not previously? Ms. Meissner. No. It is exactly on schedule to open in June of this year. Now, the testimony that---- Mr. Kolbe. In May of 1996, you said, within one month. Ms. Meissner. Well, let me go back to last year. We were talking about two different things. I was talking about one thing. And I don't remember who was asking me the questions. I think it might have been Chairman Rogers. We had different definitions. We were operating as though it was not a dedicated lane, not a lane that was solely set aside for commuters. What we were dealing with last year was a decal system, in which particular cars and drivers who had been pre-cleared would be waved through. But they were in the rest of the traffic. They were not in a lane dedicated for their use. That created a misunderstanding. At that time, there were only four lanes; there was not a lane that could have been devoted to commuters. Since then, we have built two additional lanes. Those lanes are opening in June. Let me check to be absolutely certain, because I don't want to misspeak. One of those lanes will be solely dedicated to commuter traffic. [The information follows:] Immigration and Naturalization Service Opening Date for the Two Additional Lanes at the San Clemente Checkpoint The lane construction for the two additional lanes at the San Clemente Checkpoint will be completed on May 30, 1997. Associated signage and safety features will be finished by June 15, 1997. After a two-week allowance for contractor cleanup and closing of the contract, the new lanes should be open for public use on June 30, 1997. 24-hour checkpoint at san clemente Mr. Kolbe. You also told us, and I believe it was in that same testimony, that the San Clemente checkpoint was functioning on a 24-hour a day basis. Subsequently, the Department of Justice Inspector General investigated and found that not true. Is that accurate? Ms. Meissner. Well, we again had a definition difficulty. Twenty-four hours was being interpreted by our people on the ground to mean that the Border Patrol officers were in the lane or observing from the side of the highway and pulling cars over that were suspect. We had viewed that as a 24-hour, seven days a week operation. In subsequent conversations with Congressman Packard, it became very clear to me that that was not his definition of a 24-hour operation, seven days a week. His definition meant in the lanes the entire time. We have corrected that. We are operating according to the definition that Congressman Packard established. We are also monitoring it. There is a precise definition now of the kinds of weather conditions, such as fog or anything that precludes for safety reasons, being in the lanes 24 hours, seven days a week. I apologize and the Department has written to the Committee. I simply did not havethe complete information at that time. I was absolutely not attempting to obfuscate or mislead. I was just not as fully prepared as I might have been. i-19 checkpoint incident in arizona Mr. Kolbe. Well, I'll accept that, since you're 24 hours a day all over the country and you've got people out there monitoring from the side of the road. However, I don't know how you could have misinterpreted. I think it was clear that, I understood, that we were talking about the checkpoint itself, about whether the checkpoint was ``functional'' as a checkpoint of stopping all the cars coming through on a 24-hour basis. My last question has to do with--I'd just like assurance that we've got some procedures in place to prevent the kind of incident that occurred last November, in Arizona, where a busload of Mexican legislators from Sonora came through the border, were processed through and then went up to the temporary checkpoint, there on I-19, and were turned back because of an error. An INS agent neglected to put two names on the list of those they were taking back, under escort, to the border. These are Mexican officials, legislators. They were, of course, late and missed all their meetings in Phoenix, as a result of that. What can you tell me has been done to make sure that kind of incident doesn't occur again? Ms. Meissner. Well, that was an unfortunate incident. I have reviewed the correspondence on it. Actually, the officers at the checkpoint were doing what they were supposed to. The problem occurred when the bus crossed the border. It wasn't entirely clear which people, in fact, were needing this particular document. We have asked that there be communication in advance, of visits like that in the future so that we can expedite and facilitate the passage of these groups. In addition, we are in the next several months, abandoning the document procedure that was used in those cases and instituting a more effective procedure across the board for groups like this. Mr. Kolbe. This relates to that checkpoint. Wouldn't it make sense to have a system where a phone call down from the checkpoint, down to the border might have cleared that up? Ms. Meissner. I agree with you. It might have been handled more effectively. We have tried to take steps to be certain that nothing like this will happen again. Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. numbers on naturalization revocations Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, could I just say, in response to your revocation question, because I now have that information. In fact, Mr. Kolbe. On the numbers of revocations there have been-- -- Ms. Meissner. Of naturalization. Right. It turns out that the first revocation, in fact, was served in Arizona, in November. So, the revocations are beginning. The first one happens to be in your State. Mr. Kolbe. Gosh, if it was one of my constituents, I hope he got to vote for last November. Mr. Mollohan. How do you know he was registered? Mr. Kolbe. I don't know. But I just said, I hope he got to vote. cost of audits to review records of possible criminals who have been naturalized Mr. Rogers. Now, we're having to go back, as I understand it, and try to find out how many of the people who were naturalized, of the 180,000, that we don't know how many had criminal records and especially, the 10,000 plus, who came back with a felony record? We're doing an audit of all of these, right? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Now, how much is all of that going to cost us? Ms. Meissner. We have worked up the cost estimates. We can provide it for you. I believe that the dollar amount is $3.9 million. [The information follows:] Immigration and Naturalization Service Cost Estimate for Auditing of Naturalizations At present, the current and projected costs of the audit review to date are listed below; however, these costs are preliminary and do not include, for example, the total cost of reengineering the naturalization process (estimated at $4,300,000), or possible revocations (de-naturalizations). Amount Current Projected Costs for Audit Review: Field Cost--(Salary, Benefits and Overtime)............. $637,000 FBI Record Check Costs.............................. 2,000,000 KPMG Contract Costs................................. \1\ 926,500 EOIR Costs--Travel.................................. 12,000 FBI/INS Records Matching............................ 393,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total, Projected Costs............................ 3,968,500 Related Additional Costs: FBI Tracking System Development..................... $433,000 \1\ These costs will be paid out of the INS Commissioner's office budget. In addition, the House Appropriations Committee has requested that the OIG conduct a comprehensive follow-up review of Citizenship USA offices to ensure adequate safeguards exist and procedures are being followed and to investigate any criminal wrongdoing in connection with this process. It is estimated that this will cost $1.5 million in FY 1997 and $3.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- million in FY 1998. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, that is a very rough figure. It may be about $4.5 million. That does not include the cost or the reengineering consultant, nor some projected expenses for the Inspector General and the FBI, for further review. Mr. Rogers. Reengineering consultant? Attorney General Reno. As I explained at the outset, in addition to Peat Marwick reviewing what has been done, we will be giving a contract this week, for a reengineering consultant, to consult with and advise INS, in the reengineering of the entire process, the automation of the entire process and the re-engineering of the entire process. Mr. Rogers. Does your figure include the cost of revocation of citizenship for those that are found improperly to have been given citizenship? Attorney General Reno. No, that would not be included. Mr. Rogers. Can we have some estimate of that, in addition? Attorney General Reno. I don't have it with me, but I'll be happy to furnish it to you. Mr. Rogers. Well, if you could give me just a rough overall cost, I won't hold you to the figure. But give me a ballpark cost, if you can, right now, of the total cost to clean up the thing from last year. Attorney General Reno. To clean up the thing from last yearcould probably run about $6 million. But to clean up the entire process is probably around $8.5 million to $10 million. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Now, General Reno, let me see if I can summarize here quickly, because we are approaching the time to leave, I think. In my opening statement, I mentioned several investigations and situations for which I would like to get your response. Various Investigations The FBI's release of background files to the White House, is that being investigated now? And if so, by whom? Attorney General Reno. OPR conducted that investigation and I will check and see just what the status of it is and advise you, sir. Mr. Rogers. And OPR is? Attorney General Reno. That's the Office of Professional Responsibility. But what I would like to do is double check and see just exactly what the status is, so I don't misadvise you. Mr. Rogers. And is that OPR at the FBI---- Attorney General Reno. No, that's the Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility. Mr. Rogers. And you'll get back with me? Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Now, the FBI lab matter, is that being investigated? And if so, by whom? Attorney General Reno. The Inspector General is investigating it. And I believe he gave you information concerning it. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify. The FBI file issue went to Mr. Starr, the Independent Counsel. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Now, the fundraising activities of the DNC, and the White House connections to that, and the two or three other pieces to that--the Vice President's White House fundraising allegations, and the First Lady's reported endorsement of the database for fundraising activities--those activities related to fundraising, are they being investigated? Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. By whom? Attorney General Reno. The FBI and the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Mr. Rogers. Can you give us any kind of timetable on when we could expect to hear something out of that? Attorney General Reno. No, sir. I can't. Mr. Rogers. The allegations of foreign governments influencing U.S. policy, in return for campaign donations, is that a part of that same investigation? Attorney General Reno. All of those allegations are being pursued, sir, and by the task force. Mr. Rogers. Is there just one task force? Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. There's one task force with respect to campaign financing. There are other agents and lawyers that have worked on other aspects of it. Mr. Rogers. But at least one task force is looking at the entire picture? Attorney General Reno. That's correct, sir. Mr. Rogers. There was a report in, I think, yesterday's newspaper, one of the newspapers, that some very sensitive documents, including some CIA classified data, was taken from the Department of Commerce by a high-ranking person as she left that agency. Do you now whether or not that has been referred for investigation? Attorney General Reno. We catalog everything and are including it all in the whole investigation. Mr. Rogers. Including that allegation? Attorney General Reno. That's correct, sir. Mr. Rogers. And the allegations of the use of the White House database for fundraising. What's that a part of? Attorney General Reno. All of these allegations we're trying to identify and include in the overall investigation. Mr. Rogers. By a single task force? Attorney General Reno. By as many people as are needed. And it is not, as I previously mentioned to you, it was not by one single task force, that the task force is overseeing the whole operation. Mr. Rogers. Can you tell me how many of your personnel are assigned to those investigations? Attorney General Reno. I'll be happy to furnish that figure. I don't have it with me, sir. Mr. Rogers. And can you tell me what the cost is? Attorney General Reno. No, I have not estimated the cost yet. Mr. Rogers. Will you estimate that for us? Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE FISCAL YEAR 1997 ESTIMATED COSTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Criminal FBI Division ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Personnel compensation and benefits... $3,000,000 $793,400 Travel and transfers.................. 1,050,000 40,000 Supplies.............................. 100,000 8,562 Miscellaneous other services.......... 100,000 232,000 Equipment............................. 500,000 36,154 --------------------------------- Overall total cost = $5,860,116 $4,750,000 $1,110,116 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Criminal FBI Division ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agents: Full-time........................... 30 Part-time........................... 25 Attorneys: Full-time........................... \1\5 Part-time........................... 11 Support: Full-Time........................... 24 2 Part-time........................... 2 0 ------------------------------- 81 18 Total personnel = 99 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ One full-time attorney on board for six months. Law Enforcement Block Grants Mr. Rogers. Well, we will need that. I'm not sure that's in your regular budget submission. Now, let me ask you quickly about the block grant program. Attorney General Reno. About the what, sir? Mr. Rogers. The block grant, as opposed to COPS, to identify which one I'm talking about. The Administration's budget eliminates the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, which in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 will provide about $1 billion to local communities to fight crime. Did your budget request to OMB include funding for that block grant? Attorney General Reno. Yes, it did, sir. Mr. Rogers. How much did you ask for? Attorney General Reno. I've asked for $503 million. Mr. Rogers. $503 million? Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Do you know why OMB denied that request? Attorney General Reno. We subsequently made a follow-up on this, because we have heard from police chiefs, from sheriffs, from community leaders, that what is desperately needed, now that they have monies for COPS and other initiatives, is money for intervention and prevention programs that can keep kids out of trouble. We'd like very much to work with you. I think we can fashion something, because what we have proposed is a formula distribution to the States, letting it go through the States, directly to the communities, with the communities applying to and working with the States in the development of an overall plan. And I think working together, we can come up with something that mutually addresses the whole area of youth violence. Mr. Rogers. Well, in 1996 alone, of that block grant program that Congress authorized and you administered, over $293 million has been used by localities to hire cops, pay overtime, and purchase equipment and technology for law enforcement officers. Over $51 million has been used for crime prevention programs and security measures in and around schools, and other places. And over $17 million has been used to enhance the adjudication of both adult and juvenile violent offenders. I don't understand how the Administration could justify eliminating funding for those types of things. Attorney General Reno. I think we can work with you, Mr. Chairman, in fashioning something that meets the needs of the local communities across the country, because what we're hearing from them, from prosecutors, from judges, is that they're totally overwhelmed and need prevention programs, need targeted programs that can provide for prosecutors, for courts, with the balance that is necessary in the light of the significant funding to law enforcement. Mr. Rogers. Now, you're requesting $225 million for new grant programs to address juvenile crime, including a 1,000 new State prosecutor initiatives, juvenile courts and crime prevention programs. How would Washington decide what States and localities would receive funding for prosecutors and courts, under that proposal? Attorney General Reno. These would be discretionary grants. They would apply and we would make the awards based on the comprehensive nature of the grant application. Mr. Rogers. Now, last year the block grant monies supported $68 million for crime prevention, safety measures around schools and adjudication of violent adults and juveniles. Can't the block grant program support the juvenile crime initiatives that you are requesting? Attorney General Reno. Your first mention was of the thousand prosecutors or the thousand prosecutors initiatives. What has happened is that prosecutors have too often been the forgotten person in the criminal justice system. As more police have been added, as they've developed more resources, prosecutors have not had a increase in resources. This will give them the chance to develop coordinated efforts with local law enforcement, in identifying gang leaders, working with others to take out the gang organization. We have seen how effective this can be with prosecutors who are committed to this effort. And if we can enhance that, we think we can have a significant impact. Mexico Certification Mr. Rogers. The President has just certified Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States, to control drugs. I'm sure he had your recommendation one way or the other. What was your recommendation? Attorney General Reno. I recommended that Mexico be certified, because in the leadership of Mexico, the President, the Attorney General and the Foreign Minister have been totally cooperative and committed. They recognize that drugs are--and as the President of Mexico says, one of the most critical national security problems facing Mexico. They have taken significant steps, in terms of working with us and ensuring more extradition, in reducing flights. And we think it is very important that we continue this working relationship, for it is critical that we have this strong partnership if we're going to address the issue of drugs coming from and through Mexico. At the same time, we recognize that there is great corruption through the criminal justice system. And we're impressed with the efforts and the commitment by the President to eradicate this corruption from the criminal justice system, so that Mexico can have a real impact, in terms of domestic prosecutions and convictions on this trafficking. Mr. Rogers. Did DEA Administrator Constantine recommend anything to you on this matter? Attorney General Reno. Yes, he did. Mr. Rogers. What did he say? Attorney General Reno. He recommended against certification. Mr. Rogers. Because he said, the other day that, ``there's not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.'' Attorney General Reno. That is correct. That is what he said, sir. But as he pointed out to me, when I discussed this issue with him, he said, I'm looking at it just from the point of view of DEA. I haven't considered the extradition issues, the prosecution issues, the cooperation issues. And so, faced with those realities, that is the basis for my certification recommendation. Circumvention of the Attorney General Mr. Rogers. General Reno, we started out this hearing with a certain brusqueness and I apologize for that. But the reason that I am feeling a little wheezy about things is because we've seen several instances now of the political powers that be, allegedly going over or around or through you to one of your agencies, to do some ill will. And I say these are allegations. I'm talking about how somebody got the FBI to hand over confidential files. I'm sure that was done without your knowledge, if it was done. And by the same token, there are allegations that someone went over your head, perhaps Commissioner Meissner's head as well, on the Operation Citizenship USA with, I'm alleging, an ulterior motive. That's what troubles me. If these allegations are true, then you are being circumvented in your own Department, allegedly by the folks in the White House. Can you categorically tell me that that is not true? Attorney General Reno. If I were being circumvented, sir, and they were successful, I don't know whether I could tell you or not. Mr. Rogers. Oh, I think you could. I definitely think you could. Attorney General Reno. Let me suggest to you that I have never had any pressure on either of these issues that you speak of, from the White House. I have not had any discussion with the White House. What we are trying to do in each instance, where we identify any problem, is take immediate action, as indicated with the file issue, the independent counsel is investigating that. With respect to Citizenship USA, I will make an appropriate determination, based on the reports back from Mr. Bromwich, after he completes his investigation. And I have told him to take it wherever it goes. I can't make everything not happen. I can't prevent things from happening. In every case though, I'm trying my level best. But I am going to follow up with absolutely everything, through the Inspector General. And I would like to work with you, because I think, in times past, you were brusque with Mr. Bromwich too. And I appreciate your brusqueness. I know how much you care; I know how much you want things to work right. I really want to work with you. But I'd like to see if we can work together. The Department has grown, as you point out, dramatically; the Inspector General's capacity has not grown. I'd like to see how we can work together. You've given us support in your latest letter, in terms of funding for the Inspector General, so that we can design systems and checks and balances, to prevent everything we possibly can and so that we have the resources to pursue as vigorously as possible, any allegation of wrongdoing. I care very deeply about the Department of Justice. There are splendid, wonderful people working in that Department all across this land. They are so dedicated. They are such great public servants. They are so nonpartisan, and they call it like they see it. And I want to do everything I can to maintain the tradition and the example that they have followed through on year after year after year, under difficult circumstances. So, I would really like to work with you, in terms of fashioning systems. I think we've had the chance to talk with Ms. McAuliffe about INSPECT. She made some suggestions as to what we could do, in terms of being more immediately effective. And we're immediately trying to respond, because you may be brusque with me, Mr. Chairman, but I know you care. Mr. Rogers. Well, I do care deeply, as yourself. And it troubles me, as hardly anything else can, when I see somebody trying to interfere with the scales of justice, trying to put a weight on one or the other, make it fall their way. And when I see allegations of that, I'm going to take off here like a bulldog. And I don't care who's in the way. And I think I know another person like that, sitting in this room. And I want to be sure that we're thinking the same thing here. We've always cooperated and will always do so. But I'm going to insist that, when we talk about dispensing justice, whether it be citizenship for a new citizen, or fairness in the courtroom, wherever it may lead, there can be no taint. There can be no suspicion that it's not done fairly and impartially. And right now, there are some suspicions. And I think it's imperative upon you and me and everyone else to erase those suspicions. People have the right to expect, not just the fact of fairness, but the appearance of fairness as well, and independence from all other processes. And you're on the line here, because you have allegations from every corner, saying that you need an independent prosecutor here and a task force there and a OIG here and OPR there. That, I guess that comes with the turf that you're occupying. But we do have an inordinate number of allegations now, of interference with the justice system. And you and I must ferret that out and get to the bottom of it and restore the appearance, as well as the fact, of justice. Attorney General Reno. I'm going to try my level best. I'm going to call it like I see it, do the best job I can at trying to figure out what the right thing to do is and then do it. But I'd like to go a step beyond too, and really offer to work with you, in terms of developments of measurements and objectives. I think we've shared some with you. We've gotten some feedback. We'd like to have a continuing discussion and dialogue with your staff and try to do everything we can to spot the problems before they develop and solve them up front. And in that vein, it's one of the areas that I think we can do so much in. You ask what needs to be done. We need to be as direct and as open as we can, consistent with conducting investigations the right way. We need to look at all of the components of the Department of Justice, take a look at the milestones we've developed, give us your feedback as to what else we should be looking at, what other procedures we might try. We welcome anybody's ideas and suggestions, but mostly yours, because I think you and Ms. McAuliffe have a sense about so many of the Justice Department components, that's based on just a very thorough knowledge. And so, we want to work with you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. brady handgun act Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, the so-called Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed with a lot of anticipation on both sides of the issue, with an anticipation that it would go a long way to providing information that would address concerns. The National Criminal History Improvement Program is the program designed to carry that forward? Attorney General Reno. That is correct, sir. And the development of a national instant check system. Mr. Mollohan. I have a couple of questions. Attorney General Reno. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. It has come to my attention that this program may not be on time. Could you comment on that? Attorney General Reno. As of July of 1996, approximately 33 percent of criminal history records in the United States include dispositions and are electronically assessable and therefore will be available in the NICS system. The latest estimate that I've had is that by December 1, 1998 when I am by law to declare the system operational, the system itself will be operational, but there will still be some States that do not have complete criminal histories that are available and are electronically assessable. And we are going to continue our efforts to do everything we can to improve those records. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Are you suggesting here with acertain degree of confidence that this system is on schedule and would you like to check that answer for the record? Attorney General Reno. The system will be on schedule. But the records will not be available from some of the States; a significant number of States. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. It has also come to my attention that there is concern about the kind of information being solicited by the Department of Justice to put into this system. It has been asserted to me that the Department of Justice is requiring from other Federal agencies certain information like medical information, mental history information, dishonorable discharge information which I can't say sitting here right now is outside the scope of the Brady Act. But that kind of information does raise privacy rights concerns on my part. And I'm just wondering if you are looking at those issues as you develop that system and if you can comment? Attorney General Reno. This is going to be one of the issues that has to be addressed because previous mental involuntary commitments or other--we're going to have to look at the State law and see whether it qualifies as a disabling factor in Brady. And we're looking at that very carefully to make sure that we comply with the law and that there is no invasion of privacy. Mr. Mollohan. Is the Department of Justice requiring this information at this point? Attorney General Reno. I had not heard about dishonorable discharge. But let me get for you and have somebody meet with your staff and furnish you with exactly what we construe the statute to include. foipa backlogs Mr. Mollohan. Also, there are some Freedom of Information Act requests pending at Justice on these matters. And there is not what I would describe a spirit of forthcoming with regard to those FOIAs. Can you comment on that? Attorney General Reno. Yes. That raises the larger question; the FOIA backlog. We had been making some significant progress with our FOIA backlog until the shutdown. And then it started up again. I have mandated milestones for each component to achieve. And I think we're making progress. But let me have somebody check the specific FOIA requests to which you refer and see what the status is and what we can suggest. Mr. Mollohan. Are you referring to a FOIA backlog with regard to all requests? Attorney General Reno. It will depend on the component. Some components have eliminated any backlog and others, for example like the FBI, have a significant backlog. Mr. Mollohan. And you're suggesting that maybe you're not being responsive to this request because of a backlog of these requests at the FBI? Attorney General Reno. It is first-in, first-out. And we line them up. There are three exceptions. And we're trying to do it as fast as we can in terms of funding and training. Mr. Mollohan. There are three exceptions to that first-in, first-out? Attorney General Reno. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. How big a backlog exists in answering these requests at the FBI? Attorney General Reno. I don't know. I don't want to give you precisely the number. I would rather make sure that we give you accurate figures and not let me guess. Mr. Mollohan. That will be fine. Would you submit a fuller report? Attorney General Reno. We will go through all of the details and then contact your staff and make sure that we've covered everything. [The information follows:] FBI FOIPA Backlog Year Backlog in cases 1992.............................................................. 9,359 1993..............................................................10,648 1994..............................................................11,827 1995..............................................................14,808 1996..............................................................15,447 1997..............................................................15,390 1998..............................................................11,375 1999.............................................................. 8,326 2000.............................................................. 4,658 2001.............................................................. 1,417 These numbers assume a constant rate of cases received for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001. In addition, these numbers reflect the expected impact of 129 new positions received in the 1997 Justice Appropriations Act, 239 positions requested in the President's 1998 Request to Congress, and a forty percent gain in productivity from streamlining efforts in progress. COPS Program Mr. Mollohan. I appreciate that. The Chairman asked some questions with regard to the Block Grant Program, which he worked really hard in getting through the Congress. Can you comment on that program? How's the COPS Program doing? If you could give us some statistics to suggest how it is going. We do want a little equal time here on this. Attorney General Reno. We have authorized funding for 55,000 officers. Some 22,000 are now on the streets. The response I'm getting from Chiefs of Police and from Sheriffs offices across the country is that these police officers are making a significant difference. The program has been universally well-received. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the witnesses here today. I started out by saying there was a certain foreboding surrounding this hearing. I think given the issues that we have dealt with, they have been dealt with fairly. And I want to compliment the Attorney General for her candor and for her grasp of a very complicated Department and the very tough programs that she is administering. I also want to compliment her for her resolve in not answering questions that she thinks are not appropriate to answer. I happen to agree with her with regard to her judgment on that. But in regard to whether I agree or disagree, I admire your resolve. Commissioner Meissner, I want to also compliment you onyour testimony here today in addition to the job you're doing. I think there is an excellent story to be told about your administration of an agency that has had historic problems. That story involves you addressing those problems in an aggressive way and at the same time it's a no- brainer. You're managing a tremendous ramp-up, programmatic ramp- up, in your Department. That's not an easy task. I suspect that everybody on this Committee recognizes that. And at the end of the day after you go through these tough sessions on Capitol Hill before Appropriations and authorizing Committees and we sort through the specific concerns that the Chairman and others addressed with regard to the incidents at INS, I am confident and certainly very hopeful that this Committee will get down to assisting you and the job that you've already started in reorganizing INS. And I trust that we will listen to your requests for assistance. I am very sincere about suggesting that we have a report that looks specifically at management issues in the same way that NAPA looked at the budget issues. If you feel upon reflection--that it would be helpful to you, I certainly want to be of assistance. And knowing the Chairman as I know him, after we get through all of these problems, he likewise wants to be of assistance making your job successful. It's not an easy job. It's an important job. It has an incredible amount of visibility. And it's politically explosive in a number of different ways. You're managing all of those. A lot of people recognize the tough job you have. A lot of people recognize it. I think most people, most fair people recognize that you're doing an excellent job managing all of that. So, we'll get through all of this in the line-up to help you do the task that you have undertaken to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan. And thank you Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner for being here today. The hearing is adjourned. [Pages 455 - 494--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, February 26, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WITNESSES MICHAEL R. BROMWICH, INSPECTOR GENERAL STEPHEN R. COLGATE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION Mr. Rogers. We are pleased to welcome this morning the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Bromwich. As this Subcommittee has done for the past 2 years, we are starting the year out by asking the Inspectors General for their opinions on agency vulnerabilities and ways to best spend the limited resources we have to work with. As the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, you have the responsibility to keep an eye on the largest agency under our jurisdiction. The Congress and the Administration are dedicating significant funding to fighting crime and illegal immigration. We can't afford to waste a single dime when it comes to this fight. You have had a busy year looking at programs that have been of great concern to us. We particularly are interested in your views about problems that we need to keep an eye on and the Department needs to fix. We will also be able to follow up on these issues with the agencies as we go through our hearing process in the weeks ahead. So if you would like to proceed, we will insert your prepared testimony in the record. If you can give us a brief summary, we would appreciate it. Inspector General Brownwich Opening Statement Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today in support of the 1998 budget request for the Office of Inspector General. Since I testified before this Subcommittee last year, the Office of Inspector General has had an extremely busy and productive year, as you noted, dealing with matters of substantial importance to the Department of Justice and the Congress. I would like to briefly summarize my prepared statement, focusing on work we have conducted involving INS, the FBI, and in the Department's COPS and Violent Crime initiatives. The first three items I will touch on involve investigations and issues relating to INS, the agency on which we continue to spend most of our resources. miami-ins Let me discuss first the Miami-INS investigation that we did, Mr. Chairman. Last June we completed an 11-month long investigation into allegations that INS officials systematically misled a delegation from the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform visiting in Miami concerning the conditions and operations of the Krome Service Processing Center and the Miami International Airport. After interviewing over 450 witnesses, collecting 200 affidavits, reading thousands of documents and electronic messages and reconstructing data on alien movements and airport staffing, we concluded that INS management in Miami, with the participation and knowledge of executives in the Eastern Regional office of INS, intentionally misled the delegation from the Task Force. At the Krome Service Processing Center we found that a full one-quarter of the population was moved from that facility within 48 hours prior to the delegation's arrival in order to conceal its overcrowded condition. At Miami International Airport, extra inspectors, some on overtime, were assigned to reduce passenger waiting time and thereby paint a false picture of efficiency. Some aliens were moved from detention cells and allowed to sit in the detention area without restraints during the delegation's visit, and INS employees were directed to mislead anyone from the delegation who asked questions about the categories of aliens who were kept in the detention cells. Finally, our investigation was impeded by obstructive and delaying tactics that required the expenditure of additional resources in order to find out the truth. In the end, I believe we did. Our investigation led to the imposition of discipline on 12 INS employees, including the two highest ranking officials in the Eastern Regional office of INS. operation gatekeeper Let me turn next to Gatekeeper, Mr. Chairman. On the heels of our Miami-INS report, we began hearing reports from the West Coast that INS managers were allegedly manipulating apprehension statistics, operating procedures and falsifying reports in order to make Operation Gatekeeper, the major INSborder enforcement initiative along the U.S.-Mexico border, seem to be a success. This investigation also has required many interviews, over 200 so far, and a review of tens of thousands of documents in an effort to determine whether INS, in fact, has altered its apprehension tactics and data in order to claim that Operation Gatekeeper has succeeded in reducing illegal immigration. This investigation has encountered obstacles, Mr. Chairman, that have significantly slowed the pace of our efforts, this time from the same Border Patrol union that aired the charges initially rather than from the INS. citizenship usa Let me next address Citizenship USA. Three years ago, my office issued an inspection report about INS's failure to conduct criminal history checks before granting applications for citizenship and other benefits. The report issued in February of 1994 and entitled, ``Alien Fingerprint Requirements in the Immigration and Naturalization Service,'' found, first, that INS could not know whether the fingerprints it sent to the FBI actually belonged to the applicant for citizenship or had been replaced with prints belonging to someone who did not have a criminal record. Second, INS approved applications without knowing whether the applicant had a criminal history because INS did not wait for a report from the FBI before approving the application; or, when INS got a report from the FBI, it did not file the report in the application file so it would be available to the examiner; or when the FBI returned a blurred fingerprint card as unreadable, INS did not seek to obtain new prints for resubmission to complete the criminal history check. As you know, the problems we identified in that 1994 inspection created a vast quagmire when the processing of naturalization applications gathered far greater velocity in INS's Citizenship USA program. The present record shows that a substantial number of citizenship applications were approved by INS without having a criminal history check completed because INS did not wait for the report before approving the application. In addition, INS did not submit replacement fingerprints when cards were returned as unreadable. I now have, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, OIG employees from all three divisions looking at INS's Citizenship USA Program. Investigators are looking at allegations involving bribery, false testing, questions of accountability, and allegations of retaliation against INS employees who have come forward to report on the shortcomings they observed in the Citizenship USA program. My auditors have been in Lincoln, Nebraska, to test and monitor work by the accounting firm of Peat Marwick which is to validate INS's effort to identify applicants who received citizenship despite having disqualifying criminal records. In addition, my inspectors are observing work Peat Marwick is doing to determine whether INS has actually implemented quality control procedures that will protect the current citizenship process from the abuses and deficiencies of last year. This project will not end soon. The more we learn about this program, the more additional lines of inquiry for us will arise. san clemente Let me now address matters relating to the San Clemente checkpoint. My office has now been to the INS interior checkpoint at San Clemente, California, for three separate reviews, one of which also included the checkpoint at Temecula, California. Initially, we found a serious disconnect between congressional expectations and INS activities. Although Congress expected an aggressive 24-hour a day level of inspections, INS delivered a level of inspections that was sometimes less than that without clearly explaining to the Congress how it was operating the checkpoint or why active inspections were sometimes suspended. Since we began our reviews of the checkpoint, INS has increased staffing at it, and changed operations to conform to more recent congressional mandates. Our second and third visits confirm this change. ins automation Let me now turn to automation issues. Last year, I testified that I was somewhat optimistic about INS's huge ongoing automation initiatives. This year, I regret to say that I cannot assure you that the project is on the right track. As a result of information that came to our attention in the second half of 1996, I grew more concerned that the INS automation initiatives were afflicted with potentially serious problems. Accordingly, late last year, I directed a substantial team of OIG auditors to conduct an intense review of portions of INS's automation activities. Although we have not issued a written draft yet, we have discussed our principal concerns and tentative findings with INS during the course of our review. We found that definitive measures for tracking critical milestones over the individual project's life do not exist. These measures could determine whether the project is on schedule, within cost, and to quantify its progress. Moreover, some major systems are behind schedule. In addition, the funds for INS's 5-year contract with its principle contractor, EDS, could be spent after only 3 years, and, overall, funding for 8 of the 15 automation contracts in place are likely to be spent before the contracts are scheduled to end. One consequence of this acceleration is that INS now risks a gap in contract coverage until it can complete a procurement of its next generation of contracts. Finally, we continue to be concerned about the integrity of the data that will be contained in the new systems and with the training and abilities of the INS employees who will be responsible for maintaining these systems and recording the transactions that constitute the systems' data bases. fbi lab Now I'd like to turn to the FBI lab investigation. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, as you know, approximately a month ago we completed a draft report concerning allegations of impropriety in three sections of the FBI lab, primarily relating to bombing and explosives cases. The draft report consists of the detailed examination of the forensic work done in a number of specific cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing case and the World Trade Center case, as well as more general issues about the way three sections of the lab have organized and conducted their scientific activities. Our investigation has been aided immeasurably by the full participation of five of the top forensic scientists in the world who have been full partners in this investigation. Some aspects of our review required us to go back as far as 10 years. During the course of our investigation, we collected more than 50,000 documents from the FBI and interviewed over 100 witnesses. We distributed the report in late January to select personnel at the FBI and to prosecutors whose cases we examined in substantial detail in our draft report. Because of the complexity of the cases and the technicalnature of the scientific issues with which the report deals, we transmitted the report to these individuals to ensure that the report is as factually accurate as possible. cops program Let me turn now to the COPS Program and other violent crime-related initiatives. We have been continuing our work with the COPS Program in its implementation of the central element of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, the hiring, training and deploying of 100,000 additional police officers. This program was initially authorized at the level of $8.8 billion over 6 years. Previously, as you know, we performed over 40 pre-award reviews of applicants for COPS grants. Our most recent effort has been to develop, with input from COPS personnel, an approach for performing audits of COPS hiring and redeployment grants. We are currently conducting audits and anticipate completing approximately 20 during fiscal year 1997. While our work to date is limited, we have found that some jurisdictions are not making a good-faith effort to fill locally-funded sworn officer positions after receipt of a COPS grant. Additionally, we have some indications also that some jurisdictions will have difficulty retaining the officer positions with local funds at the conclusion of the life of the grant. Finally, we have found one instance where a grantee received funds in excess of current needs, invested the difference in an interest-bearing account, and inappropriately earned $45,000. These instances demonstrate the merit in continuing audit surveillance of these programs. The amount of our COPS work is severely limited by the resources we have available to perform the audits. There are, as you know, about 9,000 grants nationwide, and we can only cover a very small percentage of them. For fiscal year 1998 the Department has proposed that the Attorney General transfer funds from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to fund the cost of additional COPS audits. If we receive funding from the Trust Fund, 75 percent of what we will be receiving will be used to perform COPS audits. For every additional auditor we hire, we believe we can perform an average of four additional COPS audits per year. fy 1998 budget Finally, let me touch briefly on our 1998 resource request. Our request for 1998 totals $33,211,000, 326 full-time permanent positions and 416 workyears. The request reflects a net increase of $1.2 million, but no change in positions over the 1997 enacted level. Of this request, $1.2 million is for mandatory increases. Also included, as I mentioned before, is a request to grant the Attorney General authority to transfer up to one-tenth of one percent from the Department's Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for oversight work of those grant programs. We estimate this amount will fund approximately an additional 25 FTEs in fiscal year 1998. As transfer authority, it does not permanently affect our base. With the requested transfer and additional FTEs, we expect to complete approximately 100 audits in fiscal year 1998. We expect to devote 75 percent of the resources to COPS programs and the remainder to other violent crime initiatives, including the Violent Offender Incarceration Truth-in- Sentencing program and Violence Against Women Act programs. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my opening statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time. I have with me sitting beside me Greg Peters, the Assistant Inspector General for Management and Planning. Behind me I have the heads of my divisions, so if I am unable to give the detailed answers you want, I will turn to them and they will provide the detailed information. [The statement of Mr. Bromwich follows:] [Pages 501 - 534--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Do you have any good news? Mr. Bromwich. I don't have a lot of good news, Mr. Chairman. ins Mr. Rogers. Let me say, last year and the year before when you testified here, we jumped on your case pretty hard particularly because of INS problems. I would like to say congratulations to you and your staff on some good work that it appears you have done in the last year to two years, particularly on INS. Mr. Bromwich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. This is an agency out of control, isn't it? Mr. Bromwich. It has very many, very significant problems. Mr. Rogers. Is it salvageable? Mr. Bromwich. I believe it is salvageable, but I think the agency needs to be watched closely by this Subcommittee, by the rest of the Department, and by my office to make sure that the huge streams of money that are flowing into it are wisely and well spent. Mr. Rogers. Well, under this Subcommittee's watch over the last 2 years, we have increased the funding for the INS by 52 percent with the idea that the Nation wants to control its borders. We did this with the President's support and bipartisan support throughout the Congress. We provided increases to INS of over $500 million each year in 1996 and 1997. We have been extremely supportive of INS because it was the only place we had to go to try to control the borders. We have been patient with the new management. But for Pete's sake, this is unbelievable. The illegal immigration population now is back up to peak levels, about 5 million, we are told. INS fell short by 34 percent of its stated promise last year to deport illegal aliens from the country. Thirty-seven thousand less aliens were deported last year than they said they would deport. Statistics used to herald the success of Operation Gatekeeper, INS' Border Patrol strategy, are being questioned, not just by you, but by the Border Patrol themselves. Twelve senior INS personnel were engaged in activities to deceive the Congress purposely, as you testified, on a task force visit to Miami. The IG's office closed over 600 investigations, I am told, of misconduct by INS employees, from bribery and extortion to fraud, theft, drug smuggling, and alien smuggling. And the latest disaster, INS gave the most precious benefit a person on earth can receive, U.S. citizenship, to people with criminal records by the thousands, because they decided it was more important to push people through the system before Election Day, we are told, than it was to wait for the FBI to do the regular criminal record check that we have always required. That is inexcusable. Such a record of incompetence and worse I just can't believe. We have bestowed on this agency and this Commissioner and the people of INS a terrible job. It is a tough job to police the borders, and to guard the benefit of citizenship, and we have given them plenty of money. We have given them tons of personnel. We have loaded up the Border Patrol. We have piled people into the officers corps. They have absolutely screwed it up from top to bottom, and you have uncovered it. Let me ask you: Have you encountered any difficulty from INS as you investigated these allegations? miami-ins Mr. Bromwich. We certainly did, Mr. Chairman, in connection with our Miami-INS investigation. Mr. Rogers. Tell us about it. Mr. Bromwich. There were a variety of ways that we were obstructed and impeded during the course of our investigation. First, when we began the investigation, we were provided with two different memoranda that had been prepared by senior officials in the Miami District Office of INS that were given to us as an accounting of what, in fact, had happened with respect to the Krome detention facility and the Miami International Airport. They, in effect, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, purported to be an account of what really had happened. Those two memoranda were later admitted by high officials in the Miami District Office to be materially false. So our being given those memos at the top of the investigation was a real problem, because we were not having people be candid with us. We were having people try to deceive us. We provided to INS headquarters very substantial requests for documents and records that we believed would allow us to see whether, in fact, the population at Krome had been manipulated and personnel at the airport, Miami International Airport, had been manipulated. We got what I have described in another context as dismal cooperation from INS headquarters and the field. We did not get the key documents through our document requests. We were only ultimately able to get the documents through interviewing, as I mentioned in my prepared testimony, hundreds of witnesses. There were, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, a series of e-mail messages that clearly showed that, in fact, the deception of the delegation had taken place, and in particular had taken place through the prompt moving of almost one-quarter of the Krome facility's population out in the 48 hours preceding the visit. We did not receive those e-mails from the people who wrote them or received them in the Miami District Office. Had we not actually done interviews in the Eastern Regional Office of INS and were lucky enough to find a remaining copy that existed, I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, that we would have ever arrived at the conclusions that we did. To give you an example, one of the e-mails specifically from the head of the Krome detention facility described the INS' plans to ``stash people out of sight for cosmetic purposes.'' Mr. Rogers. To hide them from Congress. Mr. Bromwich. Yes. To move them out of the detention facility within a 48-hour period before the delegation arrived. Mr. Rogers. Did they actually do that? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Were any of them released into the community? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. In addition to transferring them out to other institutions, a group of, I believe 58, were released into the community without medical and criminal history checks having been done. Mr. Rogers. So it is possible that some of those people were criminals? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Or carrying some deadly disease? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Just released into the community? Mr. Bromwich. Without the adequate checks. Mr. Rogers. So that Congress would not see an overcrowded condition. Mr. Bromwich. Correct. Mr. Rogers. Now, tell us for those who don't know, what is the Krome facility? Mr. Bromwich. The Krome facility is a facility that holds large numbers of deportable aliens until the individual determinations on those aliens can be made. It is a large detention facility. Mr. Rogers. Were those people released into the community ever recaptured? Mr. Bromwich. I believe a small number were. I don't have the specific figure on that. Mr. Rogers. The rest are still at large? Mr. Bromwich. I believe that is the case. disciplinary actions Mr. Rogers. Has any disciplinary action been taken against any INS personnel on that particular matter? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. There were a series of 12 punishments that were imposed the end of last week on various INS employees, ranking from line personnel all the way up through high-ranking officials. Mr. Rogers. Have they been acted on? Mr. Bromwich. The final decisions have been issued by the Department, yes. Mr. Rogers. Do you think they were appropriately disciplined? Mr. Bromwich. I think that most of the discipline imposed was within the range that we recommended. That is not true in every case though, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Are they all still working at INS? Mr. Bromwich. My understanding is that all of them are still working. One of the high-ranking, former high-ranking officials in the Miami District Office, was removed. That was the punishment that was imposed. Mr. Rogers. Removed? Mr. Bromwich. I don't know the specifics of when that will become effective and what that person's remedies are. Mr. Rogers. Removed? Mr. Bromwich. From the service. Mr. Rogers. He was fired? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Just one? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. This is solely because of the Krome incident at Miami? Mr. Bromwich. It is not just the Krome incident, it is also the Miami International Airport incident, which in some ways was worse, in the sense that again a false picture was painted by having too many or more than usual inspectors doing the inspecting. Mr. Rogers. Did you also recommend any changes in procedures that would alleviate this kind of thing in the future? recommendations Mr. Bromwich. Yes, we did recommend a series of procedures. Mr. Rogers. Can you briefly describe them? Mr. Bromwich. They went to a variety of issues, including the need to create a database with integrity at the Krome Detention Facility. We found that the computerized records at Krome were completely unreliable. We recommended that specific procedures be issued by INS that would make sure that employees at the airport knew what kind of gear and weapons they were permitted to wear. So really a range of recommendations, including the need to communicate better with the union and so forth. Mr. Rogers. Has there been a criminal investigation of the Miami incident? Mr. Bromwich. When we concluded our work, Mr. Chairman, we referred the matter to the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division. As of earlier this week, I was told the matter is still open. Mr. Rogers. Still open. Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Meaning? Mr. Bromwich. Meaning they have not closed the investigation. They have not said no criminal action will be taken. They haven't said anything, other than in effect that they are still looking at it. Mr. Rogers. Well, do you mind if we look over their shoulder? Mr. Bromwich. Feel free, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I assure you, this is not the end of this. I don't care what Justice does or anybody else does. The Congress will certainly be looking into this. Mr. Bromwich. One of the specific things we recommended, Mr. Chairman, is that the agency take seriously attempts at external oversight, including the OIG investigations. We found that people from the beginning looked on us as engaged in a witch hunt. Others simply tried to pass off the investigation as the product of union and management friction. Those attitudes are what caused us not to get the cooperation that we needed that would have permitted us to find the truth sooner. So we strongly recommended that from the Commissioner on down, the message go out that our investigations are to be taken seriously and not to be trifled with. obstruction of investigation Mr. Rogers. I want you to tell this Subcommittee, now or later, those individuals who obstructed your investigation. Mr. Bromwich. Well, there were a series of them. They ranked all the way from the head of the Eastern Regional Office of INS down, as I said, through line personnel. The higher ranking people in the Eastern Region had what I would call major failures of recollection. The head of the Eastern Regional Office and her deputy say they could not recall very significant facts that they were asked about. In one case, 250 times, in another case, 170 times. Mr. Rogers. Are these people regular career INS employees, or are some of these Presidential appointees? Mr. Bromwich. To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, none of them is a Presidential appointee. Mr. Rogers. These are career employees. Mr. Bromwich. One was a non-career SES employee. Mr. Colgate. One of the individuals was a non-career SES employee that serves at the pleasure--it is a political appointment. Mr. Rogers. Who is that? Mr. Colgate. The Executive Director of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. Mr. Rogers. What is his name? Mr. Bromwich. Her name is Pam Barry. Mr. Rogers. Barrett? Mr. Bromwich. Barry. Mr. Rogers. Spell it. Mr. Bromwich. B-A-R-R-Y. Mr. Rogers. What did she do, or not do? Mr. Bromwich. She did not display a cooperative attitude during the investigation. But, more important than that, she, we thought, was ultimately responsible for issuing directives to people in Miami that they were not to raise certain issues with the delegation. Those issues included the state of staffing at the Miami International Airport. She also specifically told them not to draw any comparisons between staffing at Miami International Airport and JFK International Airport in New York. That guidance, those instructions, were interpreted by the people who heard them, that they were, in fact, to conceal such information and not to share their views on what many of them thought to be very important matters that the delegation had a right to know. Mr. Rogers. What was her purpose, do you know? Mr. Bromwich. What was the purpose in doing so? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Bromwich. It was consistent, Mr. Chairman, with the overall purpose, which was to prevent the delegation from seeing Miami as it was and from learning about the substantial dissatisfaction on the part of countless INS employees with the way that the operation was run. Mr. Rogers. Do you know whether this policy went beyond her? Mr. Bromwich. The policy of looking to actively deceive? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Bromwich. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. There were meetings in Miami with airport staff, INS airport staff present, and also outsiders present, in which the issue of what should be done if a member of the delegation asked what kinds and categories of people are kept in the detention area, in what is called ``hard secondary'' in the inspections area at Miami International Airport. Airport employees were specifically instructed that if they were asked that question, the answer was to be that only criminal aliens were kept in the cells. That was false, and it was known to be false by the person who gave the directive. Mr. Rogers. Who was the person? Mr. Bromwich. Valerie Blake. Mr. Rogers. And what is her title? Mr. Bromwich. She was the Deputy District Director in Miami. As a consequence of that, Mr. Chairman, in fact, a member of the delegation asked what classes or categories of people are kept in the detention cells, and pursuant to the directive not to provide that information to the delegation, a lower-level employee answered, as he was directed to do, that only criminal aliens were kept in the cells. Mr. Rogers. Any other instances of leadership personnel deceiving? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. There was active antagonism, both as a general matter and in specific interviews, particularly after we had found the nuggets of truth that, in fact, the delegation was deceived. There were angry outbursts by witnesses in interviews. There was a failure on the part of the district director in Miami and the deputy district director to give us access to electronic mail messages that we needed to get the full picture of the truth. Our personnel was characterized as being engaged in a witch hunt and so forth. The Assistant United States Attorney who co- led this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, and who has investigated and prosecuted criminal cases, said that she had never dealt with as hostile an environment as she experienced in dealing with these officials in the Miami District Office of INS. Mr. Rogers. Now, has this all been referred to the Justice Department? Mr. Bromwich. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. To investigate? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. You have heard nothing of it? Mr. Bromwich. I have heard as of last week that the matter was still open. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that in an attempt to get the Congress the most complete picture of what we believe to be serious allegations, that we at variouspoints in the investigation made decisions that it was important to administratively compel witnesses who would not agree to voluntary interviews with us. That has the consequence of, in effect, immunizing their testimony. Their testimony that they gave us cannot be used directly against them, and indeed the prosecutor will be at some pains to show that evidence that he or she might want to use to bring a prosecution, has not been tainted by that immunized testimony. So the fact is that what we did in gathering the facts may complicate, will complicate, any potential prosecution that would go forward. But we were in no position to make that assessment until we actually compelled the testimony of those witnesses and were able to paint the picture that we did. Mr. Rogers. Now, have you informed the Attorney General of this investigation and what you found out? Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman, we gave her a copy of the report and I have discussed it with her. Mr. Rogers. And what has she said about it? Mr. Bromwich. She was outraged about it. Mr. Rogers. What is she going to do about it? disciplinary actions Mr. Bromwich. What she did about it was to take the matter of imposing discipline on these employees away from the INS and to have it done within the Department. The proposing official in this matter was Mr. Colgate, who proposed the punishments based on reviewing both our individual recommendations as to specific people and then evaluating the backup evidence that we collected in support of those recommendations. The discipline actually imposed was decided by the senior career person in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. He is the one that evaluated the evidence, heard any evidence that any of the individuals wanted to present to him in mitigation-- -- Mr. Rogers. But in spite of your investigation, in spite of all of the hubbub, only one is now not working at INS. The others are working and as far as we know, testifying to Congress, even today, after having lied and deceived the Congress at Miami? Is that right or wrong? Mr. Bromwich. I certainly can't exclude that possibility. Mr. Colgate. Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify, the range of punishments included suspensions and demotions and reassignments of individuals. Mr. Rogers. They are still working though. Mr. Colgate. In different positions at lower grade levels. Mr. Rogers. Still working for the U.S. Government, still working for INS, correct? Mr. Colgate. Except for one individual, that is correct. Mr. Rogers. Except for one, these are people who lied and deceived the Congress and you failed to fire them. Right or wrong? Mr. Colgate. There is only one Federal employee who was removed, given the level of the individuals and the case law before the Merit Systems Protection Board, it would not sustain a removal. There was appropriate disciplinary action, ranging from demotions to suspensions from Federal service. Mr. Rogers. The IG, I think, just a few minutes ago, said that some of these disciplinary actions were not sufficient enough; is that right? Mr. Bromwich. I want to say most of them were in the range that we recommended, but some of them were not. There were several significant ones that were not. Mr. Rogers. Name those? Mr. Bromwich. Pardon me? Mr. Rogers. Name the significant ones. Mr. Bromwich. One was Pam Barry, the chief legislative person for INS. Mr. Rogers. Is she still working at INS? Mr. Bromwich. She is still working at INS. Mr. Rogers. Same job? Mr. Bromwich. I believe she is in the same job. Mr. Colgate. Let me correct that. Ms. Barry is in the process of being reassigned to a different position. Mr. Rogers. To what position? Mr. Colgate. She is not working in the same position. She will be working, from my understanding this morning, she will be working as a staff assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Rogers. I can understand why she wouldn't be working as the chief liaison to Congress. At least you got that right. If she is still working there, after having lied to the Congress, I am absolutely amazed. Mr. Colgate. When my staff reviewed the proposal, we could not find that Ms. Barry had violated any rule, regulation or law. We were concerned about both her management style and approach. We referred that matter to Commissioner Meissner for review. Commissioner Meissner concluded it would be in the best interest of the Service to reassign her to a different position. The Inspector General's report never did recommend her removal. Mr. Rogers. Well, the Inspector General, I know the Inspector General, he is a friend of mine. Mr. Colgate. I would say so as well. Mr. Bromwich. A new friend, but I hope a good friend. Mr. Rogers. But he is not the Congress, and I don't think we will tolerate her still working, if what the IG says is true. I mean, how can you do that? Mr. Bromwich. Let me make it clear. I said it before, let me say it again, what she did that we found to be worthy of punishment, and Mr. Colgate is right, we certainly didn't recommend that she be removed. But we did find that she engaged in actions that could have led reasonable INS employees to believe that they were being gagged from providing truthful, important and relevant information to members of the delegation. And that consisted of what the conditions were at Miami International Airport, where these individuals worked, and also they were not to engage in any explicit comparison between the conditions at Miami International Airport and JFK Airport. Now, Ms. Barry, I believe, argues that this was not an attempt to conceal information, but simply some advice about kinds of information that it would not be productive to pass along. That is her view of things. Our view of things was that it had a chilling effect and was perceived to have a chilling effect by the employees who heard the instruction. Mr. Rogers. Who was the person that was fired? Mr. Bromwich. Valerie Blake, the former Deputy District Director at Miami, who subsequently became the District Director in St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr. Rogers. Is she gone now? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Although Mr. Colgate can clarify. My understanding is that she was, in fact, removed. She still has remedies to protest the decision. Mr. Colgate. But it will be from outside the post. Mr. Rogers. You say she became the District Director at St. Paul? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. That is her most recent job? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Mr. Rogers. She was given that job after this took place in Miami? Mr. Bromwich. After the conduct took place and while the investigation was still going on. Mr. Rogers. She was promoted to District Director in St. Paul? Mr. Bromwich. Yes, she was. Mr. Rogers. Well, I have got a lot more questions just on Miami, but I also want to ask you about San Clemente and Gatekeeper and the Citizenship USA mess, and on and on. So I will wait for another round to ask more questions, including the FBI lab. I will wait for the others to ask you questions. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Sorry to take so long. Mr. Mollohan. That is all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. INS Automation Last year, Mr. Bromwich, we had a line of questioning with regard to the development of the various information systems. I was just looking through that, and in response to my general questions, how is INS getting along in developing its information, its IDENT systems and its other information systems? Mr. Ashbaugh assured us that the information comes from INS and they are tracking it very carefully. In another answer, Mr. Ashbaugh indicates that the wealth of information suggests that a great deal of care is being given, and he represents that the information comes from INS. Then he indicates further on that the answer to your question is, I feel very comfortable about the quality of the management and attention that has been given to try to keep this on budget and on schedule. I understand your testimony today is that you cannot assure us that this project is on track or on the right track. Mr. Bromwich. That is correct, Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. What has changed between yours and Mr. Ashbaugh's testimony last year and your testimony here today? Mr. Bromwich. What has changed is that in the intervening period, various mechanisms that we drew some comfort from last year have not worked out as well as we had hoped. We hoped these mechanisms would facilitate control over the contracts that would prevent them having the same fate as other large management information systems projects. We have seen that what we observed last year did not have an adequate follow-up in the period since our hearing. Several things bear noting. One, as you may recall at the hearing, we specifically identified the help that we believed the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency would be able to give us. They actually have people on site at EDS. They had a long history of dealing with EDS. What has happened in the intervening period is that INS was very slow to request the audits that we continued to tell them were necessary in order to make sure that the project was going well. Once they finally, at our urging, got the DCAA to come in, the work that the DCAA did was not very valuable from INS's point of view, and for that I fault both INS and DCAA. And seeing that the main management information contract, the umbrella or wraparound contract, if you will, that was supposed to cost $295 million over 5 years, was going to be consummated in 3 years; that is, all of the monies were going to be paid out in 3 years without the assurance that all of the things that INS really needed out of that contract had been obtained, that is what caused me to be alarmed, Mr. Mollohan. And on the strength of that information and my sense that, in fact, things were not going along smoothly, I had a full 10 percent of my audit division over the course of the last 6 or 7 weeks go in and take a fresh and clean look at the various INS automation initiatives and programs. Mr. Mollohan. What issues, can you identify that have been troubling you? With regard to what systems? Ident Mr. Bromwich. First, with respect to IDENT. IDENT, as you know, is a system used in the apprehension of illegal aliens and identifying them to determine, among other things, if they have prior criminal histories when they are apprehended. The system is deployed to some extent in Southern California in the San Diego sector. For those places where it is deployed, it works and works well. The problem is that INS does not yet have the infrastructure to deploy it as fully as they need to, and indeed there is all sorts of equipment, including IDENT terminals and other kinds of hardware and software that has already been purchased, that because of problems with INS's information technology infrastructure, is not being deployed right now. So in fiscal year 1996, IDENT was on track. Based on the review that we have done over the last 6 weeks, we don't believe it is on track right now, although INS officials claim that they have a reasonable possibility of getting it back on track yet, in fiscal year 1997. Enforce In addition to that, the ENFORCE system, which is the principle case tracking tool that INS is going to use for its enforcement activities, is now way behind. I believe INS acknowledges it is 2 years behind where it should be. A whole series of things contribute to those delays, but one of them is a constantly shifting expectation of what a system ought to be able to do based on going back and forth with the ultimate users of the system. Those are two of the systems, Mr. Mollohan, that we have specifically examined and about which we have trouble. Mr. Mollohan. How about the third---- Other Systems Mr. Bromwich. Let me say that there are a couple of automation or information technology programs that have been deployed, and I think rather successfully deployed. One is ICAD, which is the sensor, the electronic system used by the Border Patrol to determine movements by illegal aliens coming over the border. That isdeployed, and my understanding is that it is working as hoped. There is one other--the RAPS system--which relates to refugees and parolees, I believe, which has also been deployed. We are actually taking a look at that right now. In INS's judgment, it has been successfully deployed, and we didn't see anything in our brief review of it over the last 6 weeks to suggest that INS is wrong. I don't want to suggest to you that the Department is not doing anything about this. Mr. Colgate's office, in fact, has taken a major role in making sure that the various INS automation initiatives get back on track. I know that he has some concerns about the contracting that has been used to date, and he and his staff are doing everything they can to try to make sure that these systems are continuing to be brought in, and that the problems and delays are eliminated. Mr. Mollohan. You say that IDENT works and works well. By what criteria do you measure that? Mr. Bromwich. On a station-by-station basis, and even connecting a number of different stations in the San Diego sector, as I understand it. If somebody, in fact, has been picked up before, and he is picked up again and he is fingerprinted, and other information is obtained, the Border Patrol can get a hit on that, and they can determine that, in fact, this fellow has been back and forth two, four, six times. So the software works. The hardware works. It is just not a broad-based enough system. Mr. Mollohan. The data base on which it relies is generated at that site? Mr. Bromwich. That is my understanding. Mr. Mollohan. Solely at that site? Mr. Bromwich. This is Guy Zimmerman. Mr. Mollohan. The next time you testify, you ought to know about this system. You ought not to have to ask somebody. I am not trying to be overly critical here, but there is a lot of money being spent on identification systems. The FBI is developing an identification system, which I am pretty familiar with. I know INS is. Everybody wants those systems to work well, to communicate among themselves, and for each to do their unit function. I understand the IDENT system has a unique function. It wants a rather defined data base so it can try to get there quickly. I think that you should be looking at this really carefully and understanding where the problems are and identifying them in a prospective sort of way here, so we don't come back like the Chairman has had to come back on some of the other issues and we can get a system out there that is good in every way and we can be pleased about them. I have to run. Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Mollohan, quickly, I do know about this system. You asked me a specific question of where the data are generated and how widely they are shared. Mr. Mollohan. That is really a fundamental issue, the data base and why INS has to develop a separate system. That is a data base issue. Citizenship USA Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to let Mr. Mollohan resume when he comes back from a vote on the Floor, but I wanted to get into a couple other matters with you. First, Citizenship USA. In 1996, INS granted citizenship to almost 1.1 million individuals. Congressional inquiries and investigations have led to claims that the INS did not follow procedures for obtaining criminal record checks on these applicants, and, indeed, after a preliminary audit, the Justice Department now acknowledges that 180,000 individuals were granted citizenship without a full criminal record check, and over 70,000 people with criminal records were granted citizenship during this last year. Criminal Records Checks You issued a report 3 years ago about the INS failure to conduct criminal record checks. They did not correct the problem, even though they knew that a surge of applications would be forthcoming, and indeed, we are told, the Administration pulled all stops out, pressured, to get as many people registered as citizens to vote, before the election, as possibly could be, and indeed they did. As a result, we now have 70,000-plus people out there who are new citizens who came to us as criminals, and INS failed to ferret them out. Is that more or less correct? Mr. Bromwich. That is correct. The recommendations that we made in our 1994 Inspection report about the importance of making sure that the results of the fingerprint checks were received and filed in the relevant file before citizenship adjudications were made were not followed. Had it been followed, this problem would not be a problem. Mr. Rogers. Did you in your investigation determine that there was an extra special push on the INS to get these citizenship papers issued this year? Mr. Bromwich. I think it is well-known that there was a push. What we are looking at is the extent of the pressure and from where it came, Mr. Chairman. That is a matter, a series of matters, actually, that is currently under investigation. Mr. Rogers. And what have you found about where it came from, the push? Mr. Bromwich. It is really too early to say, Mr. Chairman. Literally, a lot of these interviews have just been done within the last 2 or 3 weeks, so I am not in a position to say. Mr. Rogers. My understanding is there is some preliminary information, more than information, preliminary facts, that the push was to get as many citizenships granted and people registered to vote before the election. Is that right or wrong? Mr. Bromwich. That is right. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Colgate's office, as you know, has been very closely involved in the counts of the citizens who have been made citizens with criminal records. I think he wants to clarify what the numbers are. Mr. Colgate. Mr. Chairman, of the 71,000 records that you have identified, those were FBI IDENTS, where FBI has identified to us that they had a record on the individual. My recollection is about 10,800 of those individuals had a felony criminal history record. Approximately 25,000 had misdemeanor criminal histories, and about 34,700 had what are called INS administrative. We are going through this process of reviewing those felony records and a sample of all of the records. I just didn't want to leave the impression that the whole 71,000 would have been disqualified, because in the cases of the misdemeanor or administrative record, it would not be a disqualifying situation per se for citizenship. We are in the process of reviewing all these, as well as the 180,000 that you referred to, which makes up the three categories. Those cards that were rejected, although therewould have been a name check on it, those cards that we cannot just reconcile, we view them as lost in the process, and there is another group of about, I believe, in excess of 2,500 that are still in process with the FBI. We will give the Committee further refinement and numbers, but I just wanted to give you a better sense. [The information follows:] [Pages 548 - 550--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. But 180,000 individuals were granted citizenship without a criminal record check. Mr. Colgate. They were---- Mr. Rogers. You are now going back to see how many of those were criminals. Mr. Colgate. There was not a completed criminal history check. We believe approximately 113,000 that there may have been some type of FBI name check, which is not as extensive, but it would have given some preliminary indication. Mr. Rogers. That is not what we require. Mr. Colgate. That is absolutely correct. Mr. Rogers. What I am saying to you is 180,000 individuals were granted citizenship without the proper criminal record check. Is that right or wrong? Mr. Colgate. That is correct, without the completed---- Mr. Rogers. And today we have on the streets of the country, possibly at least tens of thousands of people, many of them felons, who were granted citizenship without checking criminal records, all in the name of getting it done so they could vote before November. Is that right or wrong? Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the records evaluation that has been done so far shows that in many cases these are not criminal convictions, but instead just criminal arrests, that they in fact had a rap sheet that showed arrests. So it is not true that all these people were, in fact, felons, that is, convicted felons, at the time that they were made citizens. My understanding--again, Mr. Colgate has more detailed information--is that the number of people who were improperly made citizens even though they had disqualifying felonies is a fairly small number. Mr. Colgate. That is correct. We believe we will complete our review in the mid-May time frame and will be able to report to the Congress. Mr. Rogers. Suppose you find a number of felons on the street; what are you going to do about it? Mr. Colgate. We have issued regulations that would allow us to administratively revoke the individual's citizenship. Mr. Rogers. So are you going to go out and find them? Mr. Colgate. That is our plan, sir. Mr. Rogers. Well, there are only several hundred thousand aliens that you have not been able to find so far. In fact, there are five million illegal aliens in the country at this moment, and you can't find them, and if you do, you won't deport them. It is abysmal. It is shocking. It is horrendous what is going on in the Justice Department, and you are not handling the problem. INS--OUT OF CONTROL INS is out of control. Citizenship is open to criminals, all in the name of getting them registered to vote before the election, and the Attorney General stood by helpless, or at least inattentive, and let it happen, whether by accident or design, and it is inexcusable and shall be answered to. I don't know where we could turn. If I had an agency today, I would zero out the INS and turn all of this over to some responsible agency to handle the whole problem. I can't give it to the Justice Department because they have already proved they can't or will not do it. Where do we turn, Mr. Bromwich? I am willing to wash my hands of INS and say it is a lost cause. I have invested 12 years on this Subcommittee in trying to nurse this agency along, being patient, giving them money, answering all of their personnel requests. We have given them more money than they have asked for; we have given them more personnel than they asked for. We have visited the borders. We have disciplined, we have pressured, we have pulled, we have pushed, and it just is an absolute, abysmal failure. Where do we turn? What do we have to do to control our Nation's borders? Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman, I know you feel the frustration. I feel the frustration as we look at the manifold problems that exist within INS. If there were a magic-bullet solution such that disassembling it or creating two or three smaller agencies, if that would do any good, if I were confident that would do any good, I might well be here recommending that to you, Mr. Chairman. But we think the functions that INS does are critical functions. As you know, in your opening statement you said, controlling our borders, nothing is much more important than that. Giving deserving people--not felons, but deserving people--citizenship is a key and core governmental function that somebody has to do. I can't confidently recommend that you simply wash your hands of the INS because I don't have an institutional arrangement to put in its place, frankly, that would take care of those essential governmental functions. I think what you have a right to have, and what you are conducting, is oversight over its various activities. We are conducting oversight over those activities. I am well aware that it is frustrating that we only bring you problems and you only find problems. But these are very tough problems that I think the agency is trying to solve, although with less than glowing success so far. Mr. Rogers. Not only are we spending billions of dollars on INS activities, now we are having to pay the Justice Department millions of dollars to investigate them and to keep up with the criminal activity and the other incompetence over there. I just say to you, I am willing to turn it over to the National Guard or to the Department of the Interior or the Park Service or to the Boy Scouts of America. Anybody would do a better job of policing our borders than the incompetence of the INS under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, who is letting it go on. So I am just willing to say that the incompetence is not stopping at the top echelons of INS; otherwise, we would have an INS that would halfway operate. Now, did you find any evidence, or are you prepared to say that the instructions to register these felons to vote before November came from other than above the INS Commissioner? Mr. Bromwich. I don't have that information at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. There is some information. Mr. Bromwich. We are certainly pursuing that information. If there is information you received, we would obviously love to get all of it. I know we have gotten some from the Congress, but we would welcome having you share all the information that you have. Mr. Rogers. I have seen some information that takes it to the highest levels of the government, that the instructions were to give these people citizenship and register them to vote before November. Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman, we will pursue it as far as it goes. Mr. Rogers. Those are very serious charges that I am making, but I am prepared to back them up in due course of time. I hope and trust that you will pursue your investigation wherever it leads. Mr. Bromwich. You have my assurance on that, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would state if there is specific information that you or other Members of this Subcommittee or anybody in the Congress has on this, we certainly would welcome it. INS AUTOMATION Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Returning to the identification systems, INS's automation efforts, you say you have undertaken a review of these activities. What is the scope of your review? Mr. Bromwich. The review--first of all, we have a separate review that is scheduled this spring, by my Inspections Division, looking specifically at IDENT as a functioning system. We took a broader-gauged look at IDENT, Mr. Mollohan, over the last 6 weeks, as part of the package of INS automation initiatives. Mr. Mollohan. Did you not look at this issue last year, in 1996? Mr. Bromwich. Did we have an inspection or audit on IDENT? No, we did not. Mr. Mollohan. Did you have any kind of an audit or inspection of any of INS's automation initiatives? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. Again, for a complete list, let me turn to my Assistant IG for Audit, Guy Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman. We looked at RAPS. Mr. Mollohan. I can't hear you. Mr. Bromwich. We looked at RAPS, he said. Mr. Zimmerman. That appears to be functioning pretty well. The current work that we did was an attempt to look at the broad scope of whether the initiatives were on target. Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry, it is probably my problem. If you could speak up a little bit. Mr. Zimmerman. The current work we were looking at was an attempt to see if the initiatives were on target, on budget, and whether or not there were problems. And what we found was that we couldn't, neither we nor INS, because of lack of project management systems to determine whether or not they were on target or on budget; and we found that certain systems were behind schedule. Mr. Mollohan. Do you look behind the on-target, on-budget, meeting-a-schedule issues to the goals of the project, what the systems are supposed to deliver and how they are going to integrate with the rest of the government's identification systems? Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Mollohan, part of the problem that we found in our recent review is that there is a constantly shifting set of goals for the integrated INS automation initiatives. Mr. Mollohan. Is that a problem? Mr. Bromwich. Yes, it is a big problem, because it is the primary benchmark against which you measure whether they are succeeding, whether they are going over budget and so forth. Mr. Mollohan. So you have determined that, that the goals have not been set? Mr. Bromwich. That the goals keep changing and that the goals that they have right now are different than they were 6 months ago, which, in turn, were different than they were a year ago. It presents enormous problems to us as we try to review what INS is doing on these projects, what it hopes to achieve and so forth. On the $295 million wraparound initiative, the EDS contract, many of the tasks are not predefined. There are literally scores of individual tasks that are begun before there is a task order that is issued. In other words, the work is commissioned, specific direction is given to do something before--I am sorry, the work is actually being done before the task order is cut. In some cases, work is done, very substantial work, where we are incurring hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in obligations and the task that is supposed to be attacked is not defined until after the job is already done. So there is a real problem that we are finding in trying to assess whether, in fact, these programs and initiatives are on target. Mr. Mollohan. What did you do with that information? Mr. Bromwich. I am giving it to you, Mr. Mollohan, and we gave it to the INS people with whom we have been talking over the course of the last 6 weeks. Mr. Mollohan. Who are the INS people you have been talking with? Mr. Bromwich. It starts at the Executive Director level, George Bohlinger, and it is also the Associate Commissioner for Information Resources Management, Ron Collison. And then there are two other individuals--Ralph Roman and William Kemper-- actually closer to the actual administration of the contracts than they are, and we have been dealing with all of those people. I do want to say that the Attorney General has identified this, the whole series of INS automation issues, as a problem and a situation that needs to be addressed, and Mr. Colgate's office, as I mentioned before---- Mr. Mollohan. In the last 6 weeks? Mr. Bromwich. No, Mr. Colgate's office has been involved for a longer period of time. He is obviously better able to say when that was. Our review has taken place over the last 6 weeks. Once I got information that alarmed me and suggested that the oversight we had hoped was going to be conducted by the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency was not being done. I became very concerned about that. Mr. Rogers. Let me interrupt you. We have just a minute left on the first of three 5-minute votes. I am going to declare a short recess. We will resume in about 15 minutes. [Recess.] Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. Now, Mr. Bromwich, just briefly back on the naturalization program, you had brought to the attention of everyone the problems within the naturalization program as far back as 3 years ago. Mr. Bromwich. That is correct. postponement of planned review Mr. Rogers. And then in your memorandum, to Commissioner Meissner of October 23, 1995, in which you outline your proposed work plan for 1996 for INS, you, among other things, proposed an inspection of the naturalization program because we had prompted you and others had prompted you to do that; did you not? Mr. Bromwich. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. And so you proposed to investigate the naturalization program. And then she wrote back to you a couple of days later, November 7, 1995, requesting that you postpone your investigation of the naturalization process until late 1996. Mr. Bromwich. Let me just be clear, Mr. Chairman. There was not going to be an investigation at that point. There was going to be an audit or inspection of how well the program was working. Mr. Rogers. You proposed that; she wrote back and said, please don't do that until late 1996? Mr. Bromwich. That is my recollection. Mr. Rogers. It is in your paperwork. That is what it says. That is her memo in which she wrote back and said, I will appreciate your not doing this until late 1996. Right? Mr. Bromwich. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. Now, what is late 1996? That is the November election date, late 1996, isn't it? Mr. Bromwich. That is certainly when it was. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Bromwich. Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, even after the correspondence with Ms. Meissner took place, we nevertheless were going to proceed in early fiscal year 1997 with a Citizenship USA review, a detailed one, to be conducted by our Audit Division. As you well know, it was overtaken by events. We still plan, depending on what the various reviews uncover over the course of the next few months, to conduct any number of audits and inspections that relate to specific issues raised by the naturalization process. But I just wanted to let you know that we were poised to, in fact, engage in a big job, and then because of all the fuss that was created and all the important work that JMD had to do in connection with Peat Marwick and INS, we have deferred that. I just want to assure you that we, in fact, will do as much work to close out Citizenship USA as we can. Mr. Rogers. Well, if that we had gone ahead and reviewed the program in 1996, as you had originally intended, perhaps we would have caught this before the damage was done. Mr. Bromwich. It is possible, Mr. Chairman. One of the things we try to do is follow up on work we have done before. So the Audit Division, before beginning its work, would have reviewed what the Inspections Division had done that culminated in the February 1994 report. So I feel confident that we, in fact, would have taken another look at that problem and been in a position to find that the problem had not been solved, and indeed had been aggravated because of the flock of people seeking citizenship. Mr. Rogers. What did she say the reason was that they wanted you not to audit this naturalization program? Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman, I don't recall, to be honest with you. Mr. Rogers. Well, I am reading from her memorandum to you, November 7th, 1995, ``We appreciate your postponement,'' she says, ``of this review from fiscal 1995 at our request. One of our priorities for fiscal 1996 is the `reengineering' of the naturalization process which efforts began September 1995. As part of this effort, our goal is to eliminate our backlog in the key cities that account for a majority of problems. We believe that it may be more useful to defer this review until late 1996 to allow time for a full program implementation.'' So apparently this is part of the reengineering or Reinventing Government process, the Vice President's program? Mr. Bromwich. Right. The term ``reengineering'' is frequently used in trying to fix programs or operations that are broken. Mr. Rogers. So I gather she was asked by the Reinventing Government people to tell you to lay off until after the election reviewing the naturalization program. Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any knowledge of any conversations or contacts that Ms. Meissner may have had with anybody on that issue. All I know--and you have actually refreshed my recollection--is what she communicated to me. Mr. Rogers. And in the meantime they went about this program of giving citizenship to 1.1 million people before the election, 180,000 of which never had a complete criminal record check, and several thousands of which we know now are felons running loose in the streets of this country who have been made citizens. Right or wrong? Mr. Bromwich. The program went forward without our further reviewing it; that is correct. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham. I guess I am going to follow on the same topic here. citizenship usa This story was in the New York Times yesterday, about how the Clinton Administration allowed about 180,000 immigrants to become American citizens before checks of criminal records were completed. The INS has said it rejected--of the more than one million applicants that they ran through and actually checked-- they rejected about 18 percent of those applicants. And then when you go to the 180,000 cases with insufficient background and verifications, fingerprint checks were never completed on 113,126 because the forms were improperly completed or the prints were smudged. In 66,398 cases, the Immigration Service found no record that it everasked the FBI to check the applicants' backgrounds. If you figure 18 percent of the 180,000, by my math anyway, it is over 32,000 people who are out on the streets today, but probably would have been rejected if the percentage held up. What was the rush? Mr. Bromwich. Mr. Latham, my understanding is that the rush in part was dictated by a huge backlog of naturalization applications. That is not to say that any urgency to reduce the backlog should have sacrificed the quality control that is implicit in doing a FBI fingerprint name and date of birth check. So what was the cause of the rush? There was at least one good cause of the rush. Does that excuse it? No. Mr. Latham. I don't think there is any justification that there can be--to have at least 32,000 people out on the street, many of whom are convicted felons and people who would not have qualified under their own parameters. There has got to be another reason. And whether it is political, to get people to register, is an absolute breach of responsibility that they would put American citizens' lives in jeopardy, and the only justification I can see for them not to do their job is someone is pushing them or told them, to run them through. Mr. Bromwich. I am not here, Mr. Latham, to excuse this or even to really explain it, but simply to tell you that we had noted the problem 3 years ago. We provided notification of what we believed the problems to be with the fingerprinting process and the relationship between the INS and the FBI. Those problems that we identified were not corrected, and there was a huge movement in INS to reduce the backlog and, in fact, process a large number of people through the naturalization process. I don't think we will know until Mr. Colgate, together with Peat Marwick and INS, actually goes back through the specific cases involving the individual aliens who made citizenship applications. The data that you cited, I believe is based on some briefings that Mr. Colgate gave. But my understanding is that the numbers are fluid, and we will not know for sure until the work is actually done. Mr. Latham. How long would it take to round up the 180,000 people that--In fiscal year 1995, the latest year in which available figures are out, the agency revoked the citizenship of 20 people in procedures that typically took months to complete. That is 20. We have got 180,000 people out there. So we are probably talking decades. Mr. Bromwich. I don't know, Mr. Latham. That is a huge number, 180,000, obviously a huge number. Mr. Latham. I guess I would agree with the Chairman, we ought to look to find a different means of administering this. I am from Iowa, northwest Iowa. I don't know if anyone saw last year's cover story in U.S. News and World Report about immigration problems in Storm Lake, Iowa. You don't think of Iowa as having a problem like that---- Mr. Bromwich. Right. Mr. Latham [continuing]. But it is a tremendous problem. And the American people deserve to know that their borders are secure, and it is not being done because an agency is incompetent and knowingly deceptive to Congress, with allegations of bribery and everything else involved. Mr. Chairman, anything I can do to start over is what we need to do. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. ins performance I remember an expression my grandmother used to use. She would say, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging, but I think I am going to dig a little bit here. Mr. Bromwich, I agree with the Members of the Subcommittee that the conduct of the INS is very bleak. I think there is a morale problem, there are management and labor problems, and there may be some, criminal activities going on. I realize that this report is kind of a summary of your activities. Although the patient may be dying, I am wondering if we are reading all of it correctly, or at least maybe these were my assumptions. One of the things that we are all interested in, certainly those from California, is the proliferation of drugs. When I first read this, it was probably my misreading of it, I thought that there was an investigation that turned up active INS personnel at the border that were participating in smuggling drugs. As I read this, I see that the investigation that I focused on said there was a former INS agent that was arrested and convicted with the cooperation of your office, the FBI, and some other law enforcement agencies. Did the second reading of it, did I read it correctly? Mr. Bromwich. I don't know the specific---- Mr. Dixon. It is on page 11. Mr. Bromwich. Which I don't have. There are certainly cases involving former INS personnel. I am not going to be able to give you much comfort. We also have investigated and are continuing to investigate cases that involve the actions of INS personnel both at the California- Mexico border and at various points along the Texas-Mexico border who, the allegations are, were complicit in schemes to wave through, if you will, major shipments of drugs through points of entry and other places along the border. Mr. Dixon. So it is your belief that there are active INS personnel that are engaged at the Mexican border in assisting the transportation of drugs into the United States? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. I don't want to overstate the scale or the dimension of that. I don't know that conducting specific investigations is a very good way to get a global read on how much of that activity is absolutely going on. But we certainly have done and are doing investigations of that sort that involve the direct participation by INS personnel in drug distribution. Mr. Dixon. Because at first blush I think you have painted a very dismal picture of the situtation at INS, and I am wondering, though cleanup is bad, is it as bad as we are portraying it? Mr. Bromwich. I am just handed a note, Mr. Dixon. Apparently the item you are referring to, that individual was in fact actively employed by INS at the time that our investigation took place. So based on the note that has been passed to me, your first reading was correct; that is, it was somebody who was still on duty at INS. Mr. Dixon. It doesn't say that though. It says a former INS inspector and five coconspirators were arrested on various cocaine smuggling charges. At the time of the arrest, the person was a former? Mr. Bromwich. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Dixon. At the time of the conviction, the person was a former. Mr. Bromwich. That is correct, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon. So I don't understand what your note meant. Mr. Bromwich. The activities, the underlying activities, took place while he was in INS. GREEN CARDS Mr. Dixon. Okay. So it is as bad as we think it is. Now, I want to ask about the green card, and maybe you don't have an opinion, but I notice in your remarks you say two things that jumped out at me. One was that there is a cheaper way to do this than the way they are processing them. The second question is, I am told that now it is almost impossible to make something noncounterfeitable. I know the INS says that this is a card that is very difficult. Have you formed an opinion as to whether we are going to be seeing counterfeit cards in California or other places? Mr. Bromwich. I really haven't, Mr. Dixon. I continue to be amazed at technological developments in virtually every field. So to suggest that there can't be or won't be a card that is not capable of being counterfeited, I am reluctant to say that. There may not be one now, but that is not to say there might not be technological developments that would make that in fact come to pass. Mr. Dixon. Right. And you are suggesting that they use the mail to mail in your old cards and to get back your new card. Mr. Bromwich. We are suggesting that they need to move quickly to retire the outstanding green cards and to move as quickly as they can to a universal scheme for green cards where everybody has essentially the same kind of green card. But what we are saying in terms of the process is that, right now, we believe a lot of money is being wasted by unnecessarily involving the INS district offices in the process. We calculate, just in terms of how many work-years are spent by INS employees at the district offices, that $45 million is currently being spent that could be saved if the process were rebuilt and the district offices were taken out of the picture. In addition to that, there is a separate problem that we touch on, which is that INS looked to be in the position to want to purchase more, very expensive card-making machines than there was any evidence to suggest they really needed. My understanding is that, based in part on our work, they are not rushing pell-mell towards that outcome. But that was a separate potential waste of money. Mr. Dixon. Finally, I would like to take whatever time I have left, Mr. Chairman. INS PERFORMANCE Mr. Bromwich, I have known of your reputation for some time and have known you for a short period of time. You indicated that you have spent a lot of time investigating the INS, so I know that you must have formed some opinions as to what is the problem. Is it the Commissioner herself, and this all started under her watch? Is it that the people the government has hired and recruited over a period of years are all rotten to the core? This problem is widespread, if I read your report correctly, and I am wondering what opinions you have formed. Setting aside any investigatory thing, should we abolish this agency, should we cut the money, should we give it more money, should we retire everybody that is there? What is the root cause of this cancer that you feel--and I am not challenging it--has spread throughout this entire agency? Mr. Bromwich. I don't want to suggest for a moment, Mr. Dixon, that I lay at the feet of Commissioner Meissner most of the problems that we have identified. Far from it. Most, if not all, of these problems originated years and years ago, and are regrettably the product of substantial neglect over time by INS top management, by Justice Department top management, and frankly, by the Congress as well. So I don't for a moment want to suggest that the responsibility for the manifold problems that we find can be laid properly at the feet of Commissioner Meissner. I have enormous respect for her personal and professional integrity, and none of the work I have done suggests any different conclusion. What to do is much harder. I think that, as I mentioned in response to questions earlier, INS carries out absolutely critical functions in this country, both enforcement functions in protecting our borders and service functions in terms of making sure that people who are lawfully here or lawfully want to come here can in fact have an orderly way through the process to obtain the benefits of U.S. citizenship or other kinds of benefits that fall short of citizenship. I think there is no simple answer and there is no magic bullet. I think the things that the Congress has appropriated money for are things that need to be done. Even though we conclude that the automation initiatives have not been terribly successful, when taken as a whole, that does not mean that they don't need to be taken care of. What I can suggest and what I offer is the prospect of continuing, close scrutiny by this Subcommittee and other Committees within Congress, very close scrutiny--continued close scrutiny by my organization and close scrutiny, which is now occurring, from the Department of Justice over INS. Mr. Dixon. I wonder if I could pursue that. You are from California and, quite frankly, I wonder whether the concept that the Immigration and Naturalization Service can, in fact, police our borders may be antiquated. It may be a job beyond their capacity. Have you formed an opinion about this? Mr. Bromwich. It is an incredibly difficult job to do under the best of circumstances, and they have not done a great job. But again, as I said in response to the Chairman's questions earlier, if I had a better solution to provide you, an institutional arrangement that I was comfortable or confident would create a better agency capable of carrying out the different missions that the INS currently has, I would tell you. I wouldn't have any hesitation about it. What I have to be concerned about in making recommendations in any responsible way is whether I can identify an institutional arrangement that would make things better, and I can't. Maybe it is because of a lack of imagination, but I don't have an institutional arrangement that I can recommend to you that would fix these problems. All I can do in my current position is to continue to identify them as often as I can, to try to point them out as boldly and forcefully as possible, not only to the INS but to the Justice Department and to the Congress, and to keep doing that. I know that may not be a satisfactory answer, but I don't-- -- Mr. Dixon. No one has a satisfactory answer. Mr. Bromwich. I don't have a better solution. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Well, Mr. Dixon raises a valid point that I think we have been skirting around here for a long time. Is the INS an antiquated agency and as well as the concept to try to defend the borders in a modern age against millions of people trying to come in, illegally or otherwise. And I think we have heard evidence here today in this hearing that absolutely confirms what we have been hearing for years that this is an incompetent agency for any purposes, including guarding our borders. I think a lot of us are beginning to come around to the point of view that we may have to get the military involved in the protection of the borders because anything short of that looks like it is ineffective. I mean, we have put on hundreds of new Border Patrol agents every year for the last several years, trying to give INS enough manpower to protect the borders, and what we get back are these endless, ceaseless scandals. We have all sorts of turpitude and crimes in an agency that is shot through from top to bottom with ineptness. So I guess I am just like you and others, absolutely frustrated. Again, I thought--last year and the year before--I thought we were beginning to bring the agency around, but it has gotten worse than it ever has been, to my knowledge, since I have been on the subcommittee. FBI LAB Let's get back to the FBI laboratory question. Now, as you testified, you completed a report of serious allegations of problems at the FBI laboratory. Where are you with this report now? Mr. Bromwich. In late January, Mr. Chairman, we provided, with a very restricted distribution, copies of our draft report to the FBI and also to various prosecution offices throughout the country who were responsible for pursuing the specific cases that we examined in great detail. We gave them a period of 30 days to provide us with their comments. We didn't want their opinions, we didn't want argument, we simply wanted to make as sure as we possibly could that everything in the report, when it is issued in final form, is factually accurate. We have gotten most of those comments back, Mr. Chairman, but not all of them. I believe there is either one set of comments or perhaps two we have not yet received. But we are already, based on the comments that we have received to date, assessing whether any changes need to be made from the draft report to the final report, whether in light of the additional information that is being brought to our attention during this process any further interviews or other kinds of investigation need to be done. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in mid-March, after all the comments have been analyzed and we have made preliminary judgments as to whether any changes needed to be made or not, the whole team is going to convene and slog through this until we come out with a final product. That is currently scheduled for the week of March 10th. Mr. Rogers. What can you tell us about the allegations? Can you confirm any of what we are reading in the newspapers? Mr. Bromwich. I want to be very careful about this, Mr. Chairman, as I am sure you are aware. I can say that we received scores of allegations against the FBI lab, primarily from Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, and the allegations went to mismanagement of the lab, to potential falsification of test results, to the testifying of various laboratory employees beyond the bounds of their expertise and so forth. I can say--and I would like to try to limit it to this-- that we have found some substantial problems in the FBI lab. We have found substantial problems based on the allegations that Dr. Whitehurst made to us. Mr. Rogers. Have you found independent verification of any of his allegations? Mr. Bromwich. In almost every case in which we will come to a finding that something was done improperly or unscientifically, we are not relying simply on the unadorned and uncorroborated testimony of Dr. Whitehurst or anybody else for that matter. So we are and have been confirming some of those allegations, not confirming all of them by any means, through the normal process of document review and interviews of witnesses who have knowledge of the underlying facts. Mr. Rogers. Is the FBI cooperating with your investigation? Mr. Bromwich. They have cooperated with our investigation. MEDIA LEAKS Mr. Rogers. Are you conducting an investigation of leaks to the media in connection with this investigation? Mr. Bromwich. We are conducting an investigation of leaks. There have been, as you noted, lots and lots of stories in the newspaper that were not authorized, certainly by me and, I don't believe, by the Director of the FBI. We are taking a look at some very specific leaks by which two media organizations actually referred to specific language that came out of the draft report and could not be accessible to anyone unless they had a copy of that draft report. The Justice Department must get the information that we are uncovering out into the field, so that the Department is able to discharge its constitutional responsibilities to provide information that may be exculpatory to particular defendants in cases. This makes a leaks investigation extremely difficult to conduct. If we were to pursue all leaks, we would literally have hundreds of people who might have access to the information, because some of the stories that you have seen don't track back to our draft report. They instead track back to underlying investigative documents that the Department of Justice disseminated, going back many months. The specific leaks investigation we are looking at is a much more constrained universe than that. People leaked specific passages in our report to two different media organizations, and I think we have got a reasonable chance of finding out who did it. That is certainly what I am committed to doing. Mr. Rogers. Well, obviously, we are terribly interested in your FBI lab investigation. We had some concerns 2 years ago in the Subcommittee and responded by funding a new laboratory with more up-to-date equipment. So we are interested in what you are going to report. FBI MANAGEMENT Now, does this investigation on the FBI lab raise broader questions in your mind of lack of management controls at the FBI? I mean, as you know, this Subcommittee has, like with INS and even more so, shoveled money at the FBI the last several years in amounts greater than the President requested, because of the crime wave. And we have been shoving people at them--new people, new equipment, new responsibilities--resources beyond their wildest dreams, in the hope that we could help stem the crime tide. Perhaps it has worked, perhaps not; I don't know. But in the process, I am becoming very disturbed by someof the shortcomings--I will put it mildly--at the FBI of recent, we have seen such things as the turning over of hundreds of FBI confidential files to the White House political operation. That is unheard of and we have yet to know why. We have had FBI personnel destroying documents pertaining to Ruby Ridge. We have had mishandling of the Olympic bombing case that would merit a gold medal, and the absolutely false accusation of Richard Jewell. We have had basic management problems that have resulted in huge cost overruns and schedule delays of vital law enforcement systems that we funded, such as the NCIC 2000 and IAFIS. They have not hired and trained the personnel and spent the resources that we provided for such things as counterterrorism and the like. And we could go on. You are listening to probably the biggest booster of the FBI in the Congress, historically. But I am on the verge of becoming quite distressed about these lapses of management, of some very critical items within the control of the FBI. Am I on your wavelength on this or not? Are we thinking about the same thing? scope of FBI oversight responsibilities Mr. Bromwich. It is somewhat more difficult, Mr. Chairman, for me to reach a general assessment about the FBI, in part because our jurisdiction is more limited with respect to it than it is, for example, with respect to INS. Certainly the problems that we have found in the FBI lab give rise to concern, but in terms of other misconduct issues within the FBI, we don't have the same institutional arrangement with them as we do with most of the other components within the Justice Department, so my knowledge is somewhat more limited. We do have plenary authority to conduct audits and inspections of the FBI. I can say that for most of the life of the OIG, the FBI was not cooperative with work that we have tried to do. That has improved recently, and we have encountered fewer obstacles in the last few years. Just to give you one example, what we do in trying to generate the slate of audit and inspections work that we do for the next year, we solicit suggestions from the components themselves. In the case of the Bureau of Prisons and INS and DEA and so forth, we have regularly received requests to do certain work that was not just ``keep them busy,'' ``make busy work,'' but requested reviews that were important to the component. We did not get a similar reception, going back many years, from the FBI, and we are still not getting them to request us to do that various kind of oversight work. Mr. Rogers. As a matter of fact, in 1994, the Attorney General told you to ``bug out'' of investigating the FBI; is that not correct? Mr. Bromwich. It was not so much ``bug out,'' as ``stay out.'' There had been limited authority all along, and certainly the Attorney General's order in November of 1994-- which I think is what you might be referring to--codified, if you will, by Department regulation, the fact that FBI conducts, in the main, its own misconduct investigations, rather than having us be the principal investigating agency. Mr. Rogers. That is right. The Attorney General in 1994 issued an order giving primary responsibility for investigating allegations of misconduct on the FBI to the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Now, who oversees the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility? You don't because the Attorney General says, so, right? Mr. Bromwich. We have limited powers of review, Mr. Chairman. What we can do is, we are now getting, for the first time since January of 1996, information on a regular basis from the Bureau of what matters of misconduct they are looking into; and we do, under the order you are referring to, have the limited ability in specific cases to go to the Deputy Attorney General and ask to take over a matter, either from FBI-OPR or DEA-OPR. Mr. Rogers. You got such a waiver to investigate the FBI lab situation, right? Mr. Bromwich. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just to be clear about what happened there, we had been doing an investigation for a while based on Dr. Whitehurst's allegations. FBI-OPR had also been doing an investigation of various claims that Whitehurst was making. When I was provided with certain information in the summer of 1995 that made me realize that there was a major problem, I went to the Deputy Attorney General and told her that I thought it was inappropriate for FBI-OPR to be doing any part of the Whitehurst-related investigation. She requested that I meet with the Director of the FBI and find out whether he was opposed to my taking over the entire inquiry. I met with the Director in early August of 1995, and he did not oppose it. He in fact said, no, I think it is better that you do all of this. But that is the only instance in which we have--since I have been IG, that we have resorted to the mechanism created by the 1994 order and taken over a matter that resided in FBI-OPR. Mr. Rogers. In your opinion, does the FBI presently have an effective infrastructure to conduct adequate oversight of itself and bring significant management deficiencies to the attention of senior FBI and DOJ management? Mr. Bromwich. I have to state my bias, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe that when you are dealing with powerful law enforcement agencies, there is any replacement for external oversight, either by the Congress or by some other entity. That is my bias and I want to state it clearly. I think that there is some good work done by FBI-OPR. I think there is some good work done by the Inspections Division of the FBI. Is it the type of close oversight and scrutiny that we should have over one of the Nation's most powerful agencies? I don't think so. operation gatekeeper Mr. Rogers. Now, in the interest of time, because we are running way beyond the schedule and we have another hearing coming up immediately after this one, I may defer asking the San Clemente questions I was going to ask you and ask the Attorney General about it when she comes before us. But I wanted to briefly touch base with you on Operation Gatekeeper. For those that don't know, that is the INS border control strategy on the San Diego border. You are investigating that program now, and I know you may not be able to comment on specific allegations, but you indicated in your testimony that some INS Border Patrol employees have not been cooperative with you in your investigation; is that right? Mr. Bromwich. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. Now, what is the nature of your investigation? What are you aiming at? Mr. Bromwich. It is a broad-gauged investigation intoallegations that data have been manipulated and procedures have been distorted in order to paint an inaccurately rosy picture of the success of Gatekeeper. That is it in a nutshell. As you can hear, it is not a nutshell. It is a very broad investigation. Mr. Rogers. INS measures if it is successful by the number of aliens the Border Patrol apprehends, ``we apprehended x number last month, and that is an increase'' and so forth. In June of 1996, members of the Border Patrol union publicly alleged that Border Patrol supervisors were improperly manipulating data to create the false impression that the Gatekeeper initiative had successfully deterred illegal border crossings at the San Diego border. The agents claimed they were being instructed not to apprehend aliens so that the level of apprehensions would appear to have dropped, thereby implying that fewer aliens were coming across the border and illegal crossings had been deterred and the Gatekeeper was a resounding success. Mr. Bromwich. Those are precisely the allegations we are looking at. Mr. Rogers. The agents also alleged that supervisors submitted falsified reports showing inaccurate apprehension statistics. A union representative alleged that a congressional delegation that visited Gatekeeper facilities in April was intentionally misled to believe that efforts had succeeded in controlling illegal immigration in the border region of San Diego, somewhat similar to the allegation of misinformation in Miami. Are those the allegations you are checking into? Mr. Bromwich. Yes, sir, they are. Mr. Rogers. Can you tell us anything now about where you are on that report? Mr. Bromwich. We are making reasonably good progress, as I mentioned in my prepared testimony and as you referred to. We have had some substantial problems in getting cooperation from members of the Border Patrol union, which was something of a surprise to us since senior members of the Border Patrol union originally made the allegations. Mr. Rogers. You mean, they are clamming up now? Mr. Bromwich. Yes. They certainly were for a period of time. They claim it was issues of principle such as, ``Should a union representative be able to accompany a member of the Border Patrol union who was being asked to be interviewed by my office.'' We have policies that say that should not happen because we don't want anybody who has anybody else's interests at heart, other than that of the individual employee, to sit in on an interview. For completely understandable reasons, we don't want other witnesses to have advance notice of what a particular witness has said. We don't want people tailoring their testimony in ways designed in this case---- Mr. Rogers. Have you sought INS upper management to help you out with this? Mr. Bromwich. INS management on this has been cooperative. There is a limited amount they can do, because their relations, in many instances, with the Border Patrol union are not great. But those are, I hope, Mr. Chairman, obstacles that are behind us. I actually met with the head of the Border Patrol union a couple of months ago, and we hammered out an agreement that has allowed us to proceed and to get the information that we had been seeking for this period of time. So I hope that the obstructions that we experienced in the past are a thing of the past. Mr. Rogers. When will you be able to report? Mr. Bromwich. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. We are doing it with a large team. They are working as hard as they possibly can. My understanding is they still have several months more of work. Mr. Rogers. Without telling us what your final conclusion may be, in general terms, should this Subcommittee be concerned with the data that we are getting out of Gatekeeper, that is, saying what a tremendous success it is? Mr. Bromwich. I don't feel like I am in a position where I can counsel you one way or the other. It is still an open book for us. Mr. Rogers. How can we decide whether to fund them next year or not without knowing that? Mr. Bromwich. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we are-- and this gives you at least a tentative, provisional conclusion; I am giving it to you because I know you need it for what you are dealing with--we are not finding the pervasive falsification of data or the distortion of procedures that have been alleged. That is so far. There are some key witnesses that we still have not interviewed on this. Am I saying, we expect to give Gatekeeper a clean bill of health? I am not saying that at all. Have we found, already, pervasive fraud in Gatekeeper? We have not. Mr. Rogers. Well, I appreciate your testimony as depressing and frustrating as it is. I remember--was it last year or 2 years ago, when you were here and we prompted you to dig deeper. Mr. Bromwich. It was both years, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Well, you have certainly come back with information that is very distressing, but something that we all suspected, I guess, all along. But I encourage you to dig deeper. If you encounter any obstruction along the way, I trust you will let this Subcommittee know about it. Mr. Bromwich. Yes, sir, we will. Mr. Rogers. Because we will be sure that the path is cleared or feathers will fly, or both. But I insist that you dig and let the chips fall where they may. This is too important an issue and the INS has too important a responsibility for us and you, charged with oversight, not to get to the bottom of what appears to be a very icky and murky situation, not to mention all the other aspects of Justice that you are charged with investigating. It is very disturbing to me, extremely disturbing, of these recent actions or transgressions by the FBI that I detailed a moment ago, I don't know of two more critical agencies in the U.S. Government, which must have integrity, than the one that investigates our criminal activities and the one that grants us citizenship. There is some tarnish now on those, and I want us to be able to remove that tarnish and get back to the gleaming concept that was there in the first place. I would appreciate your further thoughts on the much larger question on the INS of whether or not that agency is simply unable to handle the massive problems that we have charged them with in the modern age, or are we trying to fight a modern war using the four-square musket formations of the 18th century. Mr. Bromwich. I will, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. Mr. Bromwich. Thank you. [Pages 568 - 576--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, March 5, 1997. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WITNESSES LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR WADE B. HOUK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER STEPHEN R. COLGATE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION MICHAEL J. ROPER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONTROLLER ADRIAN A. CURTIS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF Chairman Rogers' Opening Remarks Mr. Rogers. Today the Subcommittee is continuing its oversight of the budget and activities of the Department of Justice. The focus of today's hearing is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As I told the Attorney General yesterday, this Subcommittee and I, personally, have become troubled over a significant number of issues that have arisen and the management and execution of responsibilities of the Department of Justice and its law enforcement agencies. The FBI is at the forefront of a number of these problems. And let me preface my remarks by saying this. I don't think anyone can question my loyalty to the FBI and support for the law enforcement agencies of Justice, particularly the FBI. We have, on this Subcommittee, given increases to the FBI and the Justice Department, that were even more than was requested. So, I think I have credentials to say these things. Mr. Director, your judgment in several high profile episodes is coming under increased scrutiny and raises serious questions that have cast serious doubts about the independence of the FBI. FBI files were handed over, no questions asked, to the political operatives of the White House. We've never had that before. In fact, there have been wars fought over less in other parts of the world. Your General Counsel, Howard Shapiro, is facing questions about his legal judgment and accusations of partisanship by alerting the White House to potentially damaging information about White House officials. A critical draft report by the Inspector General prompted the transfer of three supervisors of a laboratory and raised the possibility that prosecutions, perhaps even the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City bombing cases, might be harmed. The FBI accused an innocent man, Richard Jewell, of the Atlanta Olympic bombing and the interrogation and policing tactics used, are under investigation. The TWA 800 explosion remains unsolved. Heralded achievements of streamlining the bureaucracy at FBI Headquarters by moving 600 agents to the field is slowly being undone, as you try to correct management deficiencies in the organization. The Bureau has not delivered vital law enforcement systems such as NCIC 2000 and IAFIS, anywhere near within budget or on time. And you haven't shown the Committee any ability to hire and train the personnel and spend the resources we've provided to respond to the threat of terrorism. And the Commissioner of INS tells us yesterday that the problem of persons being granted citizenship, even though they did not have a completed background check, is the result of senior management of both INS and FBI not recognizing the problem. We've done everything we could to support your needs to fight crime and terrorism. I've absorbed a great deal of criticism for doing so, as well. I've cut other agencies dramatically, including some of your counterparts in the Department of Justice to support the FBI. The FBI's budget has been increased by $557 million, 25 percent over the last two years. I'm watching political agendas reach into the Department and the FBI, and it's extremely troubling. Nothing troubles me more. The FBI cannot ever be a party to politics. The confidence, and the integrity, and the independence of the Bureau is under suspicion. I will tell you this, Director Freeh, as I have told the Attorney General, we're facing a serious problem. A problem of management, integrity and independence, at the very time that the FBI and the Department are undertaking investigations of unprecedented scope that require unquestioned management capability, independence and integrity. We can't begin to take a look at your 1998 budget request until we get to the bottom of these things because, frankly, unless there are some changes made, there may not be a budget for 1998. So, that's the reason we're here. It troubles me greatly that we're at this point. The American people are entitled to have unquestioned fairness in the administration of justice; not just the fact of justice, that is, equality and fairness in the justice system, but the appearance of justice as well. There are some matters that we're going to question you about today; investigations that I have mentioned in my opening statement, perhaps others. And we want to hear from you, if at any point in time during these proceedings, there is a necessity that we go into closed session, we have that authority. So, I want you to feel free to discuss these issues. If you feel like an answer to a question requires that we deal with it in confidence, in the secrecy of just the Committee, we're prepared to do that. But I want to say that only if we absolutely have to, because I think the American people need to know in an open session the answers to these questions. We're pleased to have the Full Committee Chairman with us today who I think has a few remarks he would like to make before we proceed. So, let me recognize Chairman Bob Livingston at this time. Chairman Livingston's Opening Remarks Chairman Livingston. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director Freeh, we thank you for coming today; albeit that it may not be under the most pleasant of circumstances, but we do wish to be frank with you. Chairman Rogers has expressed his concern. I share his concern. He expressed his concern about the Administration ofJustice in the FBI and within the Justice Department, not only in his statement today, but his expressions of concern to Attorney General Janet Reno. And I was not here when he talked to the Attorney General, but I did want to take this opportunity to reiterate some of my concerns to you. I'm reminded before I start, that I should point out, that I'm a former criminal prosecutor as you know. I worked in the Justice Department as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. I worked with the FBI; a proud force, honest force, an impartial force; a force dedicated to law enforcement without regard to politics or political influence. I'm reminded of the Statue of Justice with her scales that are evenly balanced and her blindfold depicting the concept that justice is blind. Justice is not to be used for any political force in America. Unfortunately, those concepts appear to be somewhat tarnished and tattered because of the last few years, unfortunately, during your reign as Director. I met with you before, as you were taking office. And I told you then that if you conducted yourself fairly and impartially in my eyes, you'd have nothing but support from me. And I bit my tongue when you promoted Mr. Larry Potts, the fellow who was in charge of the disasters at Waco and Ruby Ridge, to your number two flank. I didn't say anything. I didn't write a letter, but I was concerned about it, as were enough other people who did express themselves, that you withdrew his nomination. And you brought a gentleman by the name of Howard Shapiro to the FBI. Mr. Shapiro, in my opinion, has warranted dismissal six months ago. To this date, Mr. Shapiro is still counsel to the FBI. Under Mr. Shapiro's watch and under yours, there has yet to be a satisfactory explanation of what Mr. Rogers referred to as a wholesale invasion of privacy, in which hundreds of unsuspecting American citizens have had their FBI files turned over to political hacks in the White House. And I have no better words for it--political hacks in the White House to review and to use as they choose. Chuck Colson in the Nixon Administration went to prison ostensibly for the misuse of one FBI file. Yet there were nearly 1,000 by the FBI to presumably Mr. Craig Livingstone. That's spelled with an ``e.'' Not a cousin of mine or a relative, and another fellow that was working with him. Mr. Livingstone mysteriously appeared as the White House's agent in charge of security. And to this day, I haven't heard a single person in the White House admit that they hired Craig Livingstone. Here, one of the most important jobs is security in the United States White House, a center of power that houses the President of the United States, and we don't know who hired Craig Livingstone. Yet, he got 1,000 files from the FBI and everything I'm talking about is right from the newspaper reports. So, I'm not talking about privileged information here. And presumably he extracted information from those files. I recall reports of a computer that mysteriously was destroyed. I was told that computers recall everything and that a computer master can extract that information that's been recorded on the computers unless they've been severely damaged. In this instance that computer, I'm told, was heavily damaged as if it were dropped from a second story window. And we don't see any action by the Justice Department against offending parties either in the FBI or out of the FBI or anywhere else for the misuse of those files. Unfortunately, when Mr. Clinger was the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and started digging around, we found that it was Howard Shapiro, your Chief Counsel, that notified people in the White House that Mr. Clinger was onto a 1993 interview conducted by Special Agent Sculimbrene, in which he indicated that he interviewed Mr. Nusbaum, then Counsel to the White House and various other people in the White House, in which those people expressed their opinion as to who hired Craig Livingstone. Well, you would think that Mr. Sculimbrene had been given an award. Unfortunately, what happened was Mr. Sculimbrene who had been subsequently injured was ostracized not only from the White House, but from the FBI, so much so that Mr. Shapiro saw fit to send two high ranking agents, Duncan Wainwright and Jennifer Esposito, high ranking FBI agents to his house as he was convalescing, to inquire about his participation in the preparation of that FBI 302 Form and recording the earlier conversations referring to Craig Livingstone. The way I read what had happened it looked like sheer and absolute intimidation. Apparently, I was not alone because a week or two later, two weeks later, agent Sculimbrene ended his 24-year career in the FBI, saying unjustified changes in his professional assignments and assaults on his career over the past year have been difficult and more than any agent should have to endure. He quit. And Mr. Shapiro has yet to adequately explain his performance or be dealt with by the FBI. Granted, there is an investigation. There is always an investigation. There are no results from the investigation. And all of the facts that I've just recited were public record. In my opinion, those facts plus the fact that Mr. Shapiro also shared the transcript of Special Agent Gary Aldrich's book, the manuscript of that book, with interested parties in the White House during the process; during the period that the White House was being investigated so that they would be alerted to the allegations by Mr. Aldrich, some three or four months before Aldrich's book even went to the publisher for publication. Clearly, Mr. Shapiro is suspect. In my opinion, Shapiro should have been fired outright immediately upon the revelation of these incidents. He was not. And he was defended by you in a conversation between you and me, in which you said you might not have done those things that way, but he was a good man and, therefore he should be entitled to his day in court. Fine. Give him his day in court and then fire him. Now, Mr. Livingstone is still out there. We know that he was perusing those FBI files. No charges have yet been lodged against him. And Gary Aldrich, by the way, who wrote the book on the White House, what reward did he get? Well, Janet Reno threatened to prosecute him and confiscate the proceeds of his book. That sounds in the interest of justice. Janet Reno said that she was launching an internal investigation of all of this matter, but as yet, nothing has been done. Several Members of Congress have demanded the resignation of Mr. Shapiro but nothing has been done. Since then there have been other incidents, some of which have been referred to by Mr. Rogers. There was a gentleman by the name of George Cabrara,barely a convicted drug dealer, who was photographed in the presence of high officials in the White House. And initially Congress asked for those photographs. Those photographs were denied Members of Congress. Only upon publication of the demands were they ultimately produced. Congressman Jerry Solomon has asked the FBI to investigate John Huang. We are told that now there are investigations of possible national security violations and economic espionage ongoing with respect to Mr. Huang's top connection with the Commerce Department. But there has been no public dissemination of information regarding that information or that investigation from the FBI. That may be proper. I'm not saying that it's not, but the fact is that the FBI was responsible, along with the Secret Service, with the background investigation of Mr. Huang, as well as on the various parties who Mr. Huang ostensibly brought to the White House and a lot of questions raised about those, but no resolution, again. The FBI Crime Lab, as Mr. Rogers points out, raises a number of problems in a myriad of cases. And we have to ask and be concerned about the deterioration of the quality of work of the Crime Lab. Of course, Mr. Richard Jewell will never adequately retrieve his reputation. And that was not a function of the aggressive media. It had to have been a function of people within the FBI who must bear the responsibility for the release of information on his investigation. So, Mr. Director, I don't intend to preach. I don't intend to unfairly criticize. I only intend to point out that when I was a young prosecutor working with the FBI, I had tremendous faith in the credibility and in the impartiality of the FBI. Today, I'm a Congressman. Today, I still have that faith in the average rank and file FBI agent who I think is doing just a superb job against incredible odds all throughout America. But I think the leadership of the FBI has brought the entire organization into question. And you are the leader. Thank you. mr. mollohan's opening statement Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, I'd like to welcome you to the hearing today. I want to go on record as noting that I do not think this is the ideal forum to explore the substance of the issues that have been raised here by the Chairman and the Chairman of the Full Committee. I think in fact that it is a particularly inadequate forum to explore the substance of the issues that have been detailed. Because it is a particularly inappropriate forum to explore the substance, I think that it is less than useful; except for some sort of demonstrative purposes, to do a shotgun approach detailing problems in the Justice Department and other places without an appropriate follow-up and exploration of these issues. I think it's really unfair to the witnesses, because all we're going to be able to achieve here is to have the accusations leveled at the witness and not to actually have an opportunity to have fully detailed responses; and certainly to get into the truth of the matter as asserted which, as I say, this forum is particularly inappropriate in an Appropriations Committee. I will note, however, that the Attorney General yesterday, when there was a similar but not as intense approach to these issues, detailed for or itemized for the Committee how the Justice Department was moving aggressively to address these concerns. Every Administration throughout the history of this nation has had these kinds of problems. There have been these kinds of indiscretions or allegations of indiscretion. And I know of no Justice Department and certainly of no FBI that has moved more expeditiously to address improper conduct. They have not in any way apologized for that conduct. They have in each instance pursued the right professional approach to thoroughly investigate them, and if necessary, to prosecute them. So, I think the implication contained in the opening statements by the Majorities are unfortunate. And I just would like it on the record that I think this is an inappropriate forum. It's just an opportunity for publicizing accusations and not for exploring the truth of the matter as asserted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. We will abide by the ten-minute rule at the outset here so each Member will have a chance to ask questions. Do you care to give an opening statement, Mr. Director, before we ask questions? fbi opening statement Mr. Freeh. Mr. Chairman, maybe if I could just speak briefly in an overview to some of the statements being made. I take it that I can submit my prepared remarks with respect to the budget for the record. And I would not address these oral remarks to the budget itself, but I'd like to entertain a few of the questions here, which are very important and very serious. Mr. Rogers. Your written testimony will be noted in the record. We can discuss the budget, perhaps at another time. I think we're here for some matters that supersede the budget request. Mr. Freeh. Thank you, sir. I'll try to be brief and then I'll be happy to answer all your questions. It has been my commitment since becoming FBI Director to ensure that in all investigations, in all matters, and in all of my personal conduct that I maintain, number one, my independence, politically in all the dimensions involved, and my integrity, which after 21 years of only working in the government is basically the only asset that I have. When I was recommended as a Federal judge by Senator D'Amato, he had a press conference in New York. And one of the reporters asked me--actually, asked Senator D'Amato, Is Freeh a Democrat or a Republican? And he said, I don't know. And I thought that was very important and perhaps a good testament to how I had conducted myself up to that point. When I met the President with respect to being interviewed for this job. I only made two requests. One was that I run the FBI completely free of any interference, political interference in particular, and that I protect the integrity of our investigations. And he guaranteed me that, that would be the case. And that has been the case, certainly with respect to him and with respect to the Attorney General. If the problems that you talked about, Chairman Livingston, you talk about them, some of them are very real and they're all very serious to me. If those are a reflection of my poor leadership, I certainly take responsibility for those. For problems that have occurred during my watch and for problems which have developed during my watch, I take fullresponsibility. I don't pass the buck to anybody in my organization. I am the Director. As you said, Mr. Chairman, I am the leadership. And if I'm not doing a good job in that regard, then you ought to get a new FBI Director. laboratory With respect to some of the particular matters that you mentioned, let me talk first very briefly about the lab. And I'm constrained because, although there has been a lot of discussion about the lab, very importantly, there is no report. The final report is actually being written now by the Inspector General who has asked me not to comment on it. I will say some very brief, but I think important things. First of all, it is my view and my strong understanding that despite serious problems in our lab, particularly problems of science, at least in the three of the 23 units that were looked at, I know of no case, I know of no FBI government case which as been or will be compromised because of those issues. And I've read the draft report. I'm also confident that when you, Mr. Chairman, and others see the report, you will be assured that none of the four administrative moves which we made with respect to individual examiners are the result of any retaliation. The moves that were taken, not by me, but by others in the FBI, were directly and strictly the result of the recommendations made by the Inspector General and the five outside scientists who prepared that report. We are doing and have been doing a lot of things to strengthen the science and the integrity of the laboratory. In 1994, I started the accreditation process, which was long before the Inspector General report. One of the first things I did as Director was to start bringing in civilian scientists to the lab. We now have in place many of the recommendations that the Inspector General found were necessary. And I pledge to you that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the FBI Lab remains, as I believe it is, the foremost forensic laboratory in the world. They do 600,000 examinations a year. We not only find evidence that leads to convictions, we find evidence that leads to exonerations. Thirty percent of our DNA examinations exonerate the subject of the case. And I will have a lot more to say about the lab when the report is made public. fbi files With respect to the FBI files issue, there is no issue which I take more seriously, Chairman Livingston. Now, you mentioned that we have not had explanations. In part, I think you're correct. Independent Counsel Starr, as you know, is now investigating, with a Grand Jury, the entire file issue, and particularly the individuals who made the requests and is trying to determine why they did it. From my end, I completed a very exhaustive report within nine days after I learned of the problem, after speaking to Chairman Clinger--I'm sorry. After speaking to Chairman Clinger, within nine days I had a report. I had recommendations. I changed the system which had worked unimpeded since 1968. Since 1968, preprinted unsigned forms were coming over from the White House to the FBI asking for files. And at a very low level. At the GS-9 and GS-10 levels those files were going back. There was no motivation. There was no intentional action on anybody's part in the FBI to give files of people who didn't work there to current occupants of the White House Security Office. I was the one who described the file matter at the time as an egregious violation of privacy. I did not call it an administrative snafu. I called it an egregious violation of privacy. And I said it was a result of the abdication of management responsibility in the FBI. And I say that to you now. We have corrected that situation. And for the first time since 1968 when someone wants a file they have to sign a letter. We get the consent of the party whose file is being requested, unless there is a reason not to get that consent, in which case the White House Counsel has to write a letter. We keep track of those files. We have management responsibility. We did not have that since 1968. Mr. Livingston. Mr. Director, if the Chairman will permit me. I'm very much concerned on how this Craig Livingstone FBI file debauchery with 1,000 files going to White House ever happened in the first place. I've got it in the public record here. On January 3, 1994, you apparently wrote a letter to Craig Livingstone. You said, the President and the American people are indeed fortunate to have your dedication and talent at their service. Another time you wrote the White House to secure a permanent White House pass for Howard Shapiro, where in one month he made 14 visits alone to the White House. Such a pass is uncommon, if not unprecedented I'm told for a senior level FBI official. And finally, I'm told that during the FBI controversy you contacted Craig Livingstone five times in the months surrounding the FBI file controversy. Are those facts true? And of so, how do they relate to stopping this process? And how, secondly, could the FBI have possibly allowed this to happen in the first place? Mr. Freeh. With respect to the contacts, yes. They are true. The first letter you mentioned was in response to the services he provided to my family when I was nominated for the job which included his staff fishing my seven-year-old son out of a pond in the Rose Garden. The other letters were with respect to photographs he gave to our office from the swearing in ceremony. I had no social contacts with him. We never discussed the files issue in any event. I don't have an answer as to how our system could have been amenable to so many files going to the White House regarding people who no longer work there. It was a terrible violation of privacy. We did not have at that time any kind of checks and balance in place. We do now. The system ran since 1968. As to why it was used in this manner, Independent Counsel Starr is looking at that with FBI agents who are working with him as with all the other independent counsel. And it is his purview now to decide the why and whether or not anybody should be charged. Mr. Rogers. If you'd like to complete your opening statement, Mr. Director. atlanta bombing investigation Mr. Freeh. Let me just move very, very quickly. Chairman Livingston, we share your concerns about the Atlanta bombing investigation of Mr. Jewell. The worst thing that can happen in our business is someone to be accused or, in this case by the media, imputed to be involved in a crime, when it turns out they were not a subject but only a witness, in fact a very important witness. He was never arrested by the FBI. But it doesn't matter. The sequence of events were a very serious breakdown in the confidentiality that we should maintain in our investigations. Unfortunately, we had a situation where we had 15,000reporters in that town, and 500 law enforcement officers, including FBI agents, who knew of his identity before it was leaked. And they all reported up ten separate chains of command. I was the one during the course of the investigation who directed that Mr. Jewell receive his Miranda Rights, even though a very strong argument could be made today as to why he was entitled to them because he was not in custody. I was very, very sensitive and cautious with respect to his rights. I was the one personally who directed that he receive those rights. As to the publicity and the damage to his reputation, we're very sorry about that. We do regret that. Unfortunately, in some of these investigations, those things happen. It is not the normal course for the FBI. We just completed the successful guilty pleas of Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Pitts. We don't normally work that way. And you know, from your experience with FBI agents that, that is a rare exception. Unfortunately, it was in a case that received huge publicity and we regret the damage to Mr. Jewell, and have taken some steps to try to prevent that in similar large investigations. With respect to Mr. Shapiro, we have discussed this. The OPR investigation that was started, sir, was started at your request. I know it was seven months ago. And I know that you are anxious for a reply. I can tell you that within the next two weeks there will be closure. There will be a report by the OPR and the Justice Department. You will have the benefit of all that information. And if any action needs to be taken, I assure you that it will be taken. With respect to Chairman Solomon, we did discuss part of the current investigation that the FBI is conducting in the DNC manner. We did not do the background on Mr. Huang. That was done by another government agency. He wasn't in the category of people whom the FBI does the background for. With respect to many of the other matters that you raised, I take them all very seriously. We haven't solved the TWA case, but I've had at one time 1,000 agents, now 10 percent of that, working on that case. We are not going to close the books on that case, nor will we on the Atlanta bombing case. We do solve difficult cases. The Unabom case, the Okbomb case. We solved the Freeman situation, which is what we learned after Waco and Ruby Ridge. There are cases that we don't solve quickly, but our resolve and commitment is there to do that, sir. I'm not going to take your time on some of these other matters, but again let me assure you that my independence and my integrity, as the FBI Director, is the most important thing to me and for me. As I said, after 21 years of being only in government service, I started at 25-years-old as a Special Agent, the only asset I've built up over the years is my reputation for integrity. I hope I've done nothing to tarnish that. I will recommit to you and the Committee that I will work all of these matters, whether they be small cases or large, with complete integrity, complete independence. I recently had the occasion to object very strongly to parts of the investigation which is currently being conducted regarding campaign contributions from some of that information going to places where I think it shouldn't go. And I pledge to you that I will continue to do that. If I can't succeed in that or if you lose confidence in my integrity, then I shouldn't be the FBI Director. [The statement of Mr. Freeh follows:] [Pages 587 - 603--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] FBI FINGERPRINT CHECKS Mr. Rogers. Well, Mr. Director, there has either been some lack of leadership in protecting the agency from outside interference, i.e, from the White House or some complicity in that. I would prefer to believe the former. But that's what this hearing is all about. I told the Attorney General yesterday the same thing; that either she was complacent in some interference from the outside in the Department of Justice or she allowed the political operatives of the White House to go around, through or under her, to some of her subordinates, i.e., the INS. I want to believe that it was negligence or a lack of determination rather than personal complicity. So, here we are. Let me first ask about the INS' Naturalization Program. Yesterday, we heard testimony from Doris Meissner, the Commissioner, and from the Attorney General, relative to reports that the Vice President's Office pressured that agency all year long with his reinventing government program to naturalize at least a million new citizens by Election Day. In fact, they succeeded in exceeding that goal. They naturalized 1,100,000; 180,000 of them without the proper criminal checks. Consequently, we've got today several thousand, at least, naturalized citizens, who are criminals, marching the streets, all in the name of getting votes. And I find that to be the most reprehensible thing that I can imagine, that is, selling American citizenship for an election. And if that proves to be true, and the evidence is very strong, then I think the American people have a right to feel terribly cheapened, at the very least. The INS says that the agency went ahead and naturalized citizens without hearing from the FBI on its fingerprint check or the criminal records check on the applicants, when you didn't respond within the normal 60-day period. And that at some point later in the year, they discovered when your reports were coming to them after the 60 day period and after they had gone ahead and naturalized these people, that some had a criminal record. Then they said, whoops, wait a minute. We're going to get in trouble here. We'd better back-up and change. They changed after the election. In the meantime, at least 180,000 applicants were granted citizenship without us knowing whether or not they were criminals. INS says that, ``The failing was either INS or the FBI didn't grasp at the senior management level what difficulties it would pose.''--meaning the large increase in criminal record checks that were required as a result of this tremendous increase in applicants for naturalization. Commissioner Meissner is saying that seniormanagement at the FBI and INS didn't grasp the meaning of not getting the criminal records check before naturalization was granted. What do you say to that? CITIZENSHIP USA Mr. Freeh. With respect to myself and I know speaking for the Assistant Directors, specifically the one who has responsibility for CJIS, there was never a discussion--I never had a discussion--no one ever mentioned Citizenship USA to me with respect to fingerprint service, or turn around time, or the implications of not doing those prints. My clear understanding from the division who is responsible for this is that going back to 1982, there was a practice of turning around cards in 60 days when we didn't have the backlog which we have now, which was another administrative problem that we have. In 1996 at a very appropriate staff level, we communicated to INS very, very clearly that they could not rely on any particular turn-around period. We had no commitment for any time-frame with respect to performing these examinations. I know that INS understood that because I saw the document, which is an INS document which records the FBI telling them that. So, we had no knowledge at a staff level that this was an issue. We certainly did not give them any expectation that we were going to do everything in 60 days and if they didn't hear from us, there was no record. Mr. Rogers. Well, did INS communicate to the FBI that they were anticipating a great increase in applications so that you could get geared up for that workload? Mr. Freeh. I don't think I'm prepared to answer that question today. I heard the testimony yesterday. I don't think I'm prepared to give you that answer; certainly, not on my level. As to someone down in the CJIS division, I will get that promptly for you and respond to it. I'm not aware of any such communications. Mr. Rogers. You'll seek that answer for me? Mr. Freeh. I will get that for you today, sir. [The information follows:] INS Advising FBI of Increased Citizenship Applicants The INS did not inform the FBI at any level that the number of citizenship applications requiring FBI criminal history checks would be increasing. FBI WARNING Mr. Rogers. When did the FBI first alert the INS that you couldn't guarantee completion within the 60 days due to the load that they were sending to you? Mr. Freeh. I will give the Committee the document which I read prior to my testimony as to when in 1996 that was formally communicated. Whether it was before that document or not, I'll get the answer for you on that too. I don't know, sir. [The information follows:] FBI Warning About Inability To Process Fingerprint Cards in Sixty Days The attached INS internal memorandum, dated September 6, 1996, is the document I referred to in my March 5, 1997, testimony. The INS memorandum states that the FBI has continually made it clear that it cannot and will not commit to a fingerprint processing time for INS checks. [Pages 606 - 607--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS Mr. Rogers. Now, had you ever encountered this problem before of not being able to properly check for criminal records on applicants for citizenship? Mr. Freeh. Not that I'm aware of. Of course, we didn't have a backlog, prior to 1996, of this dimension. Mr. Rogers. In the history of the FBI have you ever had a problem keeping up with applicants for citizenship sent to you by INS? Mr. Freeh. Not that I'm aware of, but I will check more thoroughly and get you an answer. Certainly, not since I've been the Director. [The information follows:] Historical FBI Response Times for INS Checks for Citizenship Since 1982, the FBI, has been able to furnish a response to an INS request for a criminal history record check within 60 days in 95.1 percent of the time, after fingerprint cards are received. The FBI has been able to provide a response within 120 days, 99 percent of the time. Mr. Rogers. I've never heard of this problem either. The reason of course was that in 1996, INS had quadrupled the number of naturalizations that occurred, almost four times the average year; 1,100,000 in 1996 compared to an average of around 300,000 in a normal year; four times the normal year after the Vice President tells INS I want a million new citizens by Election Day. They said, yes, sir, and they went out and did 100,000 more than that. No wonder you couldn't keep up with them. Do you know how many of the applications for citizenship of the people that were finally naturalized have not undergone the proper criminal check? Mr. Freeh. There are many of which we still don't have any record of a check. I can give you that number. We've given it to the House Government Operations Committee and I'll reproduce it for you today, sir. [The information follows:] Number of Naturalized Citizens Without Full Record Check Response: The FBI was unable to determine the criminal history record information of 179,524 applicants for citizenship submitted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) between 9/1/95 and 9/ 30/96. FBI response to INS request: No. of persons Identified as having a criminal record.................... 71,557 Not identified as having a criminal record................ 752,073 Unidentifiable (rejects).................................. 113,126 Not found................................................. 66,398 Elders/minors (no requirement to submit fingerprints)..... 44,145 Pending................................................... 2,573 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total persons naturalized (9/1/95-9/30/96).................. 1,049,872 Mr. Rogers. Is the figure 180,000? Mr. Freeh. That is, I think, the relevant pool of people that we're talking about. Mr. Rogers. That we do not yet know about. Mr. Freeh. We're trying to go through the tapes for what would be more than the second time to determine that. These are the INS tapes which we have. Mr. Rogers. So, there are 180,000 individuals that we do not know whether or not they were convicted or charged with a felony or a serious crime like murder or what have you? Mr. Freeh. There is a question as to the checks that were run against that particular pool of names back in 1996 as to the conclusions from that, again, if you'd just give me the opportunity to look at the numbers, I'll supply the information. Mr. Rogers. I would be very much interested in having that as quickly as possible. Mr. Freeh. Okay. I'll have it for you today. Mr. Rogers. What's it going to cost to clean-up the mess from your perspective? Mr. Freeh. The INS has told us that they expect 2.6 million requests for 1997. Now, there was 1.8 million requests in 1996. So, that's almost a 50 percent increase of these submissions. What we're trying to do, and we've had a series of meetings with the INS officials in this regard, is to see whether, with respect to the 2.6 million anticipated number of requests, we can automate and get on line in terms of what the IAFIS system will provide when it is on line in 1999. We hope to service what is our largest institutional customer electronically and try to deal with the fingerprint card submission increase for 1997. We're hiring 1,100 people in CJIS to deal with the backlog of fingerprint cards awaiting processing. Mr. Rogers. I'm talking about the ones that were granted citizenship that we're now looking to see if they're criminals. What's that going to cost us looking back, not looking forward? INS is not going to get any money for Naturalization at this point in time. Until we get this mess cleaned up, they shouldn't expect a penny. Mr. Freeh. Again, I'll give you a cost figure. I know that we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 1996, just rechecking what we've already done in tests. We had to shut down our operations for several days in West Virginia, except for emergency cases, to respond to the subpoena from your colleagues, which we did very promptly. Let me get you a cost figure, but it's a substantial one. Mr. Rogers. Several million dollars? Mr. Freeh. Certainly several million dollars. Mr. Rogers. And this is going back and trying to clean-up the mess that INS made in 1996. Mr. Freeh. It's going back to find out what we did check and then recheck everyone once again. applicant checks Mr. Rogers. Now, in the meantime, what are you doing this minute about checks on applicants? Mr. Freeh. Well, we have told the INS and the INS agrees that they cannot move ahead with a naturalization until they hear from us, one way or the other, that no response doesn't mean that there is no record. No response just means that you need to wait for the response. We're trying to expedite those responses, as I mentioned, by going into an electronic format. Mr. Rogers. In the past, has the INS ever, to your knowledge in history, gone ahead and naturalized a person when you were unable to complete your check during that 60-day period? Mr. Freeh. I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Rogers. Well, it's never been the policy has it? We've never done that; have we? We've always insisted that the policy is to get the FBI to do the check to see if this is a drug dealer, or a murderer, or a robber, or what have you. And now they willy-nilly granted citizenship without the FBI being able to tell them yes, he's a robber, or he's a drug dealer, or he's a thief, or a rapist, or a child molester, or what have you. INS went ahead and said, no, it's more important to get him registered before Election Day than it is to have a new citizenwalk the streets a even if he is a murderer. I can't accuse you of anything in that respect. But I can sure accuse the system. fbi opr Now, in 1994, the Attorney General gave primary responsibility for investigating allegations of misconduct of FBI personnel to the FBI's own Office of Responsibility. The Inspector General had to be given a waiver of that general rule by the Deputy Attorney General to conduct his investigation of the lab. And so that's where we are today. I'm not going to ask you about the contents of the lab investigation. That will come from the OIG, as it should. But let me ask you about the process. Can the FBI adequately police itself and investigate itself? Now, I understand the reason why we may want it that way is because we may be dealing with super classified information, but nevertheless, you're one of the few, if the only, Federal agency that is allowed to investigate and police yourself. Can you do that? And I want your objective answer. This is dead serious and very important. Do you think the FBI can adequately police and inspect itself or do we need to have some outside, albeit confidential, input into the process? Mr. Freeh. I don't believe we have a current situation where the FBI does police itself. We do have our own internal OPR, as does DEA. In the November 8, 1994 Order which you will refer to, sir, the Attorney General divided responsibilities between the OPR at Main Justice and derivatively at the FBI and the Inspector General's Office. As part of that memo, two things are required with respect to the OIG. We file monthly reports with them, including the names of people who are under investigation above a certain grade. The Inspector General has the right to request to intervene and take over any investigation, as they did with the lab and as I concurred at the time. So, we basically have two oversight responsibilities with respect to the Department, both to OPR and also to the Inspector General. I am very confident that we are able to do that. I've just reorganized our entire OPR operation. I brought into the office and made an Assistant Director an individual named Mike DeFeo who is a 35-year career Department of Justice attorney to take over the FBI OPR. I've doubled his resources to both speed up the process and give the agents more due process. I think the reformed office and the very certain responsibilities with respect to reporting both to OPR Justice and the OIG do leave us in a very strong situation to guarantee integrity and fairness. That's the same office that investigated my predecessor. They have been relied upon for many, many years to work very sensitive cases and I think have done very well. And I think Main Justice will tell you the same, sir. fundraising investigations Mr. Rogers. Now, I'm going to run through several situations here of charges that have been made. And I want you to tell me at the conclusion which of these investigations are being conducted by the FBI or if you know who else may be investigating these matters. The fundraising activities of the Democratic National Committee and White House officials involving millions of dollars of tainted donations; who is investigating that? Mr. Freeh. The FBI is, sir. Mr. Rogers. Allegations of government officials and fund raisers soliciting contributions in such places as Taiwan and other places? Mr. Freeh. Currently, the FBI, reporting to the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice--I'm sorry, not the Public Integrity Section. Mr. Rogers. So, it's the Public Integrity Section of Justice that's in charge of it and you're doing the investigative work for them? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Attempts by foreign governments to influence U.S. policy with campaign contributions? Mr. Freeh. It's the same investigation; FBI. Mr. Rogers. Charges of the removal of highly classified documents, including some CIA material by departing high ranking Commerce Department officials? Mr. Freeh. If I answer that we're investigating that, I'm confirming one of the parts of our criminal investigation which is certainly right now a very sensitive criminal part. I would say with respect to all of the fundraising matters and all of the relative, either criminal or national security matters, they are all part and parcel of an FBI investigation which I am currently responsible for. I have assembled a team of FBI agents and inspectors who have the whole series of matters. And it is the subject now of a Grand Jury inquiry. Mr. Rogers. The granting of security clearances involving access to classified information to non-Federal employees? Mr. Freeh. With respect to certain individuals, yes. That would be part of that investigation. Mr. Rogers. A White House official directing donors where to channel soft money contributions? Mr. Freeh. Again, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, instead of confirming the individual predicates of the investigation which could certainly tend to disclose in an open session the direction as well as the objectives of the investigation, I would prefer at least in the open session to say that all of the general matters that have been reported in the papers with respect to fundraising, whether they have criminal or national security implications, are residing completely with that FBI investigation. Mr. Rogers. Allegations of the use of publicly funded White House data bases for political fundraising; same category? Mr. Freeh. Generally, the same category as it would relate to some of the other objectives of the investigation. Mr. Rogers. Allegations of the White House premises being used for fundraising? Mr. Freeh. Again, I would want to fall back on my general response to that at least in the open session. Mr. Rogers. The Vice President's admission that he used White House telephones and property for campaign fundraising? Mr. Freeh. Same response, sir. Mr. Rogers. Perhaps we can go into this in Executive Session if you want to go further here. Mr. Freeh. I don't know that in Executive Session I could say more than I've already said which is that all of those subject matters, either directly or indirectly, are currently a part of an open investigation, which is a Grand Jury matter, and which is obviously one of the most sensitive matters that we're currently looking at. Mr. Rogers. Well, I think you can understand some of the hue and cry around the country for a special prosecutor or an independent counsel to investigate the matters. I mean, if we can't be told that justice is being done in the regularchannels, how can we tell people they can't have a special prosecutor? We've got to know that something is being looked into. If it's being looked into by the appropriate authorities, fine. If it's not, then we've got a problem. Can you help me anymore? Mr. Freeh. I don't think so, sir; not with respect to whether there should be an independent counsel. That's clearly a decision for the Attorney General. As to whether everything being talked about sometimes is appropriately or even improperly in the newspapers about what is or is not a part of that investigation. I don't think I could itemize for you all of the parts of that investigation without giving you a blueprint and giving potential subjects a blueprint as to where we're going, which I really don't want to do. Mr. Rogers. All right. Can you tell me how many personnel are assigned to these investigations? Mr. Freeh. Sure. I have 25 full-time FBI agents who are led by an inspector. I have located them in a separate space away from the FBI buildings in Washington, DC. They are also using the services of many FBI agents as well as support employees around the country; even using some of our overseas locations for pursuing leads and looking for documents. It is a very substantial resource commitment. Mr. Rogers. I think only now do I understand why you've been so insistent upon having overseas FBI offices. I guess now I know why. Mr. Mollohan. investigations Mr. Mollohan. Director Freeh, I want to commend you for the investigative activity that you are carrying on. It is clear before the committee that you have drawn the line between what's appropriate for you to say and what's not appropriate for you to say. But what is clear is that you are aggressively investigating all of these problems that the Chairman of the Full Committee has brought to your attention here at this hearing. I think that's the real message I am hearing. There is no evidence whatsoever, certainly in the statements that have been made or certainly in your testimony, that justice is not being done. I think it would be terribly regrettable if that were implied or if that notion were in any way nurtured by this committee. Just the number and the scope of your investigations is evidence to the contrary. I want to comment on a couple of the Chairman's thoughts. I think it's regrettable as he has linked problems that agencies are having, administrative problems, with political initiatives coming from the outside. I don't think that there is a coupling there at all. As a matter of fact, Attorney General Reno's testimony yesterday, and also Doris Meissner's, I thought showed conclusively, at least based on the evidence presented yesterday, that INS was against any attempt to use its programs for political purposes. And because we had an election parallel with a Citizenship USA initiative does not mean that there is a conspiracy between the two. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows to the contrary. Likewise, any effort to link FBI and certainly you, personally, with any indiscretions by any other branch or any other people I think would be terribly unfortunate as the facts as you have testified here today show quite to the contrary. So, as I said, I think the context of this whole hearing is unfortunate. Putting together innuendo and fluffy facts to suggest a conspiracy between the White House and anybody else is easy to do and hard to refute, particularly when the context is ongoing investigations and you have a responsibility to do it. So, I just commend you for drawing the line. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. You indicated that the policy has always been to have a check before granting citizenship. I didn't hear Ms. Meissner's nor Attorney General Reno's testimony like that yesterday. I heard that the policy was that if a response was not received from the FBI after 60 days then it was assumed that the application could be processed. It's possible that I'm mistaken, but that's the way I remember the testimony. And that in September 1996 that policy was extended to 120 days because they began picking up some problems. And I would note that such a policy would put any naturalization beyond the election date. And in November the policy was changed; that there would be no naturalization without an FBI report back. So, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. criminal checks Mr. Rogers. Before yielding to Chairman Livingston for a series of questions, let me just say this. As I understood the policy yesterday from the Attorney General, they had never in the past had to go beyond the 60 days. The FBI had always been able to provide the proper criminal check within that 60-day period of time. And they never had tested the 60-day limit until 1996. Chairman Livingston. hiring of craig livingstone Mr. Livingston. Mr. Director--excuse me. Mr. Chairman, rather than engage in innuendo and fluffy facts let me just summarize my appearance here with one question for you, Mr. Director. Who hired Craig Livingstone? Mr. Freeh. I don't know, sir. Mr. Livingston. Still, we don't know. It's amazing. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Director, I come from a part of the world where, you know, the FBI has been greatly esteemed over the years. We're probably, in the south, some of the Government's greatest supporters; upon entering many homes in the South, you see a picture of Franklin Roosevelt, a religious picture, and a picture of J. Edgar Hoover. I can tell you though that in the last two years I get more and more questions from my constituency of whether or not the FBI has become a stepin'-fetchit for the White House and given up its role as a respected law enforcement agency. I'm not making charges. I'm just telling you the perception that's out there. And that's come during your watch. And there is adequate reason for that as you've talked about here, files, compromising discussions, the fact that we had 1.1 million immigrants granted citizenship some of whom were, according to the press yesterday, murderers and people who have been convicted of felonies and in fact violated parole. It's going to amaze people how that happened. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it. When we questioned the Administration, in fact those that have been convicted or those that have just been under investigation at the time, it sort of starts a pattern that says mistakes were made and it is as if the tooth fairy was the one that was making them. And then we get the statement that we did nothing wrong, but we won't do anything wrong in the future. And then there is a call for reform,ignoring the laws that have been broken that no one wants to go forward. And then finally, that ends in stonewalling and taking the Fifth. I would hope that your agency will not work in that same way but will, if things have been done wrong, admit it, and achieve the best cure possible because that's what it's going to take to get the backing of the Congress. Let me ask a specific question on immigration. If I'm applying to be a citizen of this country and I have to submit my fingerprints, how do I get my fingerprints taken? How do I make that submission? fingerprinting Mr. Freeh. There are a number of different ways. And this is not my expertise, sir. I think that the Immigration Service itself has officers who take fingerprints. Sometimes the Marshals Service does fingerprinting for civil applicants as citizenship applicants would be. There are a number of different ways and I don't know all of them--the objective is to take them in a way which authenticates the fingerprint. We don't let people come in and just hand in what they say are their own fingerprints. Mr. Taylor. Well, is it true that I can bring my fingerprints in and submit them with my application? You mentioned you hope that doesn't happen. But we've been led to believe that, that may be happening. Mr. Freeh. I don't know the answer to that, sir. I could find out for you. Mr. Taylor. Well, not only for me, but for you. It would disturb me greatly if I got a set of fingerprints which may have been provided a lot of different ways. Authenticating it would be a most important part. Mr. Freeh. I'm told that the INS subcontracts with agencies to take fingerprints to authenticate them. But, again, I don't know the answer to that. I will certainly get it for you. Mr. Taylor. I would appreciate that. [The information follows:] Authenticity of Fingerprints The FBI understands the current INS policy for fingerprint card submissions, as of March 1, 1997, requires a specially authorized official to take fingerprints of applicants wishing to become naturalized citizens. Prior to this date, it was the individual responsibility of the applicant to submit fingerprints to INS for forwarding to the FBI for verification of a criminal history record. investigation of allegations Mr. Taylor. The President made a recent statement that said basically his aggressive campaign activities and I presume that includes the immigration efforts and all of the other things, were justified because all of the mean conservatives were threatening to change the Washington order as he envisioned it. I think that was the gist of the statement made recently. Do you believe criminal conduct should ever be condoned to protect or re-elect any Administration? Mr. Freeh. The FBI is charged with investigating, not just clear criminal conduct, but allegations and even suspicions of criminal conduct. Our 10,000 plus agents spend a better part of their day devoted to those objectives and that mission. As to your question, sir, I don't think it's appropriate to express an opinion on that. My job and the job of the FBI is to go out and investigate allegations, either to prove a case or exonerate somebody. We give our findings over to people who make policy decisions or charging decisions like Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Mr. Taylor. In other words, you can't tell me that you believe that criminal conduct should or should not be condoned to protect or re-elect any Administration? I'm saddened with that answer. But let me go ahead with one other question, Mr. Chairman. It's leaving the path that we're going. It comes under the DC Subcommittee which I Chair. I've had, not sworn testimony, but statements made that in the Metropolitan Police Department there are somewhere between 100 and 200 officers under indictment, that many of the District Policemen cannot testify in Federal Courts even if they witness a crime because their testimony would be impeachable given their records. What is the relationship between the FBI and the DC Police force? As much as you can, please quantify an evaluation of that force because we have very serious challenges in front of our subcommittee. dc metropolitan police force Mr. Freeh. Mr. Taylor, we work very closely with the Metropolitan Police Force. We have over 100 FBI agents who are on task forces with MPD detectives who work on gang cases, homicide cases. As you know, two of my FBI agents were killed together with a police sergeant in November 1994 when a gunman came into Police Headquarters. On Monday I attended the funeral of Officer Smith who was executed once the robbers found that he was a Police Officer. My view is that the overwhelming majority, a large majority, 90 percent, whatever, of the Officers are honest, hard working, decent Officers. Have they had problems? Yes. We had an FBI case which involved an undercover operation where we arrested and prosecuted about a dozen police officers for corruption. They have had substantial issues. I think the Police Chief is committed to dealing with those issues. We've assisted them on their laboratory forensics for instance. We've given them training. It's hard to give you an overall assessment of the Police Department except that in our dealings with them, they've been good partners. They have been privy to the most confidential types of criminal investigations that we've done. We've never had an operation compromised that has been a part of that task force. We want to work with them both for training and partnership reasons to keep the District a safe place to be. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Director. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I'll save for another round. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Forbes. twa flight 800 Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, I appreciate your appearance here today. I am curious as to the status of the investigation of Flight 800. This is a heart wrenching ordeal for the families, parents, brothers, and sisters of those who lost their lives on July 17th in the explosion. The people on Long Island, eight months after the explosion, want to know what happened and yet there seems to be no headway made on what really brought that plane out of the sky. First let me say that I for one appreciate your professional approach to the whole tragedy, your calmness and reassurance. Having said that, we are eight months into the investigation and there is troubling information that's also quite conflicting. You've heard talk of the photograph that was taken and the statements by the United States Navy to the Atlantic City operating area, which is the area including Long Island, that from the period of July 15th to the 21st, exercises, with hazardous surface vehicles--may have been conducted during the period of 5:25 a.m. to 7:10 p.m. There are areas known basically as Warning 105, 106, 107 and 108. They are designated areas that periodically are enclosed by the military to allow for testing, and firing. My office has received information from the United States Navy that there hasn't been any friendly fire going on for nearly two years in that area. Yet, I see that quite repeatedly there is a problem in that area. There have been repeated notices to--fishermen that there may be some--friendly fire, some military maneuvers and the like. There is a confirmation that a P3 Orion would be out doing maneuvers at that night. This is all a long way to state for the record that I understand that the FBI is continuing to do its best to track down just what is the cause of this tragedy. My question is what the FBI has actually done in relation to the military and the investigation to look at the inventory, if you will of rockets and missiles; and is the FBI satisfied that there are no missing records or that there isn't information available in those files that would suggest the loss of missiles. We are most troubled, I think, that there does not seem to be a forthright approach to some of these issues, not by the FBI certainly, or by other departments of the government. Again, it's a long way to say that we are very frustrated that the families, and all Americans, still have no clue whatsoever of what brought that plane down. I am wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on the status of the investigation, the cost of the investigation, the interaction with the FBI, the Department of Defense, and more particularly what brought down flight 800. Mr. Freeh. Sure. I would be very happy to. We've talked about this case separately. There is not a matter that we're doing which is more important or more the subject of commitment, not just of my self, but the individuals, some of whom you've mentioned who have really worked on this thing in a completely professional, devoted and heart breaking way. The 216 victims who've been identified and maybe more painfully the individuals who've not yet been identified or recovered is a very emotional and a very difficult investigation, particularly as it impacts on the families. We've tried to be sensitive to that. We have left no stone unturned with respect to this investigation. And we did have 1,000 agents on it for the first week or two. We still have many, many agents assigned. There is no reluctance or no shortage of resources here. You asked me how much the investigation cost. I think probably over $15 million or so for which we are not reimbursed because we've not been able to declare it an act of terrorism. But that's not important. The money is not important in this case. We have done an exhaustive investigation with respect to the various military components that were either in the air, on the water, and under the water at the time. We've not completed that. There is absolutely no evidence that any military friendly fire or exercise was responsible for the downing of that aircraft. That doesn't mean, however, that we've completed that investigation. We're still interviewing military members who were out at sea at the time; asking for--the Cruise missile. Submarines were in the area. Captains who are now just coming into port; planes, National Guard units. We will exhaust all of the interviews in that regard to deal with certainly what is a very emotional, but also a very critical part of people's concern. But as I've said, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that what happened there is a result of friendly fire or a mishap. With respect to where we are with the investigation, the Safety Board and the FBI are still rebuilding a part of that plane. I know you've been out to Calverton. The Speaker has been out there. There is about a 90-foot section of the plane which is literally being rebuilt by a contractor to see if when that thing is reassembled we can have a better perspective as to what happened. We have not been able to rule out a criminal act, either an explosive on board or a missile. We haven't ruled them out. The Safety Board has not ruled conclusively on all three theories, including the accident theory. I will note, and it is really apropos to our questions about the laboratory, our FBI Laboratory, going back now many months, examined every piece of wreckage. And there are tons of wreckage. As you remember, there were reports and we made a press release that microscopic evidence of a high explosive was found in two locations on the plane. We were very interested and very concerned about that find because it was microscopic and there wasn't the collateral metallurgical residue or damage which would be the result of an explosion. We even went to a foreign forensic laboratory to have them retest it. They retested it. I think what's significant is the laboratory examiners came to me and said, we have this microscopic evidence but we cannot definitely ascertain that the cause of the accident was an explosive device, and this is inconsistent in some ways with an explosive device. We then subsequently found out that, that particular aircraft was tested, I believe out in St. Louis, using the aircraft to put explosives on board, high explosives under a controlled exercise to train dogs. So, we were very pleased and I was actually very proud of that laboratory analysis and the conclusions. But we are not finished yet. We will work that case for as long as it takes with whatever resources are required. But unfortunately, we don't have a clear resolution at this point. Mr. Forbes. Are you satisfied that you're getting the full cooperation from the highest levels of the Department's agencies. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. I am. Absolutely. We would not have any of that wreckage if it were not for the Navy divers who, as you know because you were out there, were working literally seven days a week bringing up probably about 95percent of the aircraft. They're still bringing up pieces in our dredging operation. Mr. Rogers. The Gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Livingston. Mr. Livingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to wrap up. Mr. Director, my long experience with the FBI tells me that it is a first class fact-finding organization. It's an investigative organization. It gathers facts. Is that correct? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Livingston. And it's not the standard procedure for the investigators to alert, or confer with, or provide information to the people that they're investigating. Is that correct? Mr. Freeh. That's correct. Mr. Livingston. Now, can you give me any reason why Howard Shapiro would contact the White House, give them the Gary Aldrich manuscript, alert them that Chairman Clinger is digging into files which might reveal statements that were made previously and send agents out to virtually intimidate a Special Agent who gathered those facts a couple of years earlier? Mr. Freeh. I can certainly tell you that with respect to the discussion with the White House that he had regarding the Sculimbrene insert, which was the subject of hearings before Chairman Clinger's Committee that he said and said very sincerely, I believe, that it was a terrible mistake of judgment on his part. That his intent, albeit not perfected, was to tell both the Oversight Committee and the White House at the same time about what he thought was a very important piece of evidence. He has described that mistake as a blunder. I think the word he used was horrific blunder. I don't disagree with that. And unfortunately, it's put him and the FBI in a difficult position. But I think his explanation is a sincere one, sir. Mr. Livingston. Thank you very much. I want to say that you've handled yourself very well under tough circumstances and I wish you well. Mr. Freeh. Thank you, sir. fbi laboratory Mr. Rogers. Now, let me ask you about the FBI Lab and perhaps there are some things you can't answer in an open session and I understand that. But I will try to avoid those questions. I guess the most important question is whether past convictions or current investigations are in jeopardy from what you know? Mr. Freeh. My current understanding, and I've read the draft report. I've spoken to the FBI, the individuals who have furnished the response back to the Department. I've even spoken to a couple of the prosecutors in the cases affected. I have no knowledge and no belief at this point that any of our FBI investigations have been compromised or jeopardized, either past, present, or to come. What has become necessary and certainly appropriate based on the findings of the Inspector General's report, the Department of Justice has gone out to at least 50 different cases where U.S. Attorneys have either prosecuted or are in the process of bringing cases to trial and told them that there are potential Brady issues and potential disclosure issues that they need to furnish to the defendants. A lot of those have been what's floating around in the press. But those are very raw allegations. To answer your question, sir, no. I do not believe that any FBI investigations or State investigations where we've done forensic work have been compromised by the report as I know it. Now, a Federal judge or State judge could disagree with that. We certainly want to get all of the information to the defense counsel involved so they can make their motions. But my current belief is that no major investigations have been compromised. whitehurst investigation Mr. Rogers. Now, why was Mr. Whitehurst suspended? Mr. Freeh. Well, I can say in the open session, sir, that the action that was taken against Mr. Whitehurst was taken solely and directly on the basis of the recommendations by the Inspector General and their findings with respect to Mr. Whitehurst, which they furnished us in writing. [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the testimony, the following clarification was received from Director Freeh: In response to questioning regarding the decision to place Mr. Whitehurst on administrative leave (see pp. 57-58 of hearing transcript), I inadvertently failed to include the second basis in support of that decision. In addition to the Inspector General's draft findings with regard to Mr. Whitehurst, Mr. Whitehurst refused to answer questions, in direct contravention of an order to cooperate by an FBI Acting Assistant Director, with regard to an investigation into allegations that Mr. Whitehurst, without authorization, disclosed official information to the media.] We notified the Inspector General and the Deputy Attorney General's Office that we were going to take administrative action. They did not object to it. The only reason that action was taken was because of what the Inspector General wrote and recommended to the FBI. And when that's public, I think you will be satisfied with it. Mr. Rogers. What plans does the FBI have for his continued employment, if any? Mr. Freeh. The matters of discipline with respect to Mr. Whitehurst were referred to the Department of Justice, either the Inspector General or the Deputy Attorney General's Office, because although in the routine case we would take that Inspector General report and decide what discipline should be imposed. I have recused the FBI from that because of any appearance of retaliation and those matters will be handled by the Deputy Attorney General's Office. reduction of special agents at headquarters Mr. Rogers. Now, when you took office, you initiated a program to reduce 600 special agents assigned at FBI Headquarters and moved them out into the field in an effort to streamline and save money. Some people say that when you did that you moved many very experienced laboratory examiners, as well, out into the field and away from the laboratory. How many qualified forensic examiners were transferred out of the lab when you implemented that plan? Mr. Freeh. Over a phased three-year period, the objective was to reduce the number of special agent examiners in the laboratory from I think approximately 121 to about 51. I'll give you the exact numbers. It was to do it over a three-year period and only move them once we had trained a replacement examiner. My intent in doing that, sir, was two-fold. One, I wanted to get more FBI agents out on the street. And if you remember, before this Committee intervened, we had, had a 22-month period where we didn't hire any FBI agents. So, I was very much in need of getting people out onto the street. The other objective of doing that was to bring some outside scientists into the laboratory. A lot of our examiners, and I think they're the best in the world, are agents who served four or five years at Headquarters and then got rotated to an office of preference or a field assignment. Then we'd have to bring in another agent, albeit with a science background, and retrain them. So, my objective was to bring in outside scientists and create a long-term staff that would be not subject to the moves and transfers of FBI agents. And we still will have, even after the transition, I think about 40 or 50 FBI agent examiners in key points. But we will also have some strong scientists. I can show you the resumes of some of the folks who've come in. And they're just outstanding. Mr. Rogers. Was there an analysis then of this decision on the impact it would have on the level of expertise left in the lab? fbi laboratory Mr. Freeh. Yes. The laboratory did a study recommending that if it were done over a three-year period and if agent's orders were held up from being transferred out of the lab until a trained examiner was ready to replace them; in other words, not to only examine, but testify in court, that it would not have any impact on the effectiveness of the lab. Mr. Rogers. Is that what proved to be the case? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. It is in my view. Mr. Rogers. So, it's your opinion that the shipping out into the field of agents in the laboratory had no deleterious effect on the quality of the work done in the laboratory or the quantity? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. That's my view. Mr. Rogers. So, you don't think that dispersal of personnel from the laboratory contributed to the problems identified in the IG's report? Mr. Freeh. No. In fact, the IG report speaks about this transition and does it, I think, in a positive way. I'm not supposed to comment on its contents. Mr. Rogers. Well, now that you've opened the door, as a prosecutor would say, are any of these agents now being transferred back to the lab on temporary assignment? Mr. Freeh. No, sir; not that I'm aware of. Some of them have indicated a preference to come back to the lab and we will certainly honor that preference as our needs require. counter-terrorism funding Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to ask you about the counter- terrorism monies that we have provided. Last year in the wake of two tragic events, the TWA 800 explosion and the Olympic bombing, it was requested that we boost the level of counter- terrorism resources for the FBI. We were highly critical at that time, if you recollect, of your capability to spend that kind of money because you had not spent 75 percent of the $239 million in funding we'd provided in response to the Oklahoma City bombing earlier. From your latest reports, now two years later, it appears you've hired up that personnel and are spending those resources. With regard to funding from 1995 to 1996, are all of the personnel hired, the 131 agents and 518 support personnel? Mr. Freeh. All of the agents are hired, sir. With respect to the support under the 1995 supplemental, there are 14 individuals who, my understanding is their background has been completed, but they're not yet on board. Other than that, all of those resources either are on board or will be on board. All the agents are certainly on board. Mr. Rogers. Is the Counter-terrorism Center fully up and running? Mr. Freeh. Yes. It is. Mr. Rogers. One hundred percent? Mr. Freeh. We may have one or two agency representatives who are not physically at their desks yet, but everyone has been designated and the Center is operational. Mr. Rogers. Has the command center been upgraded and do you have 24-hour coverage? Mr. Freeh. Yes. Although the new command center which you and the Committee authorized us to build is still in the construction process, but we have used resources to upgrade the equipment, the operational capability exists and that's a 24- hour running center. technical equipment Mr. Rogers. Have you purchased all of the technical and tactical operations equipment? Mr. Freeh. Sir, I don't know the answer to that, but I will get it for you. Is this from the 1997 budget? Mr. Rogers. No, the 1995 supplemental and 1996. Mr. Freeh. Okay. I'm told there is still more to buy. I'll give you an exact accounting by the end of the day. [The information follows:] Status of Digital Telephony and Tactical Operations Funding Response: The FBI received $13,100,000 in nonpersonnel funding from the Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Counterterrorism Supplemental for Digital Telephony and Tactical Operations research and development and equipment acquisition. This funding consisted of $6,500,000 for Digital Telephony and $6,600,000 for Tactical Operations activities. As of March 12, 1997, the FBI has obligated $6,248,543 or 96 percent of the Digital Telephony funding and $5,360,528 or 81 percent of the Tactical Operations funding. All remaining FY 1995 funding will be obligated in FY 1997. As a result of the FY 1996 Counterterrorism Amendment, the FBI received $58,400,000 in nonpersonnel funding for Digital Telephony and Tactical Operations research and development and equipment acquisition. This funding consisted of $33,400,000 for Digital Telephony and $25,000,000 for Tactical Operations activities. As of March 12, 1997, the FBI has obligated $28,968,000 or 87 percent of the Digital Telephony funding and $24,025,000 or 96 percent of the Tactical Operations funding. All remaining FY 1996 funding will be obligated in FY 1997. Mr. Rogers. Anyone in the room can respond that knows the answer if they will identify themselves. Any volunteers? Mr. Freeh. It was the volunteers part that got them. Mr. Rogers. We'll pay you for the information then. Mr. Roper. Mr. Chairman, Mike Roper. I'll volunteer. In terms of the report I think we submitted to the Committee which was through November, of the technical equipment that was provided in 1996, the money is not totally obligated. HIRING OF PERSONNEL Mr. Rogers. All right. Now, in the 1997 bill, the current year, we provided another 1,019 personnel and $194 million. Where are you on the hiring of that personnel and the spending of those resources? Mr. Freeh. By mid-fiscal year which is in April, all of the agents authorized will be, not only hired, on board, but assigned to their various divisions. With respect to the support personnel, my understanding is we are meeting our own hiring plan which will give us, by the end of the fiscal year, a full hire with respect to almost all of the counter-terrorism support personnel except perhaps in some of the technical areas. We have a total of 3,664 people to hire in 1997, thanks to you, the Committee, and the Senate. All of the 1,057 agents will be hired in the fiscal year. All of the 1,100 people for CJIS will be hired. As to the other 1,500, our current prediction is that we will fall short by perhaps 300 support personnel. And we're trying to emphasize that we have all of the counter-terrorism personnel on board, with a top secret clearance, and working as opposed to the more general non- technical support. TERRORISM Mr. Rogers. Now, we provided over $400 million for you to address terrorism since the Oklahoma City bombing. Are we in a better prepared situation today to prevent that type of incident from ever occurring again? Mr. Freeh. Yes sir, we are. The near-functioning of the Counter-terrorism Center gives us, for the first time, a central, analytical and collecting capability consistent with privacy rights and Attorney General guidelines. The shoe leather that is now out in the field and will be there in full force on April 1st, the FBI agents will give us the coverage and the ability to be proactive in many of these areas. Our expanded LEGAT Program, which we thank you and the other Members for, will give us the ability which we've never had before to have direct liaison representatives in the places where we need to be. We never had an office in Cairo or Tel Aviv until you approved it. We now have the ability to liaison directly, not just with the Israelis, but with the Palestinian authority. And that gives us a tremendous counter-terrorism capability. Mr. Rogers. You're currently 1,420 support personnel below the level we funded for all FBI activities. What's the problem? Mr. Freeh. We've never had so many people to hire at one time. I'm certainly not complaining about that. Everybody has to have a top secret clearance, the uniformed officer who stands at our gate has to have a top secret security clearance which is different from any other agency, certainly in the law enforcement area. We don't want to make any mistakes. As we hire people, we don't want to have an Earl Pitts. We don't want to have someone who would compromise the most important programs in cases that we have. I think we're going to do very well in 1997 to get all the resources on board, except as I said, perhaps 300 support personnel. We're going to hire all 1,057 agents and we are hiring as quickly as we can. I've given the administrative folks who do the hiring more resources, more polygraph examiners. We're doing the very, very best we can. I'm sorry if we won't complete everything by the end of the fiscal year, we may be 300 or so short. But we will have the balance of the 3,664 people on board; 1,700 of whom are new hires. Mr. Rogers. In the meantime while we've not yet hired all of the non-agent personnel out there, someone has to be doing that work. Are we having agents do non-agent work in the meantime? Mr. Freeh. In terms of the backgrounds? Mr. Rogers. For whatever purpose. Mr. Freeh. We are and we aren't. We've got, as you know, our BICS Program. In fact, we've asked for additional authorization for that in 1998. These are former Federal agents, mostly FBI agents, who do background investigations. They're about half the cost of the FBI agents doing the background. We also free-up probably 280 FBI agents a year under the BICS Program who are now able to do criminal investigations. So, we are using a lot of resources still to hire and process over 3,000 new hires. But I don't think our work is suffering particularly with the continuation of the BICS Program. Mr. Rogers. Now, in the last two years you've had significant surpluses at the end of the fiscal year and have requested to reprogram those funds, including monies from the counter-terrorism program. Will you have a large amount of unobligated funds at the end of this fiscal year as you've had in the last two years? Mr. Freeh. We'll certainly have some unobligated funds with respect to the support personnel who are not brought on board. As to the purchasing of equipment and the obligation of funds for all of those matters, I think we're going to do very well. For instance, all of the money under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) will be fully committed and obligated in 1997. And we're hopeful that all of the other funds will have equal success. NCIC 2000 AND IAFIS Mr. Rogers. Now, since 1991 we've provided funding to upgrade the National Crime Information Center, NCIC system, that's managed by the FBI and used by more than 72,000 local, State and Federal agencies. The upgrade project, known as NCIC 2000, was expected to be operational in March of 1995, but last year we were told the cost would be substantially more; $110 million more than originally estimated, and deployment would be put off until 1999; four years behind schedule. Similarly, in 1992, we gave you approximately $400 million to develop a reliable electronic fingerprint data base and searching system for Federal, State and local law enforcement. That's known as the Integrated Automated Fingerprinting Identification System, IAFIS for short; projected to cost $520 million and operational in 1999. But as of March of 1996 you estimated completion of IAFIS would be $120 million over budget and more than a year behind schedule. Now, where are we on those two and how can we rest assured when you tell us some date and some figure? Mr. Freeh. I believe you can take confidence in ourcurrent predictions which have certainly been the subject of reporting. I know you've received our fiscal year 1996 fourth quarter reports for both systems. The first quarter reports are in the process of being furnished. We are still 18 months behind with IAFIS and $120 million over the initial estimate. The good news to that is that we have both systems in place, the new managers in place, and the incremental builds which are giving us a very, very close check on the progress of the delivery. Two of these six builds have already been furnished in IAFIS. They've been successful. We are very closely monitoring in conjunction with the Justice Department and OMB the progress of that. We don't see any more slippage at this point. In fact, we're very confident with respect to the July 1999 on-line date. With respect to NCIC, you're absolutely right. The 1991 predictions were way under cost. That's several years overdue. But, again, even with the addition of the new files, the gang file, the terrorist file, the departed felon file, the new management and the new incremental building strategy that we're following gives me the ability to assure you today that both systems will be on-line according to the current budget. We're following that closely, closer than any other single two projects in the FBI. Mr. Rogers. Well, as you know, last year we said to you in our report language that if there are any further cost overruns, you've got to find the money out of your budget somewhere else. No new changes to those systems would be supported until you delivered on the current plan. Now, that's where we are, right? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. And we want those quarterly reports. Mr. Freeh. Yes. Mr. Rogers. We want to know three months at a time where you are because these two systems are terribly expensive and also terribly important. So, do we have the problems remedied with these two systems? Mr. Freeh. I'm confident that we do, sir. I'm monitoring it. As soon as we see any divergence in the delivery of the systems that are being furnished in incremental builds, every alarm and every bell will go off and we'll deal with it as we have with some slippage. But we are not behind in our projects; either of them. Mr. Rogers. Now, the States and localities--the local police departments, the State police agencies, are going to have to have some equipment that allows them to interface or tie-in with your new national equipment. Do you foresee any problems that they may have, the local agencies that is, in being able to procure or pay for the equipment that will be necessary for them to use this new information system? Mr. Freeh. The delays in our final delivery have caused problems for some of the state and local departments. We have a CJIS Advisory Policy Board which is an outside board who I meet with regularly, and who meet more frequently with our CJIS and NCIC 2000 executives. One complaint they've made to me is that given the delays in the delivery of these systems, they've had trouble maintaining the baseline money and getting new money to buy that equipment. But in terms of the technical ability to have accessible, interoperable equipment, they do not see that as a problem. They are very confident, I might add, with respect particularly to the IAFIS time table and development. The only concerns they've expressed to me are the ability to get money when a system is still three years down the road as opposed to what it was supposed to be, which was delivery last year in the case of NCIC. OLYMPIC BOMBING Mr. Rogers. Now, I'm not going to get into the Olympic bombing investigation very much here. But there are a couple of questions that I think it would be helpful if we had answers to. One, the proximate cause of Mr. Jewell's defamation, in my opinion, was the information that the press received from a confidential FBI preliminary investigation. You investigate people all the time and find that they're not guilty and nothing is ever heard of it and it's over with, right? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. This happens by the thousands. However, this one, you investigated and somehow the information that you had leaked out to the press and it was published. Is that essentially what happened? Mr. Freeh. That's exactly what happened. Mr. Rogers. And you're trying to find out how the leak occurred? Mr. Freeh. Yes. We have had a large scale leak investigation. We've interviewed many, many people. As I indicated before, unfortunately, and this is a management problem on our part, we had, prior to the leak, over 500 FBI agents, local detectives, other people who knew his identity. They reported up ten different organizational chains. It was too many people to be aware of a subject's identity, especially in a case where you had 15,000 reporters in town. Mr. Rogers. Are you closer, do you think, to identifying now, the person who leaked to the media? Mr. Freeh. No. Unfortunately, we're not. Mr. Rogers. It had to be a law enforcement official, however; would it not? Mr. Freeh. I would say generally that would be the clear-- -- Mr. Rogers. Who else would have had proximity to the information than a law enforcement official? Mr. Freeh. It would almost certainly be a law enforcement official, whether it be a State, local, Federal, or a prosecutor. It certainly was. You know, I've been very clear about what would happen in the case that we identify that person. I have a test which is known around the Bureau as the Bright Line Test. If we were to find out or discover with some sufficient proof who did that, we would not only fire them, I would seek to prosecute them. Mr. Rogers. Now, the other question that I have is with regard to the facts and circumstances regarding Mr. Jewell's accompanying FBI personnel to FBI Offices and his questioning there. Tell us what you can, in an open session here, regarding the alleged use of deception by FBI personnel in convincing Mr. Jewell to voluntarily accompany agents to the FBI Office, advising him or his attorneys regarding the availability of retained counsel during that period, and of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights while he was present at the FBI Office. Mr. Freeh. Mr. Chairman, all of those matters which you discussed are very, very serious matters. They have been the subject of a very large and a very intensive investigation by the Department of Justice OPR, not by the FBI. Many, many interviews have been conducted, including an interview of myself. Many records have been looked at. The OPR Office has written a report, the Justice Department Office has written a report that deals with each and every one of those questions. We're now in the process administratively of notifying certain people who may be affected by the result, so they can respond to any proposals for administrative action. Because I will be the judge, so to speak, in any final appeals, I'd rather, at least at this point in this session, not go into specific details. But all of them have been examined very intensely. And if action needs to be taken, I will certainly take that action. Mr. Rogers. Is anyone being disciplined within the FBI at this point in time? Mr. Freeh. At this point in time, no. But the administrative process is at the point where any discipline or administrative action is being proposed. And ultimately, after people have the opportunity to respond to that, there will be recommendations made. I'll ultimately be the person who makes those final decisions. Mr. Rogers. Am I hearing you say that the process has begun to discipline some people? Mr. Freeh. The process that could result in the discipline of people is ongoing, in fact very far advanced in that regard. Mr. Rogers. And we can't talk about it because they have rights that have to be protected. Is that what you're saying to me? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. I have to make the final administrative decision. Because I would be functioning as the judge in that regard I would rather not describe what I think or the facts and the liabilities at this point. But I can assure you that, we in the FBI and myself, personally, take very, very seriously the whole series of events in the matters which you mentioned. We will respond very appropriately to any misconduct or any improper activity by anybody in the FBI. Mr. Rogers. Now, what role, if any, did you and other FBI Headquarters' personnel play in the planning, direction and control regarding his visit to the FBI Office and the subsequent events there? Mr. Freeh. The report which will be furnished will certainly be a report which will answer all of those questions. You will get a copy of it when the OPR Office issues it. Again, a lot of the details of my response would clearly get into the area of what certain people did and what their liabilities will be. As to what I did, I'm happy to respond to that. The involvement that I had in the matter was related solely to the question as to whether or not Mr. Jewell should be given his advice of rights, his Miranda Warning, when he was in the FBI Office at his own volition, but not in custody. At the point on that day when I was advised of that particular issue, I was the one who ordered that he be given his Miranda Rights, even though as I said a very good argument could be made as to why he wasn't entitled to them. I wanted to make sure that in those circumstances his rights were protected. I ordered that his rights be given. In the subsequent events and the carrying out of that order are the subject of the investigation. Mr. Rogers. When can we expect that report to be complete? Mr. Freeh. I would say in the next 30 to 45 days, released. It's pretty much completed now, except for the administrative part. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. foia backlog Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, it came out in testimony with the Attorney General yesterday that the FBI was considerably behind in its FOIA requests. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Can you speak to that issue please? Mr. Freeh. Sure. We're about 16,000 requests behind in the response time and number which is a very, very serious matter. We've also now in 1996 had the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) of 1996 which requires us to respond in electronic format to electronic requests. Part of the FBI's 1998 budget request, I know we're not talking about that today, among the seven priority items, is a request for an enhancement of our FOIAP capability to deal both with the backlog and the new electronic format requirements. We have and will hire in 1997 all 129 authorized positions who are the actual--examiners. We have transferred the FOIAP section from the Information Resources Division to the Office of Public and Congressional Affairs. John Collingwood, who is here, is the Inspector in charge of that office. He has attacked this problem with a number of new initiatives and teams, including a team that calls up people whose requests have been pending for many years and tries to update and clarify them. Mr. Mollohan. How long have you had this backlog? Mr. Freeh. The backlog has been continuous for many, many years. About ten years ago it started. Mr. Mollohan. One year ago, what was the backlog? Mr. Freeh. John Collingwood can give you the exact answer, sir. Mr. Collingwood. In 1992 the backlog was 9,300 cases. In 1994, 11,800. In 1996, 15,000. It's been steadily increasing. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And what do you propose to do to reduce that backlog and what are your goals? Mr. Freeh. The goals immediately---- Mr. Mollohan. What do you accept as a reasonable turnaround time for a Freedom of Information Act request? Mr. Freeh. Our goal is to turn around these requests as quickly as possible and clearly to cut this backlog down. The 129 positions which will be hired on in 1997, the new electronic processing equipment and format that we have, the treatment of electronic responses as opposed to manual ones, and the new resources that we've asked for in 1998 all will enable the FBI to reduce the backlog of FOIA requests. I think the goal is, John, to effect a 40 percent increase in productivity. Mr. Mollohan. In processing productivity? Mr. Freeh. In processing productivity with the 1997 and 1998 resources. It's not a satisfactory answer. We're going to work as hard as we can to first identify how much of this backlog is now currently the subject of any continuing interest. And then attack it with the new resources and the electronic format. Mr. Mollohan. This is a very big problem for you all. Mr. Freeh. It certainly is. Unfortunately, we're not the only agency in that predicament. But it's going to be treated and we take it as a very high priority; one of the seven priorities for 1998. national instant check system Mr. Mollohan. The National Instant Check System which you are bringing on line, can you tell us the status of that? Is it on time? Mr. Freeh. Yes, it is. Mr. Mollohan. On budget? Are you sure? Mr. Freeh. The statute, of course, requires by November 1998 that the NICS system will be fully implemented. The funding level for the project through 1997 is totalled to be $36.2 million. My notes tell me that we are on line. We are on budget. And we are at this point confident that we will meet the goals of the program. There is pending legislation that would require that the system be established in November of 1997 which would be one year prior to the current deadline. That would put us very far behind if that's what we need to respond to. We're doing contract negotiations with SAIC which will be the contractor who will perfect the software. We're scheduled to complete those in the next 30 to 60 days and I'm otherwise advised that we're on time and under budget, except for what would be a one-year earlier delivery date if the pending legislation is enacted. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. There has been some concern expressed to me about the information which you are requiring various sources to supply to that system. There are some privacy concerns. Are you able to speak to those here today? If not, I'd like to follow-up with you. Mr. Freeh. I'm not able to speak to them now. I don't see anything in my materials, but I'll certainly--and I haven't heard any particularly, but let me do that research and I'll get back to you promptly. [The information follows:] [Pages 630 - 632--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] computer crimes Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Technology crimes. You mentioned in your statement that your FY98 budget requests funds for additional agents to address computer related crime. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Could you speak to us about that initiative and the importance you give to focusing on it? Mr. Freeh. We've already really given it the second ranked priority. It really is the crime of, not just the future, but, what I think will be, in the next couple of years, the prevailing and maybe even dominant methodology by which many criminals commit crimes. I was at a conference yesterday in New York which the FBI sponsored. It was a national conference of police investigators on the subject of computer crime. Just to give you a very quick example, we're dealing with cases, two in particular. We had a lap-top operator in St. Petersburg, Russia who, without leaving the safety of his apartment, hacked his way into CitiBank, New York and moved about $23 million into a European account. The bank didn't know about it until sometime thereafter. We had another case where a lap-top computer operator in Sweden hacked his way into some PBX switching systems, worked his way down in Northern Florida and shut down, for several hours at a time, 911 systems in different localities which are not only police, but fire and emergency services. Both of those individuals were back tracked, arrested, and prosecuted. If I could make another plug for our LEGAT system, Mr. Chairman, it was because of our LEGAT in Russia, in the one case, that we were able to get back to the CitiBank case. So, we see computer crime, both in the area of terrorism, but also in financial crimes, really the wave of the future. The request is to give us not just a headquarters analytical ability, but to give us computer squads out in the field. I know in three of my offices we have computer squads. These are agents who just work on computer cases as opposed to the programmatic squads; such as bank robbery and others, as we used to have. The new agents, who are now leaving Quantico, leave with a badge, a gun, and a lap-top computer because when they do their first search, they're not only going to take a box of records like us old-timers did, but they're going to take hard drives and disks. And we need to be prepared for that. One hundred million people will use the Internet in the year 2000. And we have cases like our ``Innocent Images'' case in Baltimore where people were using the Internet not just to send, in great volume, child pornography but to reach and make contact with children to meet them for sexual molestation. We've never seen anything like this before. In your home now, over your computer may be an invitation for somebody to talk to your child and meet them somewhere. We need to be prepared for that. We're not prepared for that right now. Mr. Mollohan. Is this Computer Investigation and Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center employed in this initiative that you're referring to? Mr. Freeh. Yes. That is the headquarters part of it. That's at the FBI Headquarters. That's to give us the central expertise and capability to both do computer crimes and do threat assessments. The other part of the budget request for 1998 is to get that expertise out in the field and populate our offices with some of these teams. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Director, I want to complement you on your professionalism in the past and certainly the professional way you've conducted yourself here today. closing remarks Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Director, as we close down here, let me say in closing that the people are entitled to have in this office absolute confidence that there is fair and impartial administration of justice; whether it be the investigation of a criminal case, or the investigation of a white collar matter, or administration of counter-terrorism activities or the investigation of public officials, high and low. We'reentitled to have that. That's what we pay for. That's what we've fought wars over. That's what we fought a revolution over. It's the core of democracy; its very heart. You know that. There have now been raised some suspicions. It's imperative I think that we and you get to the bottom of these charges, these allegations, rumors even, and prove them false or prove them true, and to dispose of them one way or the other. We are entitled to have not only the fact of impartiality and independence, we must have also the appearance of that because what appears in many cases turns out to be the truth. So, we must work at this. It pains me to bring these matters up. But the integrity and the independence of this organization is of paramount importance. We want to work with you to that end. I'm not here to tear you down. I'm here to urge and to push and to encourage you and your people to work through these things quickly. Get them out of the way. Do justice. Follow the truth wherever it may lead. And that's the only thing that will suffice. That's the only thing that will restore the appearance of complete integrity and complete independence of the Justice Department, and especially the FBI. This was said by someone very close to you, ``The single thing most responsible for the success of the FBI is that people are confident that if they come to the FBI, the matter will be handled professionally and well. If that trust ever breaks down, not only is the FBI in trouble, but the American people are in trouble.'' That is a quote from your departing Deputy Director, Weldon Kennedy. I can't say it any better. Thank you. Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan, thank you. Mr. Rogers. We're adjourned. [Pages 635 - 645--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, March 12, 1997. COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAMS WITNESSES LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PHILIP C. WILCOX, JR., COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ERIC J. BOSWELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Chairman's Opening Remarks Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We are pleased to welcome this afternoon Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI; Ambassador Philip Wilcox, Jr., Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State of Department; and Eric Boswell, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the Department of State, to discuss counterterrorism programs at both the FBI and the Department of State. The written statements of the witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee today have been prepared without classification so that they may appear in the public record. Pursuant to the motion approved by the Subcommittee on March 5th, 1997 by roll call vote of 6 to 0, a quorum being present, this hearing will be held in executive session. [Pages 648 - 697--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, March 19, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS WITNESSES THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION CAROL DiBATTISTE, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS MARY LEE WARREN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We're pleased to welcome this morning Thomas Constantine, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; Carol DiBattiste, the Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; and Mary Lee Warren, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to discuss the Department of Justice's efforts in the War on Drugs. You will notice, I still call it a ``war.'' Saving our children from drugs and drug-related crime has become an overwhelming national priority. Confronting the violent, powerful, international drug trafficking organizations, while also focusing on teaching our children to say ``no'' to drugs is essential to saving our country from an unparalleled wave of drug addiction and violent crime. Unfortunately, we are playing catch-up. Casual teenage drug use trends suffered a marked reversal over the past five years. Drug use among teenagers, in fact drug use in virtually every childhood age group and virtually every illicit drug has increased. The Congress worked hard over the last two years to provide the funding for vital law enforcement programs to address this trend. For Justice alone, we provided $7 billion to fight drugs in 1997; an increase of 11 percent; a $694 million increase. DEA received its largest increase in the last five years in fiscal year 1997; an increase of $198 million; a 23-percent increase. We need to work together in a bipartisan, bicameral, bi-branch way to reverse the trends we've seen and fight this drug war on a united front. Law enforcement is a vital component. This Committee will seek to ensure that adequate resources are provided to address the problem on a law enforcement level. We will include your written statements in the record. You may proceed with your summaries of your statements. Administrator Constantine, we will begin with you. Drug Enforcement Administrator's Opening Statement Mr. Constantine. Congressman, I want to thank you and Congressman Mollohan and the other Members of the Subcommittee for all of the things that you have done to support DEA in the little over three years that I've been here. There are three major areas that the DEA has pointed to for our enforcement programs to try to attack the individuals responsible for drug trafficking in the United States. The first, if we start from the top down, are powerful international organized crime syndicates. Second are drug distribution organizations that operate within the borders of the United States. Third are violent drug trafficking groups that are operating at the state or local level. We attack all three of these strategies simultaneously. We have, over the years, learned that we can be effective if we go after the leadership of the organizations. I think we have been especially effective where we have focused in on violence and drug trafficking. The international organized crime organizations we are targeting are unparalleled in many ways in our history in the United States. We now deal with the violent crime syndicates that are also more violent and powerful than anything we've ever seen before. There are major differences between the groups that we investigate now and those we investigated in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. These syndicates have advanced technology. They have their own aircraft, radar, and weapons and sometimes thousands of workers in their employ. The leaders of these organizations, we know, are intimately involved in every aspect of the business from the production of the drug, trafficking routes, how the packages are to be marked, how they are to be distributed in the United States, who is to be bribed, and who is to be murdered on a contract basis. Presently, most of those major decisions are being made outside of the United States. It makes our enforcement role quite difficult. The major organized crime syndicates today that we deal with are in Colombia, Mexico, and in Asia. In Colombia, there have been some significant successes as a result of very active enforcement, by DEA, the Justice Department, FBI, and probably a countless number of local law enforcement agencies within the United States where thecases were first developed, and some outstanding work by the Colombian National Police and the prosecutors in Colombia. That organization has effectively put in jail most of the leadership that thrived unchallenged for almost 15 years. The result has been that organized crime syndicates in Mexico have now become much more prominent. In their first arrangements, they merely acted as transportation groups for the organized crime out of Cali, Colombia. That has changed in the last three or four years. Now, polydrug organizations that deal in marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine have become, in our opinion, the most important and powerful mafias in the entire world. The major traffickers are listed again and again in the papers. I will not go through them redundantly. We know who the individuals are. We know who is involved in the leadership. They are indicted in many places within the United States and wanted on crimes that they've committed within the United States. I think it's important to note that much of the criminal activity that they direct and profit from are crimes that occur within the United States and affect the United States citizens either as victims of the drug trafficking or victims of the attendant violence. Like all organized crime syndicates throughout history, they use intimidation of decent citizens and corruption of public officials to further their goal. They have surrogate operations within the United States. The cell structure that was developed in a compartmentalized fashion by the leaders from Cali, has now been replicated by the groups from Mexico. methamphetamine resurgence There are two substantial drugs that are somewhat different from the cocaine problem over the last 15 years. They are geographically distributed. The first on the West Coast of the United States is a massive resurgence of the drug methamphetamine, formerly distributed by outlaw motorcycle gangs on a fairly limited basis, and now by organized syndicates operating out of Mexico, into California and then across the entire United States. In Missouri, in Kansas, and in Arkansas we have a substantial methamphetamine problem that is not connected with the syndicates from Mexico. Instead, meth is produced in many rather small laboratories distributing to the rural and suburban areas of those states. heroin resurgence On the East Coast of the United States, the drug of concern is heroin. We are seeing a resurgence in heroin's popularity. I will explain later some of the results of the purity and the new trafficking systems. drug gangs The third level are violent drug gangs that have sprung up since 1985 with the development of crack cocaine and now methamphetamine. All of us in the United States are well aware of what has happened to many of our cities as a result of drug gangs who have either been shooting or killing competitors or, unfortunately, innocent citizens. For example, in 1993 and in early 1994 in San Diego County alone there were 26 homicides that resulted from competition over who was going to control the methamphetamine trade in California and along the border with Mexico. drug overdose deaths There has been a tripling in the hospital room emergencies from the use of methamphetamine from 1990 to 1995; substantial increases in overdose deaths in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Diego, and major increases in laboratory seizures, not only in California, but Missouri, Iowa, and Arkansas. When I was working narcotics in 1965 in the streets of the City of Buffalo, heroin was often only 3 to 5 percent pure. We are now dealing with investigations where the heroin coming from South America, specifically Colombia, is 95 percent pure when it's brought into the country and when it's sold on the streets in the United States. It should be no shock that over 4,000 people have died from heroin overdoses in the last three years. Those are the highest mortality rates that we have ever experienced from an overdose of heroin. The emergency room admissions have doubled from a source that did not exist five years ago. Sixty-two percent of all of the DEA seizures and Customs Service seizures of heroin are from South America. This may not be indicative of the total, or reflect the distribution system in the United States, but it's gone from zero to about 62 percent, with Colombia being the main source of heroin. southwest border initiative How do we address these problems in DEA? The first is a strategy where the DEA, the FBI, the United States Attorneys, and the Criminal Division have come together in a Southwest Border Initiative. I've always thought that the Southwest Border Initiative was a misnomer, with people thinking that the problem is only at the Southwest border. Really what it is, is the resources of all of these agencies, with strong support from the OCDETF program, have been focused on the major trafficking organizations at the closest point of contact with the United States, which is the Southwest border. major trafficking organizations They are the four major organizations out of Mexico or Colombian organizations come through that point of entry into the United States. It really means that the same groups that come across the border, and the decisions that are made in Cali, Colombia and Mexico, are connected with the 2,500 kilos that we seized in New York City two weeks ago, with major groups operating increasingly from Mexico, Chicago, and in New York City. It is really an organized crime investigation that goes after the leadership just as we went after Carlo Gambino, Vito Genovese, and John Gotti. It is for the most part using Title III, court authorized wiretaps. Probably the prototype case that demonstrates how that works was one that we called Zorro II; that name being the nickname of the major trafficker which was utilized on the phone. We made 156 arrests and we were able to point a complete loop that started in Cali, Colombia and ended in Richmond, Virginia and Rocky Mount, North Carolina, completely controlled from outside of the United States; major seizures of narcotics, money, and the arrest of the leadership. It was an expensive investigation. It was over 103,000 DEA, FBI agent hours of casemaking; I suspect an equivalent level of support from attorneys of the Justice Department. I can't quite give you the figures on all of the state and local agencies. There were over 40 of them that worked with us on that project. mobile enforcement teams The second area that we think has been effective and probably demonstrably of most concern often to American citizens is the violence associated with drug trafficking. We initiated three years ago, and with your support we have funded I think very well, a program called Mobile Enforcement Teams, where we in essence loan out teams of DEA agents, eight to 16 at a time, to communities that are very concerned about extensive violence. Their role is to assist local law enforcement to make the arrests and to let the local law enforcement and the prosecutors, the sheriff, or whoever it might be, feel completely comfortable in inviting us in. They take all of the credit. We don't seek any publicity on it. To give you an example, we have already deployed 85 times with these teams. We have arrested over 2,577 people. Virtually, all of them are individuals who have some connection to violence in the community with random drive-by shootings. Even in the Rampart section of Los Angeles last year at this time, we worked with the City Police Department which had suffered major cutbacks in their narcotics units. This was the area in the City of Los Angeles that they were most concerned with. We moved in there. There were 412 arrests in a fairly short period of time. In fact, the people in the community were so thrilled over the fact that this has happened that they took up money to rent a billboard to thank the DEA and the ATF for what had occurred within their city. heroin smuggling There are other operations that are very organized. We have groups who are involved in the smuggling of heroin, not only throughout the United States, but throughout the world. The last one was a case called Global SEA. We found a group from Nigeria that had come into the Chicago-Milwaukee area. Once the investigation started we found out that they were really a worldwide organization. Forty-four of the defendants and the operators of that organization have been arrested. We have disrupted something that we think was very dangerous in the United States. We don't think, like any people in law enforcement, that we are the sole or only answer to this problem. One of the lessons that I think we're learning in the United States is that law enforcement does work. I think if you look at the experience in New York, Houston, and Boston where very effective law enforcement strategies administered by usually local police departments with the assistance of the state and Federal government have really dropped the crime rate in the City of New York from an all time high of 1990 to the lowest rate since 1969. technology used byorganized crime Much of the activity in the area of aggressive law enforcement is in the area of drug law enforcement where we find that there are very often axes that cross one another. We have explained, and I know Director Freeh has continually stressed that we are now running up against organized crime syndicates whose technology and funding for technology is probably more extensive than any law enforcement agency in the United States other than the DEA or the FBI. They have encryption. They have special phones that have become very sophisticated and very difficult for us to apprehend. They continue to improve their technology. We think that we have to keep meeting these groups as they become more sophisticated and endanger the citizens of the United States. That's why you will see in our budget request direct attention to what we call the Southwest border. I would ask you to recall, that it really is an organized crime strategy against organizations that run throughout the United States. We are also requesting additional assets in the area of methamphetamine enforcement. We are adding funds to the heroin strategy, which is a multi-year strategy, along with some infrastructure needs and support people and laboratory reconstruction. I would answer any questions that you may have for me. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Constantine follows:] [Pages 705 - 723--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Constantine. Director DiBattiste. Ms. DiBattiste. Chairman Rogers, Mr. Mollohan and Members of the Subcommittee I'm honored to be here today representing the United States Attorneys, the 4,453 Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs), and 5,054 support staff. I wish to thank you on their behalf for your continued support of our law enforcement mission. I'm also honored to be joined by my two colleagues on the panel and by United States Attorneys Joseph Famularo from the Eastern District of Kentucky and Bill Wilmoth from the Northern District of West Virginia. Mr. Rogers. We're delighted to have Joe and the other gentleman with us today. Joe is a friend of mine for many years past. He's a great lawyer. He's doing a great job in that district. You also have with you Lou DeFalaise with your office who is a former Eastern Kentucky U.S. Attorney. He is a long- time friend as well. We are especially pleased to welcome them here. Director, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys' Opening Statement Ms. DiBattiste. Thank you. I'll make a brief opening statement and submit a more detailed one for the record. The United States Attorneys' budget request is essential so that we can meet our commitments to the urgent matters of drugs, terrorism, organized crime, victim-witness assistance, and protecting the Federal Treasury. partnerships/cooperation Today, you have asked us to focus on drugs. It's axiomatic to speak of the partnerships we share with Federal, state, and local law enforcement. That is a positive and effective partnership. Unfortunately, there is an equally strong and pernicious partnership that citizens and the law enforcement community are forced to confront daily; the partnership between narcotics and violence. The United States Attorneys have committed substantial resources to prosecute drug offenses and the violent crime often associated with drugs. Overall, a total of 42 percent of all criminal AUSA resources is spent on prosecutions involving violent crimes and narcotics. During fiscal year 1996, the United States Attorneys filed 4,178 criminal cases against 8,291 violent offenders, and 10,487 cases against nearly 21,505 drug defendants. We have a simple strategy to make our neighborhoods safe for our citizens. One, close cooperation between prosecutors and Federal, state, and local law enforcement; and two, tying that cooperation to tough Federal sanctions. This strategy allows us to leverage Federal resources and concentrate on breaking the cartels and pipelines while addressing drug dealing at every level with the strongest deterrence. Operation Zorro II exemplifies this strategy. From its entry at the Southwest border to cities as far away as Chicago and Richmond, 10 Federal and over 40 state and local law enforcement agencies, the Criminal Division and 10 United States Attorneys' offices took down an entire distribution network seizing some 5,600 kilos of cocaine, $17 million in currency and other assets, and ultimately arresting 150 drug traffickers. In Central California alone this year, ten of those arrested pled guilty and two were convicted at trial. Others are being prosecuted in a variety of state and Federal courts. AUSAs wrote more than 90 wiretap applications and orders in this OCDETF investigation, coordinating with law enforcement agencies across the country. These wiretaps, the wave of the future in the apprehension of sophisticated narcotics traffickers, are extremely labor-intensive, of great complexity and require enormous amounts of attorney time. The resources we have requested will increase these efforts that have such significant results. This cooperative strategy assures that heavy Federal penalties and advanced investigative techniques backstop local law enforcement and prosecutors as needed, while concentrating resources to go after organizations like that of Juan Garcia Abrego, convicted last year in the Southern District of Texas. Kingpin Abrego, using murder as a business tool, was responsible for distributing over 100,000 kilos of cocaine and 22,000 kilos of marijuana in Texas, California, New Jersey, New York, and Florida. Our strategy also allows us to go after the flow of narco-dollars that are the driving force of the drug trade. Recently, in the Southern District of Texas, $7.9 million in drug monies was forfeited from American bank accounts of the former Attorney General of Mexico, Mario Ruiz Massieu. Our strategy, by need, is highly flexible. Methamphetamine, a growing problem in the West and Midwest, has been met by the multi-disciplinary law enforcement effort announced by the Attorney General in September 1996. Meeting a resurgence of heroin in the Northeast, a New Jersey HIDTA task force working with DEA New York dismantled a large retail heroin operation responsible for numerous overdose deaths with 16 convictions in Eastern New York and additional cases in New Jersey. Marijuana, hashish, cocaine and crack, LSD, and designer drugs also remain significant problems that we continue to address. Last week, in just one case, two individuals were convicted in the Southern District of Florida for possession of 6,000 kilos of cocaine on a freighter. We know that Congress is committed to ending this illegal flow of drugs and so are we. Our cooperative strategy, moving from investigation to imprisonment, was developed with your support. But the United States Attorneys need more to get the job done. Your support of our full 1998 budget request will let us keep pace in the battle to keep our neighborhoods safe, not only from drugs, but terrorism, violent crime, white collar crime, organized crime, and public corruption. It will also ensure the best services possible to those who become victims of crime, and the best possible representation of the interests of American taxpayers in defending the Federal Treasury. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. DiBattiste follows:] [Pages 726 - 776--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Ms. Warren. Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Opening Statement Ms. Warren. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Representative Mollohan, and other Members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program and the Criminal Division. At the outset, I would like to express the Department's appreciation for the increased drug fighting resources you have provided to the Department over the past years. As the Administration and Congress attempt to balance the Federal budget, the funding provided to the Department to fight drug trafficking has required very difficult policy choices. We are working hard to ensure that every dollar is well spent. National Drug Control Strategy Last month, the President released the National Drug Control Strategy. The strategy encompasses five broad objectives. Three of those are accented by the OCDETF and the Criminal Division's work in this field. Those three are reducing drug-related crime and violence, securing our borders, and attacking the domestic and international drug trafficking networks. The 1997 National Drug Control Strategy and our 1998 budget request attempt to build on our past successes and seek to prepare for emerging and new drug trends as they appear on the horizon. If I could, I'd like to highlight the role of the OCDETF Program and the Criminal Division in this strategy and our budget request. For the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces Program, this has been a critical component of the Administration's drug enforcement strategy. It's the investigation, prosecution, and dismantling of the major drug trafficking organizations--those that work domestically and those that work internationally. Since its inception in 1982, the OCDETF program has gone after and focused upon the high-level drug organizations which have been the centerpiece of our attack. Time and again OCDETF, integrating the investigators, the prosecutors, the federal agencies, and their state and local counterparts, has been instrumental in dismantling these drug organizations. We believe the OCDETF model works in the urban centers, in the rural areas and in all places in between. OCDETF cases cross all categories and classes of drugs and target the major traffickers with ties to virtually every region of the globe. These organizations, the criminal organizations, that we attack are as sophisticated as the Administrator has outlined. They have state-of-the-art communications and transportation systems, and complex money laundering operations. They employ witness intimidation, violence, and bribery to achieve their ends. You've heard from the Administrator and Ms. DiBattiste about the Zorro II investigation. That was an OCDETF case. Also, the Global Sea case, the Nigerian heroin case, another OCDETF case that crossed many districts in bringing those traffickers to justice. Another example is the tunnel case out of the Southern District of California. Enrique Avalos-Barriga sought many ingenious ways to import tonnage amounts of cocaine into the United States, including digging a tunnel underneath the border and coming up in Otay Mesa, California. Mr. Avalos-Barriga has now been sentenced to life in prison, having been apprehended and prosecuted on that count. He's been ordered to forfeit $9.6 million as a result. In the Central District of California, Operation Pacific Mariner involved the seizing and controlled delivery of hashish; 17.5 tons seized in the United States and kept from going into our stream of commerce, thanks to the work of the Los Angeles OCDETF group. In Kentucky, there have been some important OCDETF investigations of major marijuana and cocaine trafficking starting as far back as 1992 and continuing up to this day. We have proceeded against approximately 50 defendants who worked in an organization that brought cocaine and marijuana up from Mexico and then distributed it through the counties in Kentucky. These groups originally sought to fill the cultivation gap. When it was down time in the United States for growing marijuana, they brought marijuana in from Mexico. Those 50 individuals have now been prosecuted and $640,000 seized, forfeited, and shared with local law enforcement as a result of that OCDETF case. We believe that the key to the success of these major drug trafficking cases was the exceptional inter-agency cooperation and coordination among the Federal prosecutors, and the Federal agencies, and they did this from the very beginning of the case, continuing through the arrest and prosecution of the defendants. The OCDETF agents and attorneys are investigating and prosecuting the upper echelons of international and domestic narcotics trafficking groups and are doing so in all districts of the country today. We acknowledge for this Committee that there has been a decline in the number--the sheer number--of OCDETF cases filed. However, the success of the OCDETF strategy, which focuses on dismantling organizations, cannot be reflected in the traditional number-counting of cases filed or defendants charged. Ms. DiBattiste mentioned the Juan Garcia-Abrego case. That was an OCDETF case; a seven-year investigation involving, as you heard, a tonnage of cocaine and manyhomicides. He was expelled by Mexico at the beginning of 1996 and prosecuted in Houston, convicted at the end of last year, and now has been sentenced to 11 life terms plus additional years, and a forfeiture order of $350 million entered against him. On a mere bare statistical tally, that would be one case, one defendant. Surely that's not reflective of the impact that that individual and his organization had on life in our communities. OCDETF Restructuring I would like to advise you as well of our reevaluation program within OCDETF and the new restructuring of the OCDETF organization. This restructuring or redistricting of the OCDETF regions was intended to realign our enforcement efforts more closely with the drug trafficking patterns as we recognize them today. What might be of particular interest to the Chairman is, for example, the U.S. Attorneys in Kentucky, as well as those in Ohio sought to be sure that they were joined in a region that encompassed all of those along Interstate 75 that is the corridor for the transport of drugs from Florida up to Detroit. That request has been honored. We've brought those groups together. We believe that a strong regional approach to law enforcement strategies offers diversity of experience and expertise, greater resources to draw upon, greater flexibility, a better chance at avoiding duplication of effort and a chance to formulate regional, if not national strategies against the threat and to anticipate the next threat. Now that the OCDETF program has undergone this reevaluation and is restructuring, there is a substantial momentum to implement and execute the program's primary objectives more effectively than ever before. We seek funding levels that recognize the value of the OCDETF approach and its renewed momentum. Cooperation Between Agencies Briefly, if I may turn to the work of the Criminal Division, under the leadership of the Attorney General and in close coordination with the United States Attorneys, DEA, FBI, and the other Federal, state, and local investigative agencies. The Criminal Division provides guidance and direction at the national level in drug policy, investigations and prosecutions. For example, the Administration's National Methamphetamine Strategy, in which the Department's Criminal Division took the lead, offers a recent example of the Division's role in formulating and directing our policy in our fight against drug trafficking and abuse. On an operational level--again, in close cooperation with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the DEA, FBI and others at their Special Operations Divisions--we coordinate and support the prosecution and enforcement of the Southwest Border Initiative. The Division serves as the focal point in the Department for international law enforcement matters, a critical element in our strategy--international trafficking groups. The Criminal Division attorneys also provide first level review in the Federal death penalty cases. Many of those, of course, are drug-related death penalty cases. Criminal Division attorneys actively participate in coordinating with the Federal Government to work together to try and bring fugitives from justice across national borders and to our courts, and to gather evidence from afar to present in our judicial proceedings. I would like to conclude by expressing again the appreciation of the OCDETF Program and the Criminal Division for the support this Committee has demonstrated for our drug fighting activities. Stemming the level of drug trafficking in this country is a top priority for the Administration and the Department. We believe our 1998 budget request provides an opportunity to strengthen and expand our efforts in this area. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Warren follows:] [Pages 780 - 805--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mexico Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I thank all of you for your statements. Administrator Constantine, it's widely believed that at least two-thirds of all drugs entering this country come through Mexico. Virtually all heroin produced in Mexico is destined for the U.S. market. Cultivation of opium poppy increased from 1995 to 1996. The majority of cocaine smuggled into the U.S., even though it originates in Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru is believed to transit through Mexico. Mexico is also the number one foreign supplier of marijuana to the U.S. In view of that, last Thursday the House adopted a resolution that would overturn the President's certification of Mexico as fully cooperating in the drug war, unless within 90 days the President reports to us that he has obtained assurances of progress with Mexico to: authorize additional DEA and other law enforcement agents for drug control operations in Mexico; authorize the carrying of firearms for self-defense; eliminate law enforcement corruption in Mexico; commit to extradite Mexican nationals; allow aircraft overflight and refueling rights; and allow the Coast Guard to halt traffickers in Mexican waters. You have been the lone Administration official to speak out about the problems that DEA agents face with the corruption going on officially in Mexico. You testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee that official corruption in Mexico is so widespread that, ``There is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.'' Last year you told us that you agreed with Ambassador Gelbard that Mexico was ``fully cooperating.'' We didn't agree with you then, but I commend you for speaking out this year. The President certified Mexico as ``fully cooperating'' on counter-narcotics efforts with us in spite of the following: The Army General serving as their Drug Czar, General Gutierrez Rebollo, was just arrested on bribery charges after ten weeks on the job. He had received hours of briefings from us on very sensitive information. There is a very deep concern that he may have passed that information onto the drug kingpins; Two weeks later, another Army officer, Colonel Jose Felix Rodriguez, was detained for his alleged role in the release of a suspected money launderer, the brother of a recently convicted drug lord of the so-called Gulf Cartel; This past weekend in a high profile civil trial in Houston, Texas, a jury found that $9 million confiscated by the U.S. from the former Deputy Attorney General of Mexico and the former Drug Czar in Mexico, Mario Ruiz Massieu, had come from drug traffickers' bribes; and Yesterday, a Mexican Army Brigadier General was arrested on charges that he offered a multi-million dollar bribe to a top Mexican law enforcement official on behalf of a notorious drug cartel. The Dallas Morning News today reports that Mexican authorities have threatened to expel DEA agents if we decertify Mexico. Now, in your view, is Mexico fully cooperating with us, with you, in the War on Drugs? Mr. Constantine. Well, what I've said, Congressman, on that issue is I've avoided saying whether they should be certified or decertified, even if it means getting into the euphemisms of ``fully cooperating'' which is the language of the law as I understand it. What I have said through all of the hearings that I've testified at is to assess the power of these organized crime syndicates in Mexico, which I alluded to this morning. I think I was fairly direct on how powerful they've become and how they've used intimidation and corruption to influence law enforcement. In my testimony before the House Committee under oath, what I indicated was that there are four major law enforcement institutions in Mexico that you could conceivably deal with. One would be the Mexican Federal Judicial Police which, in the opinion of the Government of Mexico, has become so contaminated by corruption that it has been replaced by the military. The second would be their DEA, which is the INCD. That was the organization that General Gutierrez was in charge of. One thing I would correct for the record is we did not provide him with any sensitive briefings. When he came with the Attorney General of Mexico, the new Attorney General, he got a very general briefing not unlike the one we gave to the House Committee. It appears now that General Gutierrez had access to every investigation, not only that occurred during the ten-week period of time that he was there, but also those that his predecessor, Francisco Molina-Ruiz, had turned over to him on every investigation that the INCD had ongoing, either independently or in conjunction with DEA or any other agency. It's our assumption, and I think it's a correct one, that all of that information has been compromised. We first saw in the paper yesterday morning the arrest of a second General, which I think is indicative of the level of wealth and power that these people will use to corrupt institutions. The newspaper report indicates that the General was offered $1 million a month not to take law enforcement action in the Baja. And if he did not accept the bribe, then his own family would be placed in physical jeopardy. Mr. Rogers. The question is are they fully cooperating? Mr. Constantine. With the law enforcement aspect, with us and DEA? No. Mr. Rogers. And you told the Attorney General that? Mr. Constantine. Well, any conversations I would have with the Attorney General would be private. Mr. Rogers. Well, she told us you said that. Mr. Constantine. Okay. Mr. Rogers. So, she broke it open. If she can tell us that, surely you can. Mr. Constantine. Well, whenever I deal with people and offer information, I keep it confidential. If they want to say it, that's fine. Mr. Rogers. Well, I admire you for that. But the truth is you told her not to do this; didn't you? Mr. Constantine. Well, I didn't say not to do anything. I gave an assessment just like I gave you about what the law enforcement institutions are. Mr. Rogers. I know what you said. She told me what you said. And in spite of this enormous impact that Mexico is having on the United States, by far the most serious impact of any nation on Earth on drug problems in our country; in spite of that impact the President says they're fully cooperating with us. And what every law enforcement official in this land knows is that it's the major problem with drugs in this country. Is that not correct? Mr. Constantine. Well, I wouldn't comment on what the President said. What's happened was that the arrest of the people in Cali, Colombia, had a very significant effect. We're now starting to see more and more of what has happened as a result of those arrests, which I think proves the premise that going after the leadership can be effective. What happened is that they lost a lot of their ability to conduct their operations internationally. We see replacement groups from Mexico who are becoming more involved in drug trafficking. Presently, it is our opinion that the organized crime systems out of Mexico are the most powerful in the world. That I would say. Mr. Rogers. Many people think that we are being invaded today. Our borders are a sieve that drugs are flowing through, almost at random, across the border and mainly from Mexico. We are sustaining severe damage as a country because of this invasion of narcotics from off-shore and people carrying those narcotics--including aliens carrying narcotics. It is a very dangerous weapon. Yet, in spite of that, the leader of our Nation in effect is saying that we have no problem with Mexico, when the highest official in their government in charge of preventing drugs from coming into this country was arrested for a bribe, among others. For the life of me I can't see what's going on here. Is doing business with Mexico, the commercial business that we have with Mexico, so important that we would sell the very lives of our children for it? Have you ever thought about that? Law Enforcement Strategy Mr. Constantine. Well, I think questions about trade and economics and foreign policy would be far afield from my discipline. What I've tried to do is focus totally on the law enforcement issues, how serious I think it is, how serious I think it is to American citizens and American law enforcement officials, and the difficult problem that we face when we try to go after the leadership. Virtually every law enforcement strategy that I've been involved with since I started in 1960 only works if you're able to take the leadership out. I've testified numbers of times that I always thought the leader in that was Robert Kennedy when he was the Attorney General of the United States. Organized crime in the United States had been unchecked, untouched until such time as he started a personal crusade to go after the leadership and then we wound up with protective witness statutes. We eliminated corruption in law enforcement. I think for the law enforcement aspect of this drug problem, and there are certainly a lot of other areas of prevention and discipline, but in the law enforcement aspect, if you can't bring the leadership to justice for the crimes that they have committed against any number of citizens, either with Colombia and the United States or Mexico and the United States, the strategy becomes a very limited one for law enforcement purposes. DEA Agents in Mexico Mr. Rogers. One of the most critical issues for DEA agents in Mexico is the authority to carry firearms for self defense. An article in Sunday's New York Times suggested that issue remains at an impasse. In fact, the article quotes a senior foreign ministry official in Mexico as saying, ``North American drug officials say to us, just let us alone to do whatever we want in Mexico. That's ridiculous. We're not going to allow a bunch of Rambos to overrun our country.'' As I also said, today's Dallas Morning News reports that Mexican authorities have threatened to expel DEA agents if we decertify Mexico. What do you think about those statements? Mr. Constantine. Well, I think the comment that the DEA agents working down there are a bunch of Rambos is a totally inappropriate comment. That's not the role that our people perform. Let me give you a little background on this because I think some of it is confusing to people. We have a number of people who are assigned in Mexico attendant to the embassy functions. It varies. It's about38; the maximum number. We feel that they have adequate protection and have had adequate protection historically and to the present. Last year, in an attempt to find some way to share important, and sometimes sensitive, information with law enforcement in Mexico, a concept was developed of three bi-national task forces which would be in the areas of power of the criminal organizations; one, in the Brownsville, Matamoros area; one in the Juarez, El Paso area; the other one in the Tijuana, San Diego area. As conceived, the task forces were to have 50 agents from their DEA, the INCD, three or four U.S. DEA agents, one FBI agent, and one Customs agent. They were then to decide on joint targets and sharing of information. There were a number of bureaucratic hurdles that had to be accomplished. Some of them have been resolved and some of them haven't. Beginning this summer we started to witness what we thought was an extraordinary number of assassinations of leading law enforcement officials in Mexico who were involved in the anti- drug activities. We don't know what the reasons were, but it was obvious that there was a connection to the activities of either the commandants or prosecutors in going after these drug lords. We simultaneously started to receive substantial credible threats against DEA agents who were traveling into Mexico every day for these task forces on a predictable basis. We looked to find what types of protection they would have for their own personal safety, in the area of some type of a diplomatic immunity. There was none. We had requested this be looked at and some type of protection be granted. I did this confidentially. Quietly, there was apparently a reaction from the Government in Mexico that thought this was inappropriate and that those protections should not be available. That issue is still, as I understand it, being discussed. Back around November or December, the FBI and the Customs Service felt that it was so unsafe that they pulled their people out of the task force and did not allow them to go into Mexico. We continued for about a month and a half to see if there would be some resolution. I then interviewed most of the agents and most of the supervisors to see what their feeling would be. It was the unanimous view of every one of the supervisors and agents that we should leave there until such time as we've had the adequate protection. The role that our DEA agents get involved in is not to be Rambos. They're young kids. They believe that they can make you and me safer. They travel into these environments, sometimes at great personal risk, to provide information that we may have available about drug traffickers from Mexico in the United States or vice-versa, so that we can have joint investigations that would occur between the two nations. As to the fact of either DEA being thrown out of Mexico or a request that we would be replaced with another Federal agency, I suspect that, that is a direct result of my sworn testimony before a House Committee in the United States Congress. Mr. Rogers. To what effect? Mr. Constantine. There is a sense that I should not have said those things about Mexico and law enforcement in Mexico. And as a result of my comments and sworn testimony, there is a threat apparently to remove DEA agents from Mexico, either completely or to replace them with some other Federal law enforcement agency. We've received a number of calls on this issue. The sources are anonymous. I can't tell you what the validity of it is or is not. Mr. Rogers. What would be the impact of taking your agents out of Mexico? Mr. Constantine. The ability to have cooperative investigations and to be able to focus on the leadership of the criminal organizations would be impossible. Obviously at the present time, we've had difficulties on the issues surrounding the integrity of our counterparts. But it's my hope, and I think the President of Mexico and the Attorney General have indicated that they're committed to coming up with systems now and developing systems in the future. I realize this is a very difficult task. I am not an enemy of Mexico. I'm an enemy of criminals and always have been. As these systems would be developed you would need to have some type of contact between our two nations. The criminals in Mexico or Colombia can pick up a phone and tell their emissaries what to do in Queens or in Chicago. If you now do not allow law enforcement to have that same degree of cooperative communication, I think that the effort would suffer greatly. I'm trying to determine in my own mind, after all of these years, given the level of criminal activity, given the level of impact, how DEA has become the enemy in this thing and become the flash point. I find that very uncomfortable. I'm a policeman. I'm not involved in politics. I've never been involved in politics domestically or internationally. I think it creates an environment that's very unsafe for my people. I've become increasingly concerned when I see these types of comments. Mr. Rogers. The President is going to meet with President Zedillo next month. What would you have him do? Mr. Constantine. Well, as I mentioned to the Attorney General, those types of conversations would be confidential,Congressman, that is, any comments that I would have on this subject. Mr. Rogers. Well, would you want this on the table down there; the problems that DEA agents are having? Mr. Constantine. I would suspect that it already is on the table in many venues in this city and in Mexico City. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. DRUG PREVENTION/LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to join the Chairman in welcoming the panel today. I appreciate Mr. Constantine, Ms. DiBattiste, and Ms. Warren your testimony here. I also would like to join the Chairman in welcoming our U.S. Attorneys from Kentucky and from West Virginia. Bill, it is very nice to see you here. It gives me an opportunity to publicly express appreciation for your hard work. We intend to continue supporting that, the Chairman, myself, and this Committee, I can assure you. The first thing that really occurs to me to do in this hearing is to compliment our panel and the organizations that they represent for the tremendous jobs you're really doing in a number of areas, but certainly in this area of drug enforcement. It's a difficult job. My sense is that each year you are marshalling the resources, the tools you need to do a good job in this area. You're coming before the Committee and requesting what you need. Your budget reflects your awareness of needing additional tools. I know I join the Chairman in being pleased to support those requests, in large part. I also want to compliment the way you are executing. I am particularly impressed by the efforts of Ms. Warren. I guess you're in the business of cooperation. It particularly applies to my sense of increasing cooperation among law enforcement and the prosecutorial arm to approach this in a very coordinated way. Your testimony would reflect that it's really paying off to do that. I'm just curious in hearing you all talk about how we're doing in the war against drugs. Your testimony reflects that the problem is growing. It's changing. One year Colombia seems to be the big source of the problem. The next year circumstances change and Mexico comes to the fore as the focus of your attention. And they have tremendous problems that they're trying to manage there right now because of the leadership changes that you have described. What percentage of this problem do we get at each year through law enforcement efforts? Are we gaining on this? Are we falling behind? When do we start gaining, if we're not? Tom, do you want to begin? Mr. Constantine. Well, I think we start gaining through prevention programs. We're able to convince the American people, especially young American people, not to use drugs like they are in increasing numbers. I think anybody in police work will tell you that we can do certain things. We can bring some order into chaos. We can reduce some violence. If you have such a huge demand situation, what you wind up with is the unique situation in that the product is over- produced for the demand. There is really no real relationship between the price of production and the price of distribution. It is very unlike the situation of manufacturing a motor vehicle and it's going to cost you so much for steel, so much for labor, and so much for transportation. The mark-up is so huge in the narcotics industry, that they're not hurt in such a way that we can affect the price or purity. There is almost competition to become more pure at a lower price. Unfortunately, that type of competition becomes unhealthy for American citizens. I think we can show substantial places where we have improved the quality of life through law enforcement, especially drug law enforcement, domestically in the United States. I think we can point to community after community where you have a local police, DEA or the FBI, a local prosecutor and a U.S. Attorney who becomes aware of a particularly vicious group of predators who have destroyed individual neighborhoods and entire communities. The resources available to us are unavailable to a Chief of Police in Buffalo or to a Chief of Police in Salt Lake City or in many of the major cities where we can provide that focus, those assets, and that money and to arrest a trafficking group. You can significantly point, Congressman, to a reduction of violence, murders, robberies, assaults in those areas. I think you can point to some success in taking down domestic distribution systems fairly effectively. It took from 1985 to 1995 to eventually get all of the cases and all of the things lined up correctly to be able to take the leadership out of Cali, Colombia. Is there a transit of drugs through Mexico? Yes, because they were available. Their disorder becomes an asset for our investigations. Lesser people are put in as replacements. If you'd look at the situation right now, I mean, the organized crime in the United States goes from the old movies of Lucky Luciano and Anthony Anastasio to Vincent Giganti walking around Greenwich Village in a bathrobe as head of the mob in the United States. I mean, there has been a tremendous improvement. That took 30 years of sustained efforts of enforcement officers and prosecutors. So, from an enforcement aspect, Ithink, yes, you can improve the quality of life in the United States. For the overall use of drugs in the United States I think those are areas beyond law enforcement. Mr. Mollohan. So, at the end of the day, say, it's a market problem for this country. Mr. Constantine. That's correct. MEXICO Mr. Mollohan. The Chairman was expressing the frustration that I think everybody, feels about Mexico. I would like to understand. Are there any good guys in Mexico? Are there any silver linings down there? Is there any reason for hope in dealing with Mexico? Mr. Constantine. I believe so. First of all, even despite all of the beatings I take in the press here and in Mexico, I am not anti-Mexican. I am anti-criminal and anti-corrupt policemen. If they were in Milwaukee or Chicago, I would still have the same feeling about criminals and corrupt police officers. You have a Mexican President who has made a commitment. I've said even though the General was there and was arrested, that was an arrest made solely by the Government of Mexico, which I'm sure took some degree of thinking and courage. Now, should people have known his background? Should he have been in there? Those are other issues. The new Attorney General, Madrazo, has a good record in the human rights area. I've met him. He appears to me to be very sincere in trying to establish some joint cooperative law enforcement ventures where they can feel comfortable about the integrity of their own institution. I think that is positive, somebody wanting to do something. What you really have is a raid against each other right now. As I've said, of the most powerful organized crime syndicates maybe in the world, Cali was always the best. Traffickers in Mexico come fairly close. You have a law enforcement institution or institutions that have become dysfunctional in many ways because of corruption. Now, those aren't my statements, by the way. Those are the statements of the leaders of the Government of Mexico. I think it's a realistic assessment. I also know friends of mine who've been chiefs of police in tough corrupt operations in cities in this country. It takes them five or six years of heartache to straighten it out. So, I think it's a long haul. But I think you have to start someplace and I'm willing to try that. Mr. Mollohan. In other words, you have a police community who all of a sudden is dealing with far more sophisticated organizations, organizations that have successfully corrupted the police organizations. Are you suggesting that the President of Mexico is corrupt? Mr. Constantine. I don't know him personally. Mr. Mollohan. What do you consider the President of Mexico to be in this regard? Mr. Constantine. Well, he appears to me to be taking it very seriously. Mr. Mollohan. And not to be corrupt? Mr. Constantine. He is sending signals that these corruption issues are extremely important to society. Mr. Mollohan. And you're describing the Attorney General of Mexico in the same favorable light? Mr. Constantine. I've met the Attorney General twice now. He's been in position three months. From all that I've heard about this man, he is honest and wants to do the right thing. Mr. Mollohan. Ms. Warren, would you like to comment? Ms. Warren. If I could just add, there are a few other rays of hope that I would ask you to consider. There were some advances last year--many urged upon the Mexicans by the U.S. Government and by our law enforcement officials and Justice representatives. They enacted a new organized crime law that now makes criminal money laundering for the first time. It provides for asset forfeiture. In addition to that and of great importance to us, was the enacting of legislation that gives them evidence-gathering authorities that they didn't have available to them before. Mr. Mollohan. Who is the ``them?'' Ms. Warren. The Mexican Law Enforcement. For example, now they have court-authorized electronic surveillance. It was the Justice Department officials and DEA working together that convinced the Mexican authorities that they needed such capabilities and legal authority in order to go after the leadership and to build cases against more than just the ``mules'' who were caught with the drugs. So, that was a step forward. They now have a witness protection program and plea bargaining, for the first time, so they can move up the ladder in a prosecution. In the area of extradition, in 1995 we had only five extraditions from Mexico. In 1996, we had 13, included among them for the first time ever was a Mexican national and one dual national--someone who claimed both Mexican and U.S. citizenship. Those were advances. We're certainly not satisfied, but we have to mark those as changes for the better. Mr. Mollohan. Were those changes, were they concurred in or effected by a legislative body or were they by executive order? Ms. Warren. The extraditions are by the courts and executive order, often overriding what the courts have done as a matter of fact. The legislative changes, the evidence gathering and the new laws, are the legislative body. Mr. Mollohan. So, that would suggest that there is some broad-based concern and consensus that Mexico has to address that problem, if the legislature has agreed to these reforms. Am I correct? Ms. Warren. Yes, I believe you are. Those reforms were enormous. Not only did they require a legislative change, but also a constitutional change. Electronic surveillance was not possible under their constitution. They had to amend the constitution plus enact the laws. So, it was broad-based support. dea laboratories Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Constantine, I have a couple of budget oriented questions here. Could you talk about the condition of your labs and what funds are needed in that regard? Mr. Constantine. DEA has eight laboratories which were constructed in the 1960s-1970s era when obviously the narcotics problem was, by reflection, much more simple. Now there are many environmental laws pertaining to operation of a laboratory. The situation has changed greatly by Federal law and state law. Along with the caseload we've had the Corps of Engineers come in and they've taken a look at our laboratories and have established a plan for DEA. Originally it was for a three-year period, but in looking at it, we're looking at probably a five- year period for rehabilitation of all of these labs, and working with virtually a lease/purchase arrangement with GSA. It was $1.5 million last year. I believe we have $4 million in this year's budget to add to the expenditure of the $1.5 million. Then in the outyears I think it's $6 million or $7 million per year. We will eventually have all of the laboratories meeting the accreditation standards for the health and safety of our personnel. We already have an internal accreditation standard for quality control and evidence. But there is some concern about the level of safety and our ability to deliver products. I mentioned to you the methamphetamine problem. There is virtually an explosion in the number of methamphetamine laboratories throughout the United States. So, we have to have special teams go there in a safe fashion to dismantle a methamphetamine laboratory--it's unlike cocaine or heroin. You can't say it is methamphetamine or amphetamine right away. You often have to seize the material, get it back to a laboratory, get it analyzed, prove that it is either methamphetamine or amphetamine or precursors in various stages. Then you get that information back to a U.S. Attorney for an eventual arrest warrant. All of these home-grown labs have created a fairly dramatic caseload for the laboratories. narcotics cases Mr. Mollohan. Talking about caseloads, Ms. DiBattiste, you are requesting additional resources for narcotics cases. Could you talk to us about your need and perhaps relate that to the percentage increases of the caseload from the activities of the DEA and the FBI? Ms. DiBattiste. Yes. I think that also ties into the question you asked Mr. Constantine earlier on are we making a difference. In the drug area, as well as many other areas, U.S. Attorneys and the prosecutors are making a difference. Mr. Mollohan. I'm sorry not to ask you to have commented on that. Ms. DiBattiste. Oh, that's quite all right. We look at it two ways. One, how do we tell we are? Are we taking out the major organizations? Our mission is two-part. Are we working closely with the state and local law enforcement so we can clean-up the streets of the United States in addition to targeting some of our major drug trafficking organizations? As you can see by our numbers alone, and that's not the only indicator, but consistently, we again this year, the U.S. Attorneys have tried more drug cases. We think with more resources, we can put more of the bad criminals in jail. Can we get all of them? Probably not. But we believe in the narcotics area, as well as the other areas where we've asked for resources--terrorism, organized crime--we believe that it will allow the U.S. Attorneys to do more. The prosecutors are ready. Cases are one thing to look at. The other thing, and I wanted to point this out to you earlier, are the communities. How are the communities reacting? How are the local neighborhoods reacting? I can give you countless accounts from United States Attorneys, whether it's through their Weed and Seed programs, or whether it's citizens putting a billboard up in Los Angeles thanking the DEA and the ATF for helping to clean-up their communities. That's the impact we have at ground level. That's only anecdotal, but I hear from U.S. Attorneys every day telling me, whether it's in D.C. through their community prosecution program where they're going into neighborhoods and making a difference. It's the citizens that are coming back and telling the U.S. Attorneys, you're making a difference in the neighborhood working with local, state, and Federal law enforcement. So, that, coupled with the cases, shows we're making a difference. With more resources, could we do more? Yes. Mr. Mollohan. We'll come back to the caseload issue. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kolbe. mexico Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Constantine, I'd like to follow-up on a couple of the questions that were asked by Mr. Mollohan with regard to Mexico. I'm really very puzzled about the Administration's position with regard to Mexico. We had our own little struggle here in theCongress last week with regard to the certification based on the President having sent a certification to Mexico. He indicated he was certifying Mexico as being cooperative on drugs. We, as you know, had a somewhat different approach, although it got modified in the end. At the same time we were casting that vote, it was reported that your Deputy Administrator in the Miami Herald said, ``There is not one organization, not one group in law enforcement within Mexico that we've been able to work with and have total trust in.'' He went on to say, ``We've not seen any enforcement initiative that has been successful in Mexico in recent times.'' If indeed that is true and that represents the position of the Drug Enforcement Administration, which I assume is a part of this Administration, does this not seem to contradict the President's suggestion of certification? Mr. Constantine. Well, Congressman Rogers asked me a number of questions on this. Mr. Kolbe. I'm sorry. I was out. I had to go see some people. Mr. Constantine. I have made a practice not to--and I think it's for me as a career law enforcement official an appropriate one, not to say who should be certified or de- certified. There are a whole host of issues that enter into this, Congressman. We at DEA do not get involved in eradication, or deal with legislation, deal with issues that the State Department deals with as to whether or not countries have been successful or not. The comments of my Deputy Administrator track very closely with my testimony before one of the House Committees and a Senate Committee, which first laid out what the threat is to the United States from organized crime and the leadership in Mexico. Secondly, we base our recommendations on our looking at the investigations we're involved in. We also look at the comments of the Government of Mexico. There are really philosophies, and strategies by the Government of Mexico indicating that the major institutions have been so seriously corrupted by the drug traffickers that the Government of Mexico has replaced them with the military which is, I would imagine in any society, kind of a dramatic step. The decisions that are eventually made after we give our comments on what we see in law enforcement, come from a whole host of other agencies in this town. Once we've given our law enforcement advice, we give it candidly. I give it privately and publicly. Then those decisions are made and then we carry on with whatever we have to do. Mr. Kolbe. Well, then aside from the fact that they seem to contradict the Administration with regard to certification, if indeed it is true that there is no agency in Mexico that is trustworthy or honest, why do you continue to function down there? Why do you continue to make an effort? Mr. Constantine. Well, there has been, number one, commitments and promises by the President and the Attorney General of Mexico that they are going to develop some institutions. The fact that they have arrested high-ranking Generals is indicative to me that some people in that government are willing to make some very tough decisions. There are several units, one, a classified unit that I wouldn't discuss in an open session, where we are working with them to develop a resource for us to deal with. The bi-national task forces were originally supposed to be groups of people that we could deal with in a trusting relationship. They have been obviously placed in jeopardy because they reported to General Gutierrez who has been obviously arrested for corruption with the leading traffickers. Two, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General of that country would indicate to me that they want to rebuild those task forces. I think we have to stay engaged, Congressman, in some fashion because the criminals and the criminal organizations are one seamless continuum as I see it crossing the borders of three nations. We need to stay engaged in working with counterpart agencies, and hopefully we will see progress in the future. It's going to be a long time. It will be long after I'm here, that they develop something. I think to disengage and to break off would eliminate any communications. I think that would probably not be to the benefit of the citizens of the United States. Mr. Kolbe. I think I would agree with you on that. It would seem to me then that if indeed you're going to stay engaged, there must be somebody you're engaged with down there and there must be somebody you feel that you can work with. You say that you have not seen any enforcement initiative that has been successful in Mexico, I mean, what enforcement initiative would you point to in this country that really has been successful if the measure of success is reducing drug use? Mr. Constantine. Well, reducing drug use is really a function of demand and prevention, both of which are beyond our parameters in law enforcement. Mr. Kolbe. Not at all of supply? You don't think it is kind of a three-pronged effort? Mr. Constantine. Yes. But I think what I explained and I don't know if you were in the room, is that traffickers overproduce cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine. The production cost has no relationship to even the wholesale or retail cost. The ability to somehow affect price and purity as a supply strategy I think is very, very difficult, if not impossible. I think you can point again and again in the United States and in places outside of the United States where law enforcement institutions had an effect. I think Italy is one example. Thailand is another where organizations were built to go after organized crime and continued to go after the leadership of organized crime and eventually improve the climate of life in those areas. I mean if corruption and intimidation continued to rule the day, then it would be impossible for an average citizen in the United States or Mexico to come forward with information or to have confidence in their law enforcement institutions. So, continuing to go after criminal organizations that are powerful I think is a responsibility that we all have as citizens. The idea of going after individuals who injure us goes back to the beginning of civilization. I think that in and of itself is a goal that is necessary for all of us, no matter what country we're from. explosion of methamphetamine and designer drugs Mr. Kolbe. One other question for you. You mentioned, and there have been a lot of articles recently about the explosion of methamphetamine and designer drugs in the United States, particularly in some of the Midwestern states. I'm just wondering how does your budget and the efforts of your agency target this drug which can be produced very readily. It is produced domestically. It is not internationally produced. It is produced domestically and can be done in numerous, numerous places. You don't have to have a sophisticated operation to do that. What do you think the answer to targeting that is? Mr. Constantine. Well, there are two major methods of distribution and manufacture. One, which is the predominant one that would affect your state and the Southwest and most of the Northwest and the Rocky Mountain states and the Midwest is controlled from outside of the United States. Those are individuals from Mexico who control the importation of either ephedrine into the United States as a precursor drug for manufacture by their emissaries who they send into the United States to manufacture, or as a manufacture in Mexico and smuggled across the border and sold in the United States by distribution systems that are organized just like the cocaine and heroin distribution systems. In some areas in the Midwest, specifically, strangely enough, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kansas, there is very low level manufacturing of a pound or two at a time for distribution that does not need any international connection. They are the lesser of the amount of methamphetamine that's utilized. We have a substantial increase in this budget and have been able to dedicate groups in all of those areas of the country that are adversely affected to go after the criminal organizations as well as to go after the laboratories. Our seizure of laboratories is up almost 200 percent in the last year as we go over the laboratory statistics. But that's not the end of the case for us. When we hit the laboratory, we look for all of the telephone records. We look for all of the notebooks. We look for all of the license plates. We then take that forward into an organized crime investigation, often a Title III wiretap, to go back and find out who are the individuals who have smuggled 100 pounds or 200 pounds of ephedrine into Arizona or into California; usually into California. Where do they manufacture? Who are the individuals responsible? Then with the assistance of the U.S. Attorneys in the various districts throughout the United States, we get indictments against those who reside in America. The leadership, the two leaders of this, the Amezcua Brothers in Mexico, we have indicted them repeatedly in the United States. The question is having them arrested, I think, and brought back to face a jury of the peers of the people who they've injured. Mr. Kolbe. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Skaggs. mexico Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I apologize for not being here for your opening statements. I hope I won't cover territory you've already covered. If I understand the nub of things in your mind, Mr. Constantine, it is until we can successfully get at the corruption of Mexican law enforcement and judicial officers, we're going to be swimming up-stream in the context of what we can get done in that jurisdiction. Is that the central issue right now? Mr. Constantine. The central issue is organized crime syndicates. The central issue is the control of the narcotics distribution inside of the United States which is controlled by very powerful organized crime syndicates whose leadership reside in Mexico. We know who they are. We know where they do business. We know who their organization representatives are in the United States. We can produce evidence. We can have the U.S. Attorneys indict them. We can arrest them, convict them, and we can have an effect, but it becomes limited because any time you do an organized crime investigation, you have to really get the leadership. In this country we used to waste our time getting bookies. What stands in the way of our getting to the leadership is the lack of solid, strong, law enforcement institutions in Mexico that could replicate what we do in the United States. Mr. Skaggs. So, it's the coherent, consistent rule of law within Mexico that is the missing link in being able to---- Mr. Constantine. That's one of them. Yes. Mr. Skaggs. Okay. In your opinion will we best further the objective of a coherent rule of law with non-corrupt authorities in Mexico by a de-certification decision with waiver or a certification decision? Mr. Constantine. I have pointedly again and again said that I don't think it's appropriate for me, especially as a law enforcement official, to comment on whether a country should be certified or de-certified. I think those are public policy decisions that shouldn't be made by law enforcement executives. We can give our best advice as to what we do on the criminal issue. What's going to produce results in other countries I think is somewhat beyond the capacity of someone in law enforcement. Mr. Skaggs. Is it a combination of your not feeling comfortable expressing an opinion or feeling that the question of what best serves that ultimate objective involves areas in which you don't claim to have competency? Mr. Constantine. Both. I know I don't claim, and other people who've known me would claim it also. I don't have those particular skills or background. I think any advice I give in that area---- bottlenecks in the judicial system Mr. Skaggs. I just thought I'd try. Turning now to your colleagues, we've talked about supply and demand. Do we have an excess demand for judicial and prosecutorial services beyond the supply that the Justice Department is able to provide? Do we have bottlenecks in the judicial side of the system after law enforcement does its job and, if there are bottlenecks there, are we adequately addressing them in the Administration's budget? Ms. DiBattiste. I wouldn't--I don't think I am qualified to comment on bottlenecks in the judicial system. But I will tell you what I said to Congressman Mollohan earlier. The high volume of cases coming into U.S. Attorneys' offices requires more resources to deal with all of them. The U.S. Attorneys are working very, very closely with state and local law enforcement. Some of the cases go state and local. The U.S. Attorneys' strategy is to take the more serious and more significant cases. But the volume that's coming in, if you would want to call it the supply---- Mr. Skaggs. I'm calling that the demand. Your U.S. Attorneys and courtrooms are the supply. Is that supply adequate to meet that demand? Ms. DiBattiste. No. Ms. Warren. Also, from the Criminal Division's point of view that we are working with the U.S. Attorneys to try and provide a strategic reserve when there are additional litigators necessary. Beyond that, for instance, in the Southwest Border Initiative, working to help coordinate those cases to work more effectively and efficiently in a training program along with the investigators to show how we can do Title IIIs faster and more efficiently so that each Assistant U.S. Attorney is doing lots more work than they were doing before because we are working at a more efficient rate. The Criminal Division needs those additional resources to continue in that as well. domestic drug problem Mr. Skaggs. Just one thing in closing, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Constantine, I think I heard you in various ways with your comments in response to earlier questions make the fundamental point that the solution to this problem ultimately is in the domestic demand for drugs. And until we change U.S. domestic behavior in this regard, you all can do your best, but it will ultimately not be up to the task. Mr. Constantine. Well, I think the solution to the narcotics problem in the United States is obviously when the United States citizens decide to stop using drugs. I entered in law enforcement when the use of drugs in this country was minuscule by comparison and very limited, and I have seen it evolve over the objection of many of us in law enforcement to a predictable drug culture that began in the 1960s and 1970s. We in law enforcement were criticized for saying that this was on the horizon unless we started to take some strong stands on the drug issue, both in prevention and ensuring that people adhere to higher standards. I think that unfortunately has played out. I've witnessed that sadly. I think eventually the United States is the wealthiest country in the world, the freest country, how we get from this area in the last 35 years is mystifying to me, both in the area of violence and in the area of crime and drug use. It will only improve when we as a society stop being so violent to one another and stop using drugs. Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon. lack of concentration on drug prevention Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to welcome the two ladies and Mr. Constantine. I am somewhat concerned about what I would call a narrow law enforcement perspective. Although you indicate that prevention and education, I believe, are a part of the drug strategy, you don't see your role, as a law enforcement agent, in the prevention business. Is that correct? Mr. Constantine. Well, we play somewhat of a role first of all by having demand reduction programs in each office. We try to get involved in community activities such as the Boys and Girls Clubs and Explorer Scouts. We sponsor any number of those events. Mr. Dixon. Right. It isn't as narrow as the---- Mr. Constantine. No. It's not that narrow. We have 3,800 agents to staff all of the United States and all of the world, and every day coming into each office are citizens complaining about drug trafficking in their neighborhood, or their city, or state. By trying to respond to all of those requests, we're really extended to the limits just in doing the enforcement aspect. Mr. Dixon. When you look at the national drug strategy for 1997, it would appear that only 10 percent of the $15 billion is being directed toward prevention and treatment programs combined. I would assume that you disagree with the distribution of that money. Mr. Constantine. I wouldn't agree or disagree with the distribution. We have problems sometimes when we get into this roller coaster idea of funding where we decide one year we'll fund one of the so-called three-legged stool area. Next year we'll take funds away from that for another program. I think if you're going to do it, you enhance the program generally, not at the cost of the other functions that you have. Mr. Dixon. I just want to have a dialogue about this. As I look at the back tables on page 240, and from your testimony today you indicate and the tables indicate that over a sustained period of time the price of cocaine has come down and the purity has gone up. Mr. Constantine. Correct. Mr. Dixon. So, what can you say about that as it relates to interdiction and law enforcement issues? Mr. Constantine. Two things. As I indicated before, the relationship of the price is very artificial in narcotics. It's over-produced for the demand probably almost 2:1 or 3:1, depending on how successful the interdiction is. As far as the enforcement effort, we often see people in the community coming to us saying ``my community is being held hostage by drug traffickers and my kid can't go to school--can you do something about the problem? '' We feel a compulsion to try to solve that person's problem and arrest the individuals who are distributing the drugs. That may not affect the price or purity of drugs in that community and the nation as a whole. If we see international distribution systems, people who ship tons of cocaine into the United States, we think that the injury that results from that really cries out for somebodyto bring those people to justice rather than to make $10 million, $20 million, live in big estates when the average working person tries to survive day-to-day. So, our objective as a law enforcement institution is to bring to justice people who commit crimes and injure others. The ability to affect price and purity in the drug trafficking I think is difficult if not impossible because of the over production. There is no relationship to the price of a kilo of cocaine in Los Angeles today to what it takes them to grow it, manufacture it, and transport it. Mr. Dixon. I guess what I'm asking is, does this table support the proposition that prevention and treatment is ultimately a key solution to this problem, because regardless of the interdiction and the enforcement, regardless of what the forces have been, the purity has gone up and the price has come down. Mr. Constantine. Yes, Congressman. corruption Mr. Dixon. Mr. Kolbe said in his statement that in Mexico ``there were no institutions that were not invaded by corruption.'' I believe you alluded to some classified information. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that there are no institutions that have not been corrupted? Mr. Constantine. I think what he was alluding to came from my testimony before the House which stated that there is no civilian law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom we have an entirely trusting relationship. That was the exact phrase. It was worded for a specific purpose. Mr. Dixon. I'm interested in this, as I know the Chairman is. We've had discussions about the War on Drugs. I believe we've discussed what ``fully cooperating'' means, which is a very ambiguous term. He cited a series of arrests recently and he asked at the end of that about the term ``fully cooperating.'' In your experience would more arrests or fewer arrests be an indication that there was cooperation? mexico Mr. Constantine. You mean arrests of individuals in Mexico? Are you talking about criminals or government officials? Mr. Dixon. Government officials. For instance, you used as an example Mr. Gutierrez who had only been there, I believe, ten weeks. You said that it took an amount of courage to arrest him. Mr. Constantine. That's correct. Mr. Dixon. Would you like to see more arrests of people in high positions or fewer arrests? Mr. Constantine. What I would like to see is every corrupt person who is a law enforcement official in a profession that I believe in, be arrested. Mr. Dixon. Right. Mr. Constantine. I think if you have a corrupt law enforcement official they should not be in that position and they should be in jail because they have abused their authority. These are the estimations of the Government of Mexico. Mr. Dixon. Right. Mr. Constantine. Obviously, that would mean that many of them would probably be arrested in the future if you're going after corruption. Mr. Dixon. If we look toward full cooperation what that means is that we will probably see more arrests. Mr. Constantine. It very well could. Mr. Dixon. Now, you indicated that the Mexican traffickers have matured in their sophistication because of a crackdown in Colombia. Mr. Constantine. Organized crime systems and leadership have long been poly-drug smugglers into the United States. These groups that we're dealing with have a history that goes back 20 or 30 years. Mr. Dixon. Right. And there was corruption at that point in time. Mr. Constantine. At various levels. Mr. Dixon. Right, but it's really matured more now that we have been successful in Colombia. Mr. Constantine. What happened, Congressman, was when we were I think substantially effective on the East Coast of the United States in reducing the drugs coming into the United States in that method, the groups from Cali, Colombia who were the most sophisticated the world had ever seen, went to the drug smugglers from Mexico and said, in essence look, we need access to the United States. If we bring the cocaine to Mexico, would you smuggle it into the United States and turn it over to our Colombian organized crime operatives in the United States? They said yes. And they charged them $1,000 per kilo. At some point in time I think a light must have gone off when they looked and saw how much the groups from Cali were getting. So, the first change became, never mind the $1,000 a kilo. If you bring ten tons into Mexico, you give us five and we will deliver your five into Los Angeles. We'll deliver our five into Chicago. So, we wound up with two very, very similar criminal organizations bringing drugs into the United States. We are starting to see the effects of the major arrest and incursions in Colombia. For the first time, within the last three months, we see major organized crime from Mexico operating in the New York City Metropolitan area distributing tons of cocaine into that particular market and bringing it back. So, I believe that they learned a great deal from the group from Cali. They learned how to use technology. They compartmentalized it. They now have become the replacement group. Maybe not quite, the level of the organized crime from Cali, but because of their disruption, the most powerful in the world today. Mr. Dixon. But the corruption did not start with this new phenomenon. Mr. Constantine. No. There has been a history. There is so much money that is available. The figures, if they're true, in the paper yesterday from the Government of Mexico said that the General who was arrested yesterday was offered $1 million a month in the Baja merely to look the other way. I mean those numbers to me are astounding. Mr. Dixon. Now, what are some of the things you would like to see the Mexican Government do, or do more of? Is making more arrests one of them? Mr. Constantine. Probably the most important is the development of very solid law enforcement institutions, both from a basis of integrity, and competence, and professionalism to conduct these investigations. The second would be--I'm not always persuaded by the numbers of arrests, but the arrests of the right people in leadership. Mr. Dixon. In your opinion, have they been moving on and arresting the right people? Mr. Constantine. Not at this point in time. I mean the individuals who lead these organizations are known full well and have been indicted repeatedly in the United States. They've already been identified as criminals and have been indicted on evidence provided for them. They have not been located, arrested, and brought to justice. Mr. Dixon. Well, let me explore that. You are talking about those who are trafficking in drugs? Mr. Constantine. Right. Mr. Dixon. I was talking about law enforcement people. Do you think the arrest of Mr. Gutierrez was significant? Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. And other arrests of military people or personnel within the government structure? Mr. Constantine. I think it's significant from two perspectives. One is that the decision was made to arrest them and to bring them to justice. The second is that you have a high ranking General in the military force who had become so corrupted. Now, we know of another General today, and the number two person in a former Administration in Mexico. I think these are indicative of the pervasiveness of the corruption and the power of the syndicates. Mr. Dixon. And finally, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Warren, we're leaving on Friday probably. Could I get on your calendar between now and Friday, Ma'am? Ms. Warren. I would look forward to that. Mr. Dixon. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I have a distinct pleasure here today. We have about 20 students from my district, from Storm Lake, South O'Brien, and Paulina, Iowa. If there is any question to the importance of the discussion today just to look in the audience and find a bunch of great kids who are potentially going to be adversely affected by the influx of drugs. It's become a major, major problem in my district. Mr. Rogers. If the Gentleman would yield. Mr. Latham. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Would you have them raise their hands so we can see who they are? [Hands raised.] Mr. Rogers. We're glad to have you with us. We're glad that Mr. Latham saw fit to have you invited here. Now, are these Hawkeye fans? drug use by nation's youth Mr. Latham. The students should be aware that the Chairman is from Kentucky who beat Iowa last weekend. Fortunately, he did not have to face Iowa State yet. I very much appreciate Mr. Constantine's testimony about some of their successes. I guess it relates back to the young people we have here. I am deeply troubled by the skyrocketing drug use in the past four years in our youth. There is over a 50 percent increase in drug use. I think we're losing the battle. There is really a question of leadership on that issue and role models. A part of it obviously concerns a lot of families today and the make-up of families too. I think we have to take a step back and realize that as leaders we've got to set very high standards and examples for our youth. I've seen the budget, Mr. Constantine. There is an increase of $11 million for methamphetamine which has become a huge concern in my district. We've had labs being built in the district. We seem to have a direct pipeline with the border and the Southwest. There is about $8 million for enforcement and another $2 million for laboratory support. I would like to know if there is a rural component. Northwest Iowa is very rural. I'd like to know what affect that's going to have. Mr. Constantine. We have looked at Iowa. It was interesting that you mentioned that, Congressman. It was difficult for us to understand at first because we started to look especially around Des Moines at a tremendous increase in methamphetamine, both in overdoses and hospital room admissions. As we looked at it we think it's fairly clear that it is related to the migration of workers, mostly legal. Maybe some illegals followed and then the drug traffickers kind of masked themselves in that community in the meat packing industry. We had the same problem in Garden City, Kansas. What we've done is we've looked at that as one of our priorities. We will be doing two things. We will be increasing the personnel assigned to Iowa generally as a State, because it has become very significant to us in the area of drug enforcement, and then secondly working with the State, city, and local police. We have a quad-city task force that we've begun in looking at Des Moines. I've talked with the individual who was, I believe, your drug czar. And the Director of your training academy called me about a month or so ago. He was a former U.S. Attorney, I believe, and indicated a need for assistance. So, our Midwest division along with a newly--funded group which will bring more to that area is going to focus agreat deal on the methamphetamine problems in Iowa because it stands out uniquely. COOPERATION BETWEEN AGENCIES Mr. Latham. I appreciate that very much. Some of the students here are from Storm Lake. There was a cover story in U.S. News and World Report last fall about combining illegal immigration with the drug trafficking and the increase in crime in Storm Lake. It is a huge issue as far as we're concerned. We have a drug task force in Sioux City which has been quite effective. We have had a problem in the past, and I think we've solved that. We had a problem with a missing component with INS being involved. I'd just like to have you comment as to the importance of the cooperation between all agencies in the Federal Government, the state and local government. Mr. Constantine. Well, Congressman, I started off as a deputy sheriff. I spent 34 years with the State Police in New York. So, I've been very active in a number of Chiefs organizations throughout the country. So, my relationship to state and local enforcement organizations, and the fact that many of my mentors and probably most of my success in life is due to a lot of people from law enforcement throughout the United States who assisted me. I also have to tell you that I work for an Attorney General, Janet Reno, who emphasizes to me again and again the need to do that. That is probably one of her number one priorities in my dealings with her. The relationship between the FBI, Director Freeh and myself, has been outstanding under Janet Reno's guidance. The former turf battle seems to have disappeared. I get the same degree of cooperation from U.S. Attorneys throughout the United States. Mary Lee and I talk virtually once a week. She is the lead on most of the drug issues. So, I can't tell you what it was 5, 10, or 20 years ago. But I have to tell you something. In my 37 years in law enforcement it's probably one of the most cooperative groups of people that I've ever worked with. Ms. Warren. Across the Federal lines and really the way we work best is Federal, state, and local all together-- prosecutors and investigators. Those are our best cases and our real successes. When you mentioned the INS and how important their role was here, the Attorney General, particularly in the methamphetamine area, wanted to be sure that INS was involved in the methamphetamine strategy, involved in the implementation of that strategy. Mr. Latham. Well, we're very fortunate I think to have a very cooperative task force in Sioux City especially with the addition of an INS agent which was the real missing link. Some of the same concerns we have in Storm Lake or Des Moines occur because the industries we have seem to be attracting a lot of illegal aliens into the area. YOUTH USING DRUGS Maybe going back a little bit to the question or the concern I have about the increase of youth using drugs. Regarding public service announcements, how effective are they? Is that the way to go? Mr. Constantine. Probably, in my opinion, the group of individuals who have the most credibility in this area is the Partnership For a Drug Free America, a group of very talented people from the advertising industry. In the mid-1980s they really were active after the death of the basketball player Len Bias. We were able to convince people to get involved in communicating this message, not at 3:00 a.m. in between some type of satellite program, but when it really means something for the people who would be involved. I've talked with them again and again. They point to the fact that they were able to get out into not only advertising, but in the national media outlets on prime time, negative stories about the effects of drugs on citizens of the United States. Uniquely, they point out that it was the Persian Gulf War that was one of the reasons why that message was lost. As they explained it to me, when that was occurring for almost eight or nine months, the first 15 minutes on every news outlet dealt with our troops and the situations they faced in the Persian Gulf and that left a limited window for all of the other news stories. There was a dramatic reduction. I think we had made such significant strides in the reduction of casual use that we may have been comfortable to think that we had won the battle. Now we look and we see that a new generation may have lost that message. I was impressed with the budget request for the new drug strategy. I think it was $175 million to be matched by $175 million for advertisements that would reach people. ABC has been committed to anti-drug issues for the month of March. It had very significant stories for a whole week running about the drug issue in the United States and the impact of young people. It was done in a very balanced fashion. It wasn't a scare tactic, but it was reality. I think those types of things are very, very helpful in the prevention aspect of it. MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES Mr. Latham. Just one last question. We've had an effort here to have increased mandatory minimum sentences and coming down much tougher on people that participate in drug trafficking and sales. How much effect do you think that's having? Do you agree with that strategy? Mr. Constantine. Well, in the communities where I worked throughout New York State and the individuals who are responsible for selling drugs, one of the major issues was to differentiate between the user and possession of use, and people who are either selling drugs for a profit or possess a significant amount of drugs with evidence that they're going to sell it. I think what happens is that the community comes to you and says, look, would you please do something about this individual or a group of individuals who are destroying our town or village or city. You involved yourself in a major investigation for a long period of time. You are able to identify them and arrest them, and with good prosecutors, bring them to a conviction. If in effect there isn't some sanction for what they've done then they have profited from it, and they return to the community brazen. What happens is that the people feel very threatened and complain to you over the fact that they have advised you of the situation yet nothing meaningful is done about the problem. If you look at the experience in New York City, I think it is a laboratory for everybody to learn from. Look at the crime rate in 1990 in that city, and I can give you the figure. It was 2,200 homicides in that city in 1990. It was one crime that changed that, and that was the death of a kid from Utah going out to the tennis open in Queens. After his murder, they hired 7,000 more policemen. They had major prosecutions. The arrests almost went up 50 or 40 percent. The violent crime rate in that city against a lot of odds has dropped 50 percent. Last year there were 988 homicides in that city which means that there are roughly over 1,300 people today as we sit here who are either in school or at work or home with their children who wouldn't be there if there had not been strong enforcement action taken against people who commit crimes. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Latham. Thank you for bringing with you the wonderful folks from your great state. Glad to have you with us. COLOMBIA/MEXICO SITUATION Now, Mr. Administrator, let me get this straight. In response to Mr. Dixon, I think you were saying that formerly the Colombians had their own distribution network here and made all of the profit from that operation. But they were getting burned by us up here. So, are you saying that they've gotten smart. They're saying let's stay out of the U.S. because that's where we get burned. We can get almost as much money if we merely wholesale the product to Mexicans and then let them take the heat for distributing it in the U.S. Is that generally what you're saying? Mr. Constantine. Well, they don't obviously advise us of their strategies or how they're going to do anything, nor would I want to give them advice on how to avoid getting in trouble. Virtually, every single major drug trafficking case starts in the United States and is built outward. So, when you come to the United States is when you become most vulnerable. Up until three or four years ago, every major investigation that we had of cocaine trafficking in the United States went to a group from Colombia primarily from Cali, Colombia. In other words, when we did a wiretap, we did an arrest or seizure in a money laundering case, we would find people from Colombia had been hired by the Rodriguez Orejuela Brothers or Santa Cruz Londono to operate in the United States. We now see major organizations similar to that but they're controlled by Carillo Fuentes, or the Arellano Felix Brothers. We don't believe that there has been any significant major increase in cocaine users that would build a second system of distribution. So, we feel that they have now replaced many of the existing Colombian organizations in the United States which would indicate to us that what you said is perhaps a strategy whereby it could be sold wholesale and then left at the wholesale level. That would be very similar to the way Southeast Asians have distributed heroin in the United States, which is a brokered rather than a linear type of organization. Mr. Rogers. If that's true and you're correct, and I think you probably are, then the huge amounts of money coming from the retail operation in the U.S. are going first to the Mexicans who then pay the Colombians for the supply. At any rate there are huge amounts of money now flowing through Mexico to Colombia corrupting a system which has historically been weak. Is that a fair assumption? Mr. Constantine. Well, I would not say that we've seen a major reduction of money going to Colombia. We still see many of our major money laundering investigations involve money going to Colombia. We also see a significant amount going to Mexico. We know that in the Colombian organizations, I've talked with General Serrano a number of times and the informants that we've had. When a plane would land in Colombia with $30 million U.S. cash, the drug traffickers would keep $15 million and the other $15 million would go for the corruption of police officers or public officials in Colombia. If the organizations in Mexico have replicated so many of the other aspects of what they learn from the organizations from Cali, I assume they're probably doing the same thing, or close to it. Mr. Rogers. In Mexico. Mr. Constantine. Correct. Mr. Rogers. To Mexican officials. Mr. Constantine. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. And this has occurred, as you've suggested, almost in a two or three-year, or four-year span; right? Mr. Constantine. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. So, all of a sudden, we're seeing Mexican officials bombarded with enormous amounts of money. And to them this money would be much more than it would be here because of the lower standard of living in Mexico, correct? Mr. Constantine. Well, the dollar figures I mentioned are astounding from any perspective. The fact that a general would be offered $1 million a month to look the other way is--I've never heard of figures like that before. Mr. Rogers. Well, this suggests to me that there must be a much larger picture that we have to tackle. I mean this is a systemic problem. We will not be able to stop them at the border. That's just physically impossible. So, how do we disrupt this new phenomenon that has taken place over the last three or four years? Mr. Constantine. Well, we can do it much like we did with the organizations from Colombia. One advantage that we have is we have the model built. We have U.S. Attorneys who know how to do this. We have FBI agents, DEA agents and technology. So, we have the ability to go after an organization. It was not apparent to us when we started the cocaine traffic how to do this. We were treating it on a piecemeal basis case-by-case, individual-by-individual. All of that has changed. So, the infrastructure in the United States for enforcement is much more sophisticated than it was ten years ago. We just expanded our targets to include criminal organizations from Mexico. Mr. Rogers. The source countries are still Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, correct? Mr. Constantine. Peru and Bolivia for the cocaine and Colombia for the manufacture of it. Mr. Rogers. What you're going after in Mexico are the middle men? Mr. Constantine. Correct. Mr. Rogers. Shouldn't we also be going with equal fervor or perhaps even more at the source country? Mr. Constantine. We are doing that simultaneously. Mr. Rogers. We've not talked about that here much today. How are we doing in the source country war? Mr. Constantine. Those countries I think have become very cooperative, very helpful. Peru specifically has been very helpful in working on source country situations. From a law enforcement perspective, the Colombian National Police and the prosecutor have become very, very cooperative, a very heroic people in many cases in going after traffickers either with us from information that we are able to provide or unilaterally on their own part. Mr. Rogers. Let's see now. Did I recollect, didn't we de- certify Colombia? Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. And you're getting good cooperation there? Mr. Constantine. The problem in Colombia has been the elected leadership, the President and numerous public officials who have been accused of or convicted of corruption. Mr. Rogers. We've de-certified Colombia because of some corrupt national officials? Mr. Constantine. That's my understanding, Congressman. Mr. Rogers. Well, wouldn't that work other places? Do you think if we de-certify a nation that is corrupting our kids because some national officials are corrupted that it could inspire them to cooperate with us? Isn't that a pretty good pattern to follow? Mr. Constantine. Well, they have become very cooperative. I have to say that the police from our perspective are some of the more effective, and that's really a sea-change in a three- year period of time. extradition Mr. Rogers. Have we ever extradited anybody from Colombia here on a drug charge? Ms. Warren. No, not under the current constitutional regime in Colombia. From the United States to Colombia? Mr. Rogers. No. Extradited from Colombia to the U.S. for U.S. trial? Ms. Warren. No Colombian national under the current constitution. They have expelled a few third country nationals to us. We have extradition requests for kingpins awaiting a decision by Colombia. They have been there for eight months awaiting a decision on our extradition request. Mr. Rogers. But they have never agreed to extradite a single drug person, a drug charged person, to the U.S. for trial? Ms. Warren. Correct--at least not under the current constitution. Mr. Rogers. What about Mexico? Ms. Warren. They extradited six on drug charges last year. Mr. Rogers. On drug charges? Ms. Warren. Yes. Now, those were not Mexican nationals. The Mexican national that they extradited was on a child molestation charge. The dual national was on a murder charge. Mr. Rogers. Has Mexico ever extradited to the U.S. for trial on a drug charge a Mexican national? Ms. Warren. Not yet. Mr. Rogers. The answer is never? Ms. Warren. No. The answer is that's correct, never. Mr. Rogers. How many extradition requests are currently pending with Mexico? Ms. Warren. We have a total---- Mr. Rogers. On drug charges. Ms. Warren. On drug charges. I would have to get back to you on that. Mr. Rogers. You've got an estimate. Is it in the hundreds? Ms. Warren. No. Pending requests, we have a total of 134. Those are state law murder charges, as well as our narcotics and other federal charges. As of March 3, 1997 sixty-four requests are active on narcotics-related charges. Mr. Rogers. Mexican nationals on drug charges? Ms. Warren. Of those sixty four narcotics requests, fourteen are for Mexican nationals. The others are third- country nationals. Mr. Rogers. How long have they been pending, the longest of them? Ms. Warren. I will have to get back to you on that. Mr. Rogers. You've got an estimate. Give me an estimate, a rough figure. Ms. Warren. For example, one of the extradition requests that we would like honored more than any other is the extradition of Amado Carrillo Fuentes. He has yet to be apprehended. They have had that for about a year, but he has not yet been apprehended. Mr. Rogers. He is one of the four kingpins. Ms. Warren. One that we want to prosecute in the United States. Mr. Rogers. Let me get this straight. You have some 60 odd extradition requests pending with Mexico on drug charges for U.S. trial, that you have had for a long, long time. They have never extradited a single Mexican national on drug charges for trial in the U.S. Based on that record of extradition, do you consider that they're fully cooperating with you in the drug war? Ms. Warren. Let me just respond in terms of the extraditions. We would like that relationship improved dramatically and are working, I hope, toward that. Mr. Rogers. That wasn't the question. Ms. Warren. Also, I just need to clarify the basis of---- Mr. Rogers. We're running short of time. Ms. Warren. I'll be quick. On the extradition requests for Mexican nationals for drug charges, there are none that I know that have been apprehended that have not been extradited. They need to be arrested first down there. Mr. Rogers. Well, I mean that's like saying kindergarten precedes the first grade. But they've never extradited anybody period. Do you consider them fully cooperating with you? Ms. Warren. We have had--I don't want to answer the question directly in terms of certification. I think I've voiced my opinion on the extradition relationship. Mr. Rogers. In the King's English and without using those magic words ``fully cooperating'' which have now become an art form of themselves, are they in any fashion cooperating with you? Ms. Warren. Yes, certainly in any fashion. I remarked before on the extradition numbers and on the change in legislation. Those are important changes. There need to be many more. The bi-lateral task forces is a major focus for us. war on drugs Mr. Rogers. Now, Mr. Administrator, I want to talk to you briefly here about the span of time and the War on Drugs. We talked about source country enforcement; source country eradication of drugs and interdiction versus one other leg of the stool of prevention. Let's now talk about the interdiction leg. This Administration shifted the overall drug strategy since 1992 away from interdiction and source country programs and into treatment programs. They made this shift despite the fact that the previous strategy produced a significant reduction in the supply and use of drugs, including among teenagers. The new drug strategy emphasized treatment for hard core users as the primary way to break the cycle of drug abuse. Under the Clinton Administration, from 1992 to 1995 interdiction resources declined by 36 percent. International drug control programs declined 55 percent. Treatment programs increased by 23 percent. Prevention programs to keep kids from starting drugs only increased by 2 percent. Furthermore, although domestic law enforcement programs increased over this period by 34 percent, it was not without a fight from Congress. In 1994 and in 1995 the Administration requested budget cuts for the DEA, including a cut of 311 agents from the peak 1992 level. You had to defend those cuts for DEA for 1995 in your very first appearance before this Subcommittee in April of 1994, but we restored those cuts. At the end of 1995, DEA was still lagging behind in hiring agents. DEA was still 240 agents below the 1992 level, even though the resources were provided to hire more. Now, what's the result of that shift in strategy away from interdiction and source country programs to treatment? The price of a gram of cocaine dropped 12 percent. Theprice of heroin dropped 35 percent. Purity of heroin is up 21 percent. Cocaine seizures dropped by 52 percent. Cocaine use by tenth graders is up 142 percent. Marijuana use by eighth graders is up 205 percent. Arrests for drug violations are up 7 percent. Juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations are up 138 percent. While the Attorney General reports a 3 percent decline last year in the number of youth arrested for violent crimes, the number of youth arrested for drug abuse violations increased by 20-plus percent. A 1995 Justice Department report says that one in three juvenile detainees were under the influence of drugs at the time of their alleged offense. In 1996 and 1997 the Congress re-seized the War on Drugs from that failed strategy. You received your full budget request in 1996. We gave you every penny you asked for. In 1997 we gave DEA $1.1 billion, a 26 percent increase over 1996; $38 million more than was requested of us and that included a $61 million initiative and 75 agents for source country international programs not requested by the Administration. Congress also included additional funding, $200 million more than was requested, for interdiction in Customs, and DOD. Now, the reason I bring this up is to make sure that the 1998 request that you have before us does not short change the needs of law enforcement again; to make sure that we're implementing the source country programs; and to be sure that the 1997 drug strategy is not still short on interdiction. Have you asked for enough for source country programs to keep us on this path of going back to the source country and attacking the drugs where they originate? Mr. Constantine. We feel that the source country program that we have in place right now is sufficient, Congressman. What we have found is that those governments, especially Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia have been trained and equipped. And really as far as the actual eradication of coca, the interdiction of manufacturing plants or runways, they have become very, very competent. As we add the people from last year's budget to each of those countries, including some major strategies in the Caribbean and Puerto Rico, we feel at this stage that that's the most appropriate way to go with it. Our role is that we believe interdiction is really most valuable if it's intelligence driven and it's intelligence driven from a criminal investigation. Just raw, general deterrence interdiction is very difficult. The percentage of ships or planes that you're able to stop on a random basis and the product that you would seize is relatively small compared to the price of the investment. Where you have intelligence information from people working in a source country and people working in the United States that can tell you when a ship is going to move or a plane is going to move or a truck is going to move, you have a high likelihood not only of the seizure of contraband, but you also have the most important thing which is criminal defendants at either terminus of the criminal operation which makes it more effective. You mentioned these programs during my first hearing which was about two weeks after I had come on this job. I have been treated very well by you and Congressman Mollohan, as has DEA. We thank you for it and we think those programs right now are sufficient to handle the problems if we can see---- dea budget request Mr. Rogers. How much did you request of the White House? How much did they change your budget request? Mr. Constantine. I'd have to give you the figure, but not much. There has been substantial support. Mr. Rogers. Somebody here knows the answer on your staff. Mr. Constantine. They'll have to whisper it to me then because I can't give it to you. It's a fairly substantial representation. Mr. Rogers. They didn't cut you much? Mr. Constantine. Not much. Mr. Rogers. They cut you some? Mr. Constantine. Not a major amount, Congressman. I'd have to look and get back to you with the figures. Mr. Rogers. Maybe they can help you out right now. We can wait a few seconds here. [Pause.] Mr. Quinn. It wasn't a significant cut when I look at the figures. Mr. Rogers. Identify yourself for the stenographer. Mr. Quinn. Don Quinn, Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Rogers. All right. Can we get that for the record? [The information follows:] [Page 835--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] international Mr. Rogers. What I'm really interested in is did they short change you on your intelligence portion? Mr. Constantine. No. That's one of the things that we will be looking at maybe in the future. There is a substantial inclusion of intelligence assets in this budget. What's happened in the intervening period of time is the fact that the people in the field, in a number of meetings even before we put our budget in, have talked about the need to look at our intelligence. I have started about four months ago a complete review which includes people from the operations and field offices to tell us what they need in the way of intelligence assets. From time-to-time you have an intelligence division at Headquarters who looks at things strategically, at people in the field who have tactical needs. What I've done is ordered that review. It's well on its way. I should have a report probably within a month or a month and a half which will be able to determine exactly if there is a need for any additional assets. But at the time of that budget request, that fulfilled the needs that we would have been interested in. The intervening change may be our own review. Mr. Rogers. Well, this year we provided $61 million and 75 agents, as I've indicated, for DEA international programs and intelligence, which obviously is very critical. Please give us a summary of your hiring and implementation of that initiative. Mr. Constantine. We have determined the countries that they will go to. We then go through a process of receiving approval both from the ambassador and the State Department for the inclusion of those additional resources in the various countries. We have that accomplished in probably about 75 to 80 percent of the countries. Then we have to go out with a job solicitation to see if agents want to go to Colombia or Peru or Bolivia. They are then selected for that position after review by our Career Board for assignments. Often we have to involve people in language training to move them and their families to some of those assignments. So, it would take longer than I think all of us would like, but we believe that we will have all of the major parts of that completed by the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. And you will have all of them hired and in place? Mr. Constantine. Hired. I can't promise you that they'll all actually be in place in country. They'll be assigned to the country, depending upon their language capabilities and the difficulty of the language in the country that they're going to, so that they will get the proper language clearance and be able to get into the country. Mr. Rogers. But they will be hired by the end of the fiscal year? Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. The full complement? Mr. Constantine. The full complement is hired obviously as you hire the basic agents. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Constantine. The assignment of people to each country will have been determined based on their training mostly for language, ability to sell a house, and to move their kids out of school and get them into another country. We hope to have that done by the end of September. u.s. attorney's budget request Mr. Rogers. Now, Director DiBattiste and Ms. Warren, do your budget requests include the full request you made to OMB? Did they cut either one of you? Ms. DiBattiste. May I submit that for the record? Mr. Rogers. I'd like to know now if you know it. Ms. DiBattiste. Yes. Mr. Rogers. How much did they cut you? Ms. DiBattiste. I believe our request to you was for 688 additional positions. Our original request was for 1,275 additional positions. Mr. Rogers. It was 1,275? Ms. DiBattiste. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Are you telling me they cut you over 500 positions? Ms. DiBattiste. Yes. We believe with the 688 we can make a significant improvement in our prosecution efforts in all of our United States Attorneys' offices in all of the areas where we asked for increases. Mr. Rogers. How much of the personnel that you were not provided would have been assigned to the drug problem? Ms. DiBattiste. In the drug area, I believe we received full support. Mr. Rogers. In what area did they cut your request? Ms. DiBattiste. May I submit this for the record because there were several initiatives. Mr. Rogers. What initiatives did they cut? Ms. DiBattiste. I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly because I'm not too good with charts. Yes, I have it. In the area of official corruption, we asked for some minor resources in tele-marketing fraud, high-tech, and violent crime. Mr. Rogers. You were not provided those? Ms. DiBattiste. Correct. In our civil area where we do desperately need help, and that is in our request, we asked for some resources for affirmative civil enforcement. There are some in there in our present request for defensive civil; not as much as what we asked for. And in infrastructure and in the Executive Office, we asked for a minimal increase in resources to support the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Mr. Rogers. All right. According to the 1997 drug strategy, drug resources for the U.S. Attorneys have increased by 14 percent since 1992. How do you explain only a 3 percent increase in drug prosecution cases in 1996? Ms. DiBattiste. In the drug area, I believe the only program increases that we received since 1992 were received in fiscal year 1997. We asked Congress for 119 positions for the Southwest Border/Drugs and we got 52. We looked back to 1992 and we have not received additional resources since that time for the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Despite that, we've had the increase in cases. We have, as you have correctly stated, a 3 percent increase across the board in the number of drug cases filed between 1995 and 1996. If you go back to 1992, the U.S. Attorneys have had a 6 percent increase in case filings in the drug area alone since 1992. Mr. Rogers. Yesterday's Washington Times cites significant increases in other prosecutions such as immigration and health care fraud. Are drug prosecutions a priority? Ms. DiBattiste. Absolutely. If you look at where we're putting our resources, 42 percent of all of our case filings-- of total criminal case filings--42 percent involve drugs and violent crime; 27 percent drugs alone. But if you combine drugs and violent crime, because most of those cases overlap, 42 percent of all of our case filings are going in those two critical areas. Also, the U.S. Attorneys are dedicating most--the largest portion I believe, 27 percent or close--of AUSA resources to prosecute drug offenses. So, yes, it is definitely a priority. Mr. Rogers. There was some confusion last spring on what policies, guidelines, and thresholds the U.S. Attorneys used to determine whether or not to prosecute drug smugglers on the Southwest Border. Can you submit for the record the current guidelines that are being used for drug prosecutions? Ms. DiBattiste. Well, Congressman Rogers, I know you will--I hope you will agree with me on this. The Attorney General sets the national priorities. Drugs are a national priority. However, when we go district-by-district each U.S. Attorney sets the priorities in his or her district because as you know, the Eastern District of Kentucky is very different than the Central District of California. Many districts don't publish written guidelines for the very reason we don't want the criminals to know what the guidelines are or they will beat the guidelines. So, we have--I can't get you the guidelines for all the offices because not all offices have them. Not all offices---- Mr. Rogers. Do the Southwest Border offices have guidelines? Ms. DiBattiste. Not that we would like to publish for the very reason that we don't want the criminals to know. Mr. Rogers. If you do not publish them, then can we look at them? Ms. DiBattiste. We have historically not shared the guidelines for the very reason that---- Mr. Rogers. I don't mean to publish them. But can we look at them? Ms. DiBattiste. We can discuss them with you in the districts along the Southwest Border, absolutely. But, as I've told you, our prosecution guidelines are very broad. Mr. Rogers. Well, the reason I'm bringing this up is drug prosecutions are relatively flat. I want to know what the problem is. I mean we're pumping money at you, a 14 percent increase for drug prosecutions since 1992. We're not seeing a similar increase in prosecutions. Ms. DiBattiste. I think that's incorrect, sir. For the Southwest Border alone in 1996, Arizona was up 12 percent from 1995 in drug prosecutions. Southern California was up 18.8 percent. New Mexico up 23 percent. Southern Texas up 13 percent and Western Texas up 34 percent in drug prosecutions alone. Mr. Rogers. I'm looking at your own drug strategy here for drug funding. From 1992 to 1996 we increased your budget authority by $30 million, a 14.5 percent increase in resources. Overall, I'm not talking just about the Southwest Border. Overall, your drug cases terminated has only grown 2.5 percent; and we've given you 14.5 percent more resources. Ms. DiBattiste. If you go back to 1992, between 1992 and 1996 we've had a 6 percent increase. Case filings, as you know, should not be the only indicator as to whether we're making a difference. It's the quality of the cases, the complexity of the cases, and whether we're taking out major drug trafficking organizations. The answers to those three questions are yes. Complexity is increasing. Quality is increasing. And we are taking out major drug trafficking organizations. Mr. Rogers. Well, I want to be sure that we're not doing the same thing in prosecutions in this Administration that they did to the drug interdiction and source country programs and that's to slash the results. We won't let that happen here if we can spot it in time. Am I spotting anything like that? Ms. DiBattiste. The U.S. Attorneys won't let it happen. It isn't happening. I will tell you that with more resources they can do more. Mr. Rogers. We gave you more resources. And you've not done more. Ms. DiBattiste. But with even more, they can do more. Mr. Rogers. As I said, we gave you more resources and you did not do more. Ms. DiBattiste. I believe that the U.S. Attorneys across the board have increased, if you just look at case filings, have increased the number of drug prosecutions. And the quality has definitely increased. Mr. Rogers. We have a vote on the floor. We think it's just one vote. There may be just a few further questions that we would have. I know it's into the lunch hour. If you could bear with us a few minutes, Mr. Mollohan and I need to cast our votes. Then we shall return. We will stand in recess a few minutes. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We apologize for keeping you during the lunch hour. Maybe we can get through here in a reasonably short period of time. marijuana use Let me ask you about marijuana. It is still the most frequently used illicit drug. There has been a slight rise in the number of marijuana users since 1992, but more importantly, teenagers' use of marijuana has skyrocketed. Studies have also found that marijuana is obviously a gateway drug, leading to the use of other drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Among 12th graders, the use is up 84 percent. Among tenth graders it is up 152 percent. Among eighth graders, 205 percent. The latest survey, released this month, by the Partnership For a Drug Free America reported says that the rising popularity of illegal drugs among teenagers is trickling down to their younger brothers and sisters who are starting to try it themselves. This study focused on kids ages 9 through 12 and 24 percent of these kids were offered drugs. Those who had experimented with drugs rose to 4 percent from 2 percent. Children were less likely to believe that ``people on drugs are stupid.'' And 71 percent said so in 1995; only 65 percent said it in 1996. NIH said in 1995 ``The serious and harmful affects of marijuana, include impairments to learning and memory, perception, judgment, and complex motor skills, difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts, decreased drive and ambition, shortened attention span, poor judgment, high distractibility, diminished effectiveness of interpersonal skills, intense anxiety, panic attacks and paranoia, and,'' listen to this, ``the daily use of one to three joints of marijuana appears to produce the same lung diseases and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes.'' This is not a tobacco question, although I'm tempted. We talk about emerging problems of methamphetamine, and heroin, and cocaine. Are we ignoring marijuana and the ill-effects that it's having on much, much larger groups of people and on younger and younger people? Mr. Constantine. No, Congressman. I don't think we're ignoring it. In fact, I think what has happened is that we've become so inundated with the cocaine and crack cocaine and methamphetamine problem that people involved in major marijuana trafficking in the United States haven't received the proper attention for enforcement. We, along with the FBI and the Criminal Division, are putting our plan together to make marijuana a major target, especially the 50 percent that's produced in the United States and distributed in the United States. It is pretty much still a domestic problem, even though the other half or 30 percent comes from other countries. Still, the distribution systems in the United States are for the most part organized by people living in this country. We've recognized that we have to treat that with as much priority as we can. Maybe there was a loss of focus on that when we were dealing so much with crack cocaine and crack gangs and heroin. We believe that we're going to readdress that within the next year. Mr. Rogers. Is there more marijuana available today than there was five years ago? Mr. Constantine. It's difficult to say because the types of measurements of hectares of marijuana domestically in the United States in conjunction with other countries, we don't have the same types of study results. It would appear, given what you say that we've been looking at, is the increased usage on the part of young people. Probably equally alarming is the age at which they're using drugs. I have always said it is kind of historic, and hopefully not dating too much into the past, is that there is a group of people in this country, a fairly large group that I think did a great disservice to our children by selling them in the 1960s and the 1970s some sense that this was a drug that could be used casually, without a threat to them or to their life in the future. And a bunch of impressionable young kids operated under this belief and sadly many of them have families and friends who have been affected by this. We caught them, as I said, after the death of Len Bias. I know there is still an awful lot of emphasis by the Partnership, by General McCaffrey and other people on the prevention aspects of it. Our rule in enforcement is we feel that we have to readdress enforcement of the law against organizations who are distributing marijuana in the United States. I think we will have groups working on that probably within five or six months at the level at which they should be. Mr. Rogers. So you feel comfortable with the strategy? Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. I have additional questions that I can submit for the record. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. DiBattiste, you are asking for a little less than a 10 percent increase in your budget. Is that correct? Ms. DiBattiste. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. You're asking for a total of 628 new positions. Ms. DiBattiste. I believe 688. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Did I understand you to say that you had asked OMB for an increase of 1,275? Ms. DiBattiste. Yes, 1,275. That's correct. Mr. Mollohan. That's really large. I'd like to talk with you a little bit about how that breaks down. You're asking for 225 new positions for the D.C. Superior Court, including 55 lawyers. Is that correct? Ms. DiBattiste. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. Talk to us a little bit about that. What is that need? Ms. DiBattiste. I'd like to state from the outset that this request for the D.C. Superior Court side of the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office is not part of the so-called D.C. initiative. This is strictly our request for the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. Mr. Mollohan. What percent increase does that represent for the U.S. Attorneys' Office in D.C.? Ms. DiBattiste. I don't know. Mr. Mollohan. What are your total lawyers? How many lawyers do you have there now? Ms. DiBattiste. They split it up between the District Court side and the Superior Court side. Mr. Mollohan. This is for Superior Court; isn't it? Ms. DiBattiste. Correct. Our whole request is for an increase in Superior Court. I believe we have 211 Assistants, give or take some on the Superior Court side, and about 100 Assistants on the District Court side, but that's from memory only. I can get you the exact number. Mr. Mollohan. Why do you need this large of an increase? Ms. DiBattiste. Well, first of all, you know that the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office is unique. It's the only office in the country that performs the State prosecutor's function along with the Federal prosecutor's function. We need a major enhancement on the State prosecutor's side of the house because, as you know, crime is rampant in the District of Columbia. Mr. Mollohan. Are arrests up? Ms. DiBattiste. Are arrests up in D.C.? Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Why do you need this increase? Ms. DiBattiste. Here are the areas where we're asking for increases. The Community Prosecution program, which is a program already in existence. It's a pilot initiative where we have people in the U.S. Attorney's Office working with the Fifth Police District going out in to the community working from investigation all the way through prosecution. And they're making a difference in that district. We've asked for an expansion in that program. We've asked for an expansion in the Homicide Division. The cold case homicide squad, as everyone is familiar with from the tragedy that happened there a few years ago, where we had several people killed. That squad works very closely with the U.S. Attorney's Office. We have, I believe it's 62 percent of the murders that are unsolved. We need an enhancement there for more prosecutors and support staff to work with the investigators. Mr. Mollohan. This is a very large increase. You're suggesting that there are cases you are not able to get to? Ms. DiBattiste. Correct. In the gang prosecution area, we're asking for an increase. The U.S. Attorney's Office wants to target the 12 most violent gangs. That will be a new program that they're asking for to just go after gangs, violent gangs and drug gangs. Mr. Mollohan. Just to understand. Did you ask for an increase in this area for the Superior Court last year? Ms. DiBattiste. No. We did not. Mr. Mollohan. So, this is a refocusing or being responsive to somebody's cry for help, I guess. Ms. DiBattiste. The cry is from the U.S. Attorney and the Assistants and the people in his district. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Let me go to the next one. You're asking for 56 positions, $5 million and 56 positions; 37 of them are lawyers to deal with narcotics and dangerous drugs. That's a nice categorization that you list down here. You have 44 lawyers that you're asking for prisoner litigation, employment discrimination, tort action; 27 lawyers to deal with organized crime. It seems like it is pretty neatly packaged. It can't be quite that neat. I mean every one of these lawyers you hire isn't going to be totally focused in those areas. Ms. DiBattiste. You raise a very good and important issue for the U.S. Attorneys. And this has been a problem that we've experienced, at least since I've been here, and that is each U.S. Attorney's Office is different. When you give us resources and dedicate those resources to a specific area, the U.S. Attorneys have come back to me and said that hampers their ability to move resources around within their own offices. Mr. Mollohan. You're asking for them. You're inviting dedication of them. Ms. DiBattiste. We ask for them in that way, but we ask that when you give us the resources that you don't specifically dedicate them solely to do narcotics or solely to do white collar so each U.S. Attorney can decide where they best need the resources in their districts. Mr. Mollohan. Right. So, if you look at your overall demand for lawyers, you have proportionate increases in these areas. You're saying we need about 44 more lawyers for prisoner litigation. These aren't going to be dedicated anywhere in the country to these specific tasks. Ms. DiBattiste. We would hope that's correct, yes. Mr. Mollohan. All right. That's a pretty large increase. Mr. Chairman, I have some more questions, a lot more questions which I'm going to likewise submit for the record. I would like to know before I end here and particularly it may be a problem on the minority side, but I just think it's a matter of good process and procedure. I understand that we did not get the witnesses' testimony, any of it, until late last night. I know the Chairman has a two-day rule which I definitely support because the minority doesn't have as many resources to go through these statements as anybody else. The witnesses ought to be considerate enough to get these statements up here early enough so that we have a chance to review them. I know you're busy and you've got 20 hearings up here to try to prepare for, but it would be very helpful for us if we had them earlier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I thank the Gentleman, and the Chair shares that point of view. Now, Mr. Constantine, I understand DEA is reviewing a recommendation from the FDA to de-schedule the drug phenfleuramine. A recommendation was made in September of 1995. Can you get back to me by the end of the week on the status of your review? Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Recommendation to De-Schedule Fenfluramine A DEA recommendation on the de-scheduling of fenfluramine will be released in the Federal Register within the next several weeks. Mr. Rogers. We sure appreciate your being here today. We will have further questions for the record that we hope you can respond to. Now, in spite of all of the dust and fire and fury that you sometimes hear up here on the Hill, let me say to you that we appreciate your dedication to the country and the work that you're doing on behalf of our people, in these public positions. These are demanding jobs that you're in. Very rarely do you hear a compliment. Mr. Constantine. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. And we compliment you on your work. You're dedicated to doing the best job you can for our country and under very, very difficult and trying circumstances. Not only does that go for you, but it goes as well for the people that work under you; the people out there on the firing line literally whether it be in the court room, or in the field eradicating marijuana or doing a stakeout or what have you. There are a lot of dedicated people fighting the same purpose that we're talking about there today and we owe all of you and all of them a great deal of thanks. Until we can do better, we hope that can suffice. Thank you very much. [Pages 845 - 896--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Tuesday, April 15, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS WITNESSES LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS SHAY BILCHIK, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION JOSEPH E. BRANN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We are pleased to welcome this afternoon Laurie Robinson, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs; Shay Bilchik, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and Joseph Brann, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, better known as the COPS Program. These agencies represent the Federal Government's primary assistance programs to help state and local law enforcement agencies fight crime. This Committee over the past three years has added $1.7 billion, a 74 percent increase, to state and local grant programs funded by the Department of Justice. Now, there is over $4 billion available to wage an all-out effort to address this nation's number one domestic problem, crime. We've seen shifts in emphasis and ways of doing business over the past few years all for the sake of our struggle to reduce crime. Today, the nation is focused on juveniles as we are witnessing unacceptable levels of juvenile violence and crime. In addition, saving our children from drugs and drug- related crime has become an overwhelming national priority. Focusing on teaching our children to say ``no'' to drugs is essential to saving our country from an unparalleled wave of drug addiction and violent crime. Unfortunately, we are playing catch up. Casual teenage drug use trends suffered a marked reversal over the past five years. Drug use among teenagers and in virtually every childhood age group and virtually every illicit drug, has increased and is still increasing. We've shown in the past that when we work together on these problems in a bipartisan way we can make a difference and reverse these trends. This Committee will seek to ensure that adequate resources are provided. We all have ideas how best to tackle these problems. But with the limitations on funding that we face, we will have to pool our knowledge, our talent, and our resources to make sure that we are investing in truly effective programs. We will include your written statements in the record. We will invite you to give us a five-minute summary of your testimony after which I'm sure Members will want to ask you questions. So, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, will you lead off? assistant attorney general robinson's opening statement Ms. Robinson. Certainly. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here this afternoon and to have the opportunity to talk to you about the efforts we're making at OJP--with state and local government--to address crime. I also appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to thank you for the substantial support that this Subcommittee has provided OJP over the past several years to make this possible. I think it is stating the obvious that crime and violence remain at unacceptable levels in this country, despite the welcomed news as recently as yesterday that crime rates continue to fall. But in some ways, the challenges of crime have never seemed greater in this country. Gang violence and the nature of youth crime, and the problems of gun violence and family violence remain too pervasive in our society. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, as I have traveled this country over the last several years, I'd have to tell you that I've grown optimistic about our ability--the ability of all of us working together--to impact crime. Many of us who have been in criminal justice for years are frankly skeptical about solutions. At times, the problems have seemed very daunting. But my optimism stems from the fact that I have seen the real impact of these efforts, not necessarily yet from long-term evaluations, but from the differences so clearly made block-by-block, street-by-street, neighborhood-by- neighborhood, for the people who actually live there. Like in the Weed and Seed sites I have visited where communities are embracing this comprehensive enforcement and prevention strategy and making it work, or to hear it from the elderly woman in Chicago who proudly showed us where they had routed out drug dealers from a crack house in their Weed and Seed neighborhood, or the Police Commander in Salt Lake City who took me on a tour of a sub-station in public housing and said the presence of the officers there had not only built ties with the community, but helped reduce serious drug dealing. So, when I see the steps that communities like these are taking, I'd have to say that I have come away with the real belief that we can impact crime, that we can reduce gang violence, and we can reduce drug use. Mr. Chairman, often times these are not answers developed in conference rooms in Washington. They are home-grown approaches, bottom-up, developed by communities. Many times it is with funding, information and technical assistance from us, but adapted to their needs, their local system, and their neighborhoods. I know we hear too often that nothing works. Well, I don't believe that is the case. And that certainly is not the experience, for example, of the Delaware Prison Warden I met who is running the Key Crest Drug Treatment Program and seeing long-time addicts who are going through that program turning their lives around, and 18 months later seeing 70 percent of them arrest-free compared to only 30 percent in the group who didn't go through that. Or the prosecutor in rural upstate New York who told me the Violence Against Women Sexual Assault Program there has resulted in better cooperation from victims, better preservation of evidence for trial, and in fact higher conviction rates in rape cases. Or the Birmingham Judge who says the juvenile drug court there has turned around the lives of kids who were almost over the edge. And we see more broadly the evaluation results out of drug courts, with some reporting recidivism rates as low as 2 percent. Or the Police Captain in the Midwest who shows off new computer mapping technology which helps the officer on the beat know down to the house where previous incidents have occurred and the location of precinct crime hot spots. So, these are the things, I think, that make me optimistic in a way that statistics alone, while they are important, cannot. Our role, it seems to me, at OJP, is to work with these communities not only to provide funding and technical assistance, but just as important to build knowledge through research and evaluation, to gather the good ideas springing up in different communities, and then to aggressively share Denver's or Dallas' successes with Des Moines. So individual jurisdictions don't have to go off on their own, feel their own way, and road test every new idea themselves. So the funding we're requesting, Mr. Chairman, will allow us to build on this progress and maintain real momentum in working with communities across America. Clearly, we have many miles to go in meeting these challenges. We look forward to working in tandem with you to address them. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my introductory remarks. I'd obviously be happy to answer questions. [The statement of Ms. Robinson follows:] [Pages 900 - 915--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Bilchik. Administrator Bilchik's Opening Statement Mr. Bilchik. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, it's my pleasure to be here today on behalf of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. We've been working diligently in the last year since we've been together, with communities across the country to reduce and prevent juvenile crime and violence. We're doing this through a basic three-pronged approach; preventing criminal behavior among young people whenever possible, holding juveniles accountable when they do offend, and protecting the public's safety. These efforts are detailed in the statement I've submitted for the record. This afternoon I want to briefly touch upon our proposed funding for fiscal year 1998 and how it will further these three objectives. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request reflects the Administration's increased commitment to using a balanced approach in attacking juvenile violence; a balance consisting of prevention, intervention, and sanctioning, while at the same time providing communities with the flexibility to implement strategies that are locally developed and implemented. Mr. Chairman, the President's budget request for OJJDP recognizes that although juvenile crime is primarily a state and local problem, there is a clear Federal role in assisting states and localities to address this issue. The primary Federal role is to provide broad-based direct assistance to states and localities to augment state and local resources and enable them to develop and implement programs based upon their own needs and their own priorities. The second Federal role is to support states and localities to do research, test new programs and strategies, conduct evaluations, provide seed funding for innovative ideas, provide training and technical assistance, disseminate information to the field, as well as to support under-served needs within their communities. This range of activity, much of which OJJDP performs through various discretionary programs, comprises the critical support functions that are uniquely suited to the Federal Government. OJJDP's supportive cycle of activity: demonstration, research and evaluation, dissemination of information, and training and technical assistance is resulting in effective prevention in juvenile justice practices and the replication of those practices nationwide. Examples range from restitution and mentoring programs, to law enforcement, intensive supervision, and correctional alternatives. This ongoing activity includes research on how best to replicate the programs we know are effective and spread them to other jurisdictions. Our resources are also used to target areas of critical need such as juvenile drug use. Our program, Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, shows a relatively strong relationship between drug use and delinquency. Our drug-related projects include, prevention, intervention, and treatment alternatives. Children need to hear the message about the risk of drug abuse, in their schools, in their churches, and most importantly in their homes, from their families. While it is important that funds used to support efforts to target drugs, gangs, and guns be well spent, the impact can only be maximized if they are expended as a part of a comprehensive strategy for reducing juvenile crime and victimization--one determined by each community based on what the research informs them will be most effective in offsetting the negative influences or risk factors which confront their children and youth. This type of approach is advocated through our research and in our comprehensive strategy for serious violent juvenile offenders. We are bringing the prevention component of this strategy to light in our Community Prevention Grant Program under Title V, through intensive training on risk focused prevention that precedes the receipt of grant funds in specific communities. We've trained over 500 communities to-date, in addition to those in our Six Safe Futures communities. The President's budget request provides significant additional resources to target juvenile crime through an expanded Community Prevention Grants Program. It also includes early intervention programs building on the current Title V Community Prevention Grants Initiative. It would add $55 million to the $20 million currently appropriated for a total of $75 million to be distributed to states to implement programs developed by local communities as a part of this new at-risk children's initiative. Mr. Chairman, we're excited by the success of the Community Prevention Grant Program and its ability to use research information on the causes of delinquency in order to target communities' juveniles who are at a high risk of truancy, dropping out, and delinquency. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention the President's proposed Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997. The 1998 authorization levels provided in the President's Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997, dovetail with the fiscal year 1998 budget request for OJJDP, and provide the means to deliver enhanced, fully integrated and coherent assistance to the field, while simplifying bureaucratic requirements and enhancing state flexibility under the Formula Based Grant Program. In short, the 1998 budget request, coupled with authorizations for the Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997 provide the balanced and targeted support that states and local communities have been requesting to attack juvenile crime. I want to thank this Subcommittee for the support that it has provided to OJJDP over the past years. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, by continuing to attack the problem of juvenile crime in this country. Of course, I'll be pleased to answer questions. [The statement of Mr. Bilchik follows:] [Pages 918 - 935--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Brann. Director Brann's Opening Statement Mr. Brann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I, too, am pleased to be here this afternoon with you to talk about the COPS Office and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. In October of 1994, the Attorney General established the COPS Office to implement Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Title I of that Act is labeled as the ``Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act.'' It has the goal of putting an additional 100,000 community policing officers out on the beat across this country. I was appointed to head that office in December of 1994. Title I, I think, is appropriately named. The significance of the program and what will ensure its long-term success is that the officers that we fund are engaged in community policing and they are working with local communities to build partnerships to address, more effectively address, local crime problems. The officers engaged in community policing enjoy the opportunity to become more a part of the neighborhoods that they are working with. They get to know everyone. They get to know the law abiding residents, as well as the criminals and the troublemakers. Community policing is not a Federal Government or a Big Brother kind of an approach. It's a strategy that was developed at the local level by dedicated officers who know from first-hand experience what works and what doesn't work. Personally, I came up through the ranks of the Santa Ana, California Police Department, spending 21 years there and then five years as the Police Chief of Hayward, California. My 26 years of local law enforcement experience has convinced me of one thing and that is that community policing does in fact work. COPS grants are helping to introduce many departments across this country to the concept of community policing, and in fact, to advance it in still other communities. These grants are enabling departments to become more effective, more efficient and far more responsive to their local communities. Over the past two years I've had the opportunity to meet with many chiefs and sheriffs, local and elected officials, police officers, deputies, county commissioners and community activists. I've heard countless examples of how community policing is working in big cities such as in Fort Worth, Texas, which has experienced a 44 percent decrease in its crime rate in the four years since they implemented community policing, to places like New Brunswick, New Jersey, which has seen a 22 percent reduction in crime after implementing community policing with the help of three COPS grants. Community policing has been and is being credited with reducing violent crime in cities like Tampa, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh. Tampa saw a crime reduction of 21 percent in 1995. The residents of Pittsburgh are the safest they've been in 30 years with the city having experienced a 17.5 percent reduction of crime there in 1995. Neighbors and police are working together across this country to make a difference in their communities. In 1996, homicides in Phoenix declined by 16 percent. COPS has helped each one of those communities, as well as thousands of others, to implement community policing, increase trust, and improve the quality of life by reducing fear in those neighborhoods, and more importantly, to lower their crime rates. Possibly the greatest impact is being felt in communities where a COPS grant has actually created the opportunity to have a police department in the first place. There are places like Navassa, North Carolina, a small town that has become one of the most notorious drug areas in Brunswick County. Navassa was able to start a police department with a chief and two officers as a result of a COPS grant. Now, the drug dealers there have left the streets and the prostitutes are no longer on the corners. There are many, many more examples than I could possibly describe here on how local police agencies assisted by COPS grants have implemented community policing and are really seeing a difference. The program is working and it's working extraordinarily well. At the two and a half year mark, we have funded the hiring or redeployment of more than 56,000 community policing officers. Once the officers are hired and trained by the local law enforcement agencies, they will be serving more than 87 percent of the American public. So, the program is making a difference and it is contributing to safer neighborhoods. As we go forward, by adding the remaining 44,000 officers, we must also continue to evolve as an organization in order to meet the needs of the law enforcement community. The 1994 Crime Act provides flexibility. I can assure you that we have and we will continue to listen to and seek input from law enforcement representatives, local officials, and community leaders to make certain that the program continues to work for them. We've heard how well the COPS grants are working, how pleased people are with these grants. We've also heard some concerns though; concerns I'm sure you've heard too, the desire for a longer transition period to 100 percent local funding; the inequity that the $75,000 cap imposes on jurisdictions that experience higher labor costs, and the need to address certain persistent crime problems such as gangs, juvenile violence, and drug related crimes. We are exploring possible strategies that may better respond to those needs. I hope to have something concrete to share with you sometime in the very near future. Now, I would like to turn to the Administration's budget request for the COPS Program for fiscal year 1998. COPS Program We are requesting a total of $1.4 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for the COPS Program. That is in line, Mr. Chairman, with the agreement that the Justice Department reached with Congress in 1996. We are also requesting $20 million for the Police Corps Program, $20 million for the Law Enforcement Scholarships, and $5 million for Police Recruitment Grants. This results in a total request of $1.445 billion for fiscal year 1998. For the management and administration of these programs, we are requesting $28.1 million for 309 positions, or 276 full- time equivalents, out of the total program dollars. The funding level is necessary to support the grant administration, the management support, and the comprehensive oversight that is required to ensure that the goals and initiatives of the COPS Grant Programs are achieved. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for this opportunity. I would also ask that these letters that I have here from law enforcement groups be included in the record. Mr. Rogers. All right. [The information follows:] [Pages 939 - 1--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Brann. Thank you very much for this opportunity. As with Laurie and Shay, I will be quite pleased to respond to any questions. [The statement of Mr. Brann follows:] [Pages 943 - 952--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Number of New Cops Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, all three of you. We appreciate the information that you've furnished to us. Director Brann, as I understand it, as of last week grants for 56,019 new police officers have been awarded. And by the end of this fiscal year this number will reach 64,000 new officers. That means that you will have awarded grants for 14,333 COPS this fiscal year with the $1.4 billion, roughly, that we've provided. In 1996, we also provided $1.4 billion, as you mentioned, and you awarded grants for almost 24,000 police officers. In 1995, $1.3 billion paid for another 24,000 officers. So, the question I have is, in 1995 and 1996 you put on roughly 24,000 officers and fiscal year 1997 is down to 14,000 for the same amount of money. How come? Mr. Brann. Primarily, this comes back to two factors. One, the COPS MORE Grants, one component of our funding, we were actually able to achieve far greater cost efficiencies with that funding because we are, in many instances the agencies themselves are, coming up with strategies either through civilianization efforts or through the acquisition of technology and equipment that result in a greater yield than we would see with a direct hiring grant. The COPS MORE Grants are actually reduced as a result of the Crime Act language from 20 percent of our total funding in the first two fiscal years to 10 percent this year, fiscal year 1997. Two, on top of that, we're also seeing increasing costs, labor costs. This is something we fully anticipated. As time goes by, the salaries are increasing for these agencies. That has to be absorbed as well. There are several factors of this nature that are impacting on the total dollar cost. Mr. Rogers. How much of the 1997 funding are you using for technical assistance and training? Mr. Brann. In training and technical assistance, evaluation, and research, three percent of the total budget is allotted for that purpose. Mr. Rogers. Will you have any carryover monies into 1998? Mr. Brann. I expect there is that possibility. I can't tell you at this point what that might be. It really depends to some extent about how quickly we can move with the obligations. Mr. Rogers. Well, give us an estimate for the record if you would, if you want to do that. You don't need to do that today. I'm just saying we need an estimate for you to put in the record as soon as you can. Mr. Brann. We can bring that back to you, yes, sir. [The information follows:] COPS 1997 Carry-Over Monies As of April 30, 1997, the COPS Office had obligated over $500 million for hiring programs. We are much further along at this point in the fiscal year than during FY 1996, when the COPS Office had obligated only $34 million by April 30, 1996. At the end of FY 1996, $82.7 million in hiring dollars were carried forward to FY 1997. We anticipate that some program money will be carried forward this fiscal year, as occurred at then end of FY 1995 and FY 1996. However, at just over the halfway point in the fiscal year, it is difficult to project an exact dollar total. Some carryover is usually necessary in order for the COPS Office to meet two important statutory requirements--that our grant funding be evenly divided between jurisdictions with populations above and below 150,000 and that each state must receive a minimum percentage of the total amount appropriated for grants. Based on our estimates and assumptions, we expect to carry over only the amount needed to ensure that the state minimum and population split requirements are met for this fiscal year. At this time we do not anticipate that this amount will exceed the funding level carried over last fiscal year. It is possible that a minimal program modification will be implemented following consultation with the Committee in June. The timing of the implementation of any such modification will affect the timing of obligation of funds. The COPS Office will keep you apprised if the projections should change. Mr. Rogers. If you have it right now, I'd love to have it. Mr. Brann. I don't think that we do. Mr. Rogers. Now, your 1998 estimate is that you will buy an additional 17,000 COPS if we give you $1.4 billion. Mr. Brann. Yes, sir. That is what we're projecting. Mr. Rogers. How do you make that assumption? On the number of new COPS? Mr. Brann. It's actually based upon the experiences to date. I'm not going to represent this as being absolutely steadfast. I think that each year as we move further along with these programs, we're seeing what the actual impact is at the local level with regard to their dollar costs and how they are choosing to take advantage of the program. That gives us additional information that we can refine those projections with. This year we actually thought that we would see a greater number of positions being funded. That has declined slightly because of the result of our experiences and what is happening at the local level. Local Matching Funds for COPS Mr. Rogers. Well, according to a recent GAO audit, and also information from your own telephone survey, only 46 percent, about 24,000 of the new police officers, funded by your grants through December 31, 1996, only 46 percent are actually on the street; less than half. You mentioned in your written statement that you think that's due to hiring and recruitment at the local level, but let me ask you, is it possible that another factor could be the locality's ability or inability to fund their share of these grants? Mr. Brann. What I've found, Mr. Chairman, is that as far as the ability of the local jurisdictions to come up with a matching amount, those agencies that clearly feel that they cannot do that, in most instances are not making application. Those that are making application occasionally find after they have applied for and received a grant that they are rethinking that. It's really a small number of agencies that have pulled back on that. Most of them fully understand and in my view, in fact, are fully prepared to absorb those costs on a continuing basis. With regard to the number on the streets, we're seeing a steady increase in that. We're in the midst right now of a survey. We do this three times a year to determine how many of the positions have been hired, trained, and on the streets. I can tell you this. Of the 56,000 that we have funded to date, as of yesterday over 30,000 of those positions have been hired, and about 27,000 have actually been trained and are on the streets. The others are in training or are somewhere in the hiring process. So, we're picking up. This still is not a final figure for this account. I do not expect to have a figure on this particular account until the end of the month. Impact of Local Funding Requirement on New Grants Mr. Rogers. Well, 1998 will be the first year, if I'm not mistaken, COPS hired in the first year under this program, that 100 percent of their cost will be carried by the locality in 1998; right? Mr. Brann. There are some cities that will be at that stage this year. Mr. Rogers. And that's the first time obviously, because the grants are for three years. Mr. Brann. Yes. There are some that will actually experience that later in this fiscal year, fiscal year 1997. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Brann. But what occurs is that many of the agencies, at the time that they receive the award, the grant itself, that's when they begin their hiring process. So, the end result is that there will be an adjusted date on many of those grants. We will not see most of those grants coming due for the full absorption of the cost by the local jurisdiction until some time in 1998. Mr. Rogers. Well, I just wonder if those localities that are now facing the fact that they have to pay 100 percent of the cost, I just wonder if they suddenly wake up and say what happened to me? Now, all of a sudden they've got to pay the full price. Then they're saying no more of this. So, do you think that may be having an impact on the request for new grants? Mr. Brann. I don't think this is going to come as any sudden shock or surprise to any of the local agencies. I'm speaking from personal experience because the practice over the years that the Justice Department has had with respect to hiring grants, is that ultimately the local jurisdictions have to pick up that cost. On top of that, we have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy and will continue to do so working with the local agencies on a case-by-case basis. Those that are expressing some reservations are beginning to encounter some kinds of financial difficulties at the local level and that may inhibit them. We are working with them to show them how they can absorb those costs. Mr. Rogers. In 1995, a GAO audit reported that the primary reasons why jurisdictions chose not to apply for COPS grants were cost-related and the uncertainty that they would be able to continuing funding after the grant expired. For example, of the 14,400 local jurisdictions serving populations under 50,000, less than half even applied for grants. The current GAO review shows that 15 percent ofthese new grants that have been awarded still have not been accepted by the localities. Why is that? Mr. Brann. I think this report, again, goes back to experiences in 1995. I don't remember the exact dates covered by the GAO report. Certainly, not every agency was going to immediately apply for COPS grants around the country. We have found that an extraordinary level of smaller jurisdictions have made application. I'm not sure about these figures though. Maybe you could clarify those for me. I'm sorry. I wasn't following the line of figures there. Mr. Rogers. Well, according to a preliminary report by GAO, 15 percent of the new grants awarded still have not been accepted by the localities. Mr. Brann. Again, I think that this may have had more to do with the timing of the contact, because in many instances these agencies are deferring until they are certain in their own minds that they are going to be able to absorb those grants once they have made that determination. We don't have a problem with that. In fact, we automatically will extend the grant at their request, allowing them an opportunity to arrive at that local determination. Mr. Rogers. Has there been a decline in new grant requests for hiring? Mr. Brann. I can tell you this. In this fiscal year to date, we've had about 3,000 applications so far. We have a total appropriation for grant purposes of about $1.33 billion. The requests that we've received thus far this year total $1.17 billion. We're half way through the year. Frankly, I believe that we're going to have, again, more requests than we can possibly handle by the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. When you review new grant requests, what consideration is given to whether or not the localities have hired all of the officers previously awarded? Is that a factor? Mr. Brann. As to what amount they hire of all of the officers that they---- Mr. Rogers. Right. Mr. Brann. Well, it's not a factor in the determination as to whether or not they are eligible for or could receive the grant. It is a factor though with respect to being able to draw down the funding. If they receive prior grants, they will have to get those personnel on board and draw down on that funding before they could move forward on a new grant. Mr. Rogers. How many grant requests do you think have been denied because of that? Mr. Brann. Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any. Mr. Rogers. You mean if a community has received a grant for 25 new COPS and they haven't hired them and then they apply for more, it doesn't color your judgment about whether or not to give the second grant? Mr. Brann. No. Let me explain that. The hiring process is often times not really understood--just how cumbersome this can be for local agencies. Again, in my own experience, and I ran the personnel and training section in one department for four years, it is not at all unusual to require 12 to 18 months to go through the complete recruitment, hiring, and training process before you get an officer on the street. Because of that significant time lapse, agencies will already be planning for subsequent fiscal years or cycles so that they can bring personnel on, and they will be making application---- Mr. Rogers. But, you are three years into the program. Surely, there are some communities that have had plenty of time to hire the officers that you've given grants for two or three years ago and they've applied for some new ones. Does the fact that they have not hired those original officers become a factor for new grants? Mr. Brann. Okay. If in fact we have a situation where somebody received a grant, say, in fiscal year 1995 or early fiscal year 1996 and they've not acted upon it and are coming back to us, we're not even processing those. Typically, what we do is hold their request until such time as we find the status. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Well, how many of those do you have? Mr. Brann. I could not tell you off-hand. Mr. Rogers. Would you supply that for the record. Mr. Brann. Yes. [The information follows:] Prior Year Grants There are 1,232 COPS grantees that have not hired or redeployed officers funded by grants dating back to the start of the program. Some of these agencies, about 16 percent, have COPS MORE grants for equipment and technology. Procurement processes at the local level often take a great deal of time, well over a year in many cases, and have resulted in delays of full implementation of these grants. We will continue to monitor these grants and their related hiring and equipment acquisition activities. Mr. Rogers. It took awhile to get there. Mr. Brann. I'm sorry. funding for technology and equipment Mr. Rogers. Are localities now requesting more funding for equipment and technology instead of new officers? Mr. Brann. Localities have been doing that all along. We've actually had every year more requests for technology and civilianization than we could fund. I can tell you that this year we've already had requests in excess of our capacity to fund for the COPS MORE Program. Mr. Rogers. Now, the current COPS statute only allows you to use 10 percent of the funding for COPS MORE Grants. That's for equipment and technology in fiscal year 1997. Would the Administration support a change to the law to increase the allowable proportion of COPS MORE funding above the 10 percent in view of the fact that I think you're getting a lot of requests for equipment and technology as opposed to more officers? Mr. Brann. I would not be so presumptuous as to speak on behalf of the Administration. I can tell you from personal experience, from what I've seen both as the Director of this Office and as a former Police Chief, that there is intense interest in the COPS MORE Program. I am very supportive of seeing that amount increased once again because I think it better responds to those local needs. local funding issues Mr. Rogers. The GAO told us one of the options being considered by the COPS office to encourage localities to sustain hiring levels is to deny future Justice grants to localities that fail to make good faith efforts to sustain hiring. What does that mean? Mr. Brann. If we were to find that a local agency, as a result of one of our earlier grants, did not honor their commitment to retain the officers to sustain that effort, certainly that's a violation of the grant conditions. The only way we really have of enforcing this is to consider the impact, their lack of good faith effort, what effect it would have on future benefits. Mr. Rogers. Now, again, we're going to be short of money on our Subcommittee; nothing new there. But it is still a fact of life. If localities are not being able to absorb with their own monies, the new officers that you have provided grant monies for, shouldn't we look at stretching out funding for the COPS Program over the next three years in a manner where you can add new officers at a rate that localities can absorb? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? We'll still get to the 100,000 by the year 2000, I think. Mr. Brann. I think it may be premature to draw conclusions on that as of yet because we are still early on. We've not seen these grants actually come to closure. Until we have some better indication that there is, in fact, a significant problem, I really don't believe that that's going to be the case. I would not make that argument. Mr. Rogers. Well, in closing this portion, let me just say, 46 percent, according to your own telephone survey and GAO, only 46 percent of the police officers funded by COPS Grants through the end of 1996 are on the street. It tells me that the process of hiring is slow and cumbersome, but it also tells me that a lot of communities, and I know a lot, half of the small ones, don't even think they can afford this. I think we'd be wise, given our budget constraints, to recognize that and use it to your advantage and our advantage in trying to make our monies go as far as we can, given the scarcity of things. What do you think? Mr. Brann. The only part I'd like to underscore again is what happens in the recruitment, hiring, and training process, the length of that. What we're beginning to see is a steady increase in how quickly these agencies are beginning to get the staff on board. Certainly, for anyone who is not familiar with that hiring and training process, I can see this argument. I can understand why this argument clearly would be made. Dealing with this directly, the law enforcement agencies, as they begin to gear their personnel practices and processes up to such a point that they are bringing those personnel on board more quickly, I think there is going to be a significant increase in that number. I would say that we've already seen that there is a significant impact on the small towns with the any funding that we've been providing. Of the total 56,000 positions that we have, over 10,000 of those positions have gone to jurisdictions serving communities of less than 10,000. About 21,000 have gone to jurisdictions serving populations of under 50,000. So, there is a huge demand there. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons that we saw such an overwhelming demand coming from these small jurisdictions around the country. They've never had the opportunity to address this before. As a result, in many instances, they didn't even have personnel practices in place to allow them to make improvements. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. localities retention of all new cops Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the Chairman in welcoming the witnesses to the hearing today. Just following up a little bit on the Chairman's questions. Did you, Mr. Brann, in your testimony tell us what percent of the communities will not be able to sustain the COPS hires their Federal funding provided? Mr. Brann. I think that was one of the issues the Chairman was trying to address. Unfortunately, I can't give a clear indication. Again, there just isn't experience here to reflect that. One thing though that we have emphasized up front throughout the course of this funding, in our repeated contacts with these agencies, is that there is an expectation, that it is their obligation to assume the cost of these grants. Mr. Mollohan. And to keep the police that they hire under this program on the payroll after the payroll terminates? Mr. Brann. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. So, the Federal Government's expectation and requirement is that 100 percent of the police hired under the COPS Program be retained after Federal funding terminates. Mr. Brann. That is our expectation. Mr. Mollohan. Is that statutory or is that a part of the program as you've defined it in the regulatory process? Mr. Brann. That is statutory. It is contained within the provisions of the Crime Act. Mr. Mollohan. Have you thought about how realistic that expectation is? Mr. Brann. Yes sir. We have. Mr. Mollohan. What is your thought about how realistic it is? Mr. Brann. I think there in fact will be some loss there. What that will amount to is hard to say. I think itis going to be minimal. Mr. Mollohan. No. I know there is going to be a loss and you do too. I'm sorry. I probably didn't ask that question well enough. Do you think that that's a realistic requirement? Mr. Brann. Yes. I do. Mr. Mollohan. I don't. I don't think its realistic to think that a jurisdiction that hires 20 will be able to sustain them. I'm just amused about it here a little bit, but just until we can get more of your opinion on it. Do we have any that hire 20 or will be hiring that many? Mr. Brann. Absolutely. Mr. Mollohan. About what size of community would that be? Mr. Brann. For 20 officers, I would say jurisdictions typically, well, some as small as 50,000 population and other 100,000, 150,000. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So, there are a lot of communities in the country that size that will have 20 police officers who are in the COPS Program. So, after three years we're asking them to fully fund the officers. What would be wrong, just if you were testifying before the Authorizing Committee about this, what would be wrong with saying at the end of that period our expectation is that you retain three-fourths of those officers because there are some communities that are going to find that they can't afford it? Also, isn't the idea that the COPS Program, we're trying to address a bubble here and hopefully at the end of this five- year period we will see it reflected in the crime rate? We will have certain reduction in the crime rate and therefore maybe--a need for these officers? Mr. Brann. I think there is a whole host of issues. If I could just take a moment. Mr. Mollohan. Please. Mr. Brann. I'd like to put this in a broader context. First of all, most agencies are not going to come in and make a request for a significant increase. Let's say between 50,000 or 100,000 requesting 20 officers in one swoop. Typically, it's going to be over the course of several years. That's really the aim of our grant programs--not to force them or entice them to try to do everything at once, but instead a gradual assimilation of those costs which is one benefit of the way it is structured. Another factor here is exactly what you've stated. That is we are trying to address the significant increase in crime that we've seen across this country over a period of time to bring these rates down. I don't think you will find anybody in the Justice Department who will argue that if an agency has been successful with the use of this funding in hiring for these positions--if they are able to bring about a significant reduction in their crime rate, who are we to tell them that they should, furthermore, keep those positions? That's not what we're doing. But we are trying to ensure that they are not using this to supplant their budgets, to just use the Federal funding for a short period of time. Ultimately, they are going to have to make that determination. I can tell you from personal experience in the two communities that I've worked in: Santa Ana, California is an excellent example, a classic example. One of the earliest agencies in this country to fully engage themselves in community policing starting in the early 1970s. Their crime rate has declined in 19 out of the last 22 years. If you were to look at the crime rate per thousand population and their staffing per thousand population, you would find that their staffing level has gone down as well. But that's not to say that they don't have crime and they don't have needs. I think that's what we're arguing for--we want programs that are responsible, but take into consideration how they use those personnel; that they don't abuse the Federal monies there either. So, I think the question is essentially how long should they retain the positions? I would be a little bit careful of just saying you're only obligated to maintain two-thirds or three-quarters of those. I'm not sure that there is a magic number that we can come up with. But I think we certainly have to be responsive to their unique needs on the local level. It could be a combination of cost considerations. Included in that could be a concern on their part that we don't need to maintain the staffing level because we have achieved a significant crime reduction. I think the community is in the best position to make that call. Mr. Mollohan. Under the Federal statute they'd be required to retain those positions. There is a retention requirement that is for a certain period of time. Mr. Brann. There is no time provision there. In fact, this is something that even the GAO and the Inspector General's Office have both addressed that it is very, very difficult to make this call on what retention consists of. Mr. Mollohan. So, that's a policy issue that's unanswered. Mr. Brann. Yes. It is. If I could, just one of the things contained within the applications, it requires that the agency specify plans for obtaining the necessary support and continuing the proposed project or activity following the completion of the Federal support. Therefore, their retention has to be addressed. Mr. Mollohan. How much total money are you asking for this program? Mr. Brann. The total money is $1.445 billion. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT Mr. Mollohan. I'm sure the Chairman will ask some questions about this, but you didn't request any money from the Block Grant Program? Mr. Brann. No, sir. Mr. Mollohan. I see. Did you? Ms. Robinson. Obviously, there are tough choices to be made. Mr. Mollohan. How is the Block Grant Program going? Ms. Robinson. The Block Grant Program is going well I think. I'm proud of the way that our Bureau of Justice Assistance administered that. We got out close to 3,000 grants within a four-month period last year. We automated our grant system to make that happen. We've seen interesting spending patterns out of that. Mr. Mollohan. What's interesting about this? Ms. Robinson. Well, it's interesting to me to see the way that spending broke down. We saw 46 percent of the money spent on technology and equipment; 18 percent on hiring; 14 percent on overtime; about 8 percent to the courts; about 9percent to prevention and then the rest to other more minor areas. Mr. Mollohan. On the hiring, are those one-year grants? Ms. Robinson. Yes. They are. It can be spent over a longer period of time. But in fact, we have the appropriation obviously for the one year. Mr. Mollohan. Are there any retention requirements associated with those hiring grants? Ms. Robinson. No. There are not. Mr. Mollohan. Can you talk to us a little bit about how that's working; well, probably not. It's just the first year. Ms. Robinson. This is the first year of the program. The grants went out in the last week of September of 1996. Most of the jurisdictions have not spent the money at this point. What they've done is tell us where they plan to spend the money. The next progress reports are due in July. We will have a better report for you at that time on exactly how the spending is going, how many officers, for example, are being hired with that money. The 18 percent is roughly $65 million. Mr. Mollohan. So, implicit in that program is the second year that the officer is on the payroll. Either they will make application for another grant or else they will assume that cost. Ms. Robinson. That would be my understanding. Mr. Brann. I'd like to add something. The Block Grants are not used strictly for hiring purposes. The purpose is for using whatever way---- Mr. Mollohan. She said September. Some for hiring. Mr. Brann. So, I guess the real point there is it is not just officers. Based on my conversations, and I don't know whether there is detailed budget information on this, but a fair amount of that is used for civilian positions that many of these agencies are desirous of obtaining as well. Mr. Mollohan. But many of them in the second year, to the extent that the programs are being used for employee hires, they are going to have to pick-up the cost or someplace else make personnel adjustments in the system. So, to be fair about it, if you take the two programs working together you're addressing a lot of law enforcement needs out there. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. COUNSELING FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ON COPS FUNDING Mr. Latham. In response to the Chairman, you earlier said that when communities run out of money, you offer some kind of counseling. Mr. Brann. We do provide direct assistance. One of the things we did in this program is we set up grant advisors who work with every agency so that there is a single point of contact. As issues arise or questions come up or problems need to be addressed, they have the same point of contact. Plus, we have a better knowledge and understanding of what their local needs might be. So, there is consultation going on, on a constant basis about these funds, strategies, and what we're working with. Mr. Latham. You said that you were giving advice to local law enforcement at the end of three years. What advice are you giving them? Mr. Brann. As an example, how they might be able to absorb these costs beyond the Federal funds. Mr. Latham. What is that advice? Mr. Brann. Everything obviously from the use of local general fund revenues to such things as the use of asset forfeiture monies which they are allowed to do. I can tell you from personal experience and having watched other agencies do this as well, turning back to the business community in many instances, getting them to pick up some of that cost to make efforts to retain those. CDBG monies can be used to meet the matching requirement and as a result could potentially be used beyond the life of the Federal funds, depending upon the nature of the program or strategy on the local level. Mr. Latham. All right. In my district, which has a lot of very small communities, we have 41 officers in the program in the entire district. And I hear everywhere in the district that the communities cannot afford the future cost. They would much rather have help with technical assistance. That's why I'm concerned about zeroing out Block Grants. Couldn't the hiring money be possibly used for new technology? Enforcement units would need to install the equipment and make sure it works; not necessarily on an ongoing full-time basis. With new equipment, you might hire someone for a said period of time to make those discoveries and to make sure the systems are up and working. Ms. Robinson. Yes; or particularly training. Mr. Latham. Right. So, it wouldn't necessarily be ongoing expenses in those particular cases. Ms. Robinson. That's correct. Mr. Latham. It is very frustrating for me because I have small communities in my district--40,000 in one community, my second largest. They simply don't have the assets or the budget to match the required 25 percent. They don't have it. They are out of money. We have a property tax freeze in Iowa. Communities are extremely frustrated with the COPS program and certainly do not support it at all. You are zeroing out the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants? Ms. Robinson. Yes. The Administration has requested no money for this. Obviously, there are tough choices to be made when there are great needs and a limited pot of money. As we looked at the needs, especially in the violence area, and specifically to target help to prosecutors and courts, the decision was made by the Administration to support that. Mr. Latham. In my part of the country, we have a tremendous increase in drugs in the rural areas. We would much rather see the funds go to block grants, as far as technology and radio equipment funds are concerned. So, if you've got to make tough choices, I would disagree---- Mr. Brann. Congressman Latham, if I could comment on a couple of issues. One, that the COPS MORE funding, again, as mentioned that is an area that is extraordinarily popular for addressing technology, civilianization and other needs. I think that's been one of the good things about the way that the COPS Program and the funding behind it has operated previously. At the same time, some agencies are really having difficulties at the local level even coming up with matches, for example. There is a provision that was written into the Crime Act that we utilize, and in fact as time goes by, we utilize it more extensively, and that is the waiver on the local match. It also then puts a jurisdiction in a position if they're getting a waiver, to actually accumulate some savings over time. Mr. Latham. If they don't have the savings---- Mr. Brann. What I'm finding and I mean this is not to dispute at all what's going on in your district because I think this is an issue in some communities, and particularly in the more economically deprived areas around the country too, that we have to address. But that's one of the reasons we try to get out there in the field to meet with agencies and representatives. I've spent a lot of time myself on the road. There is some benefit in our coming out to meet with grantees or potential grantees in your district. To me, it's extraordinarily important to do this because this is where we get our feedback about what we need to do to modify the programs administratively, make them more responsive in the long-run. prevention program Mr. Latham. I spent six months last year purposely going to county law enforcement, to cities within the district. I talked with virtually every county and community. It was very, very unusual to find support for the program. Like you say, it is because they just can't afford it given the long-term liability. I've done what you've said. In your Prevention Program, how much funding do you use for public service announcements? Mr. Bilchik. None out of our Prevention Program. We have a program that we're working on with the Bureau of Justice Assistance. A public information and education campaign that's separate and apart from our Prevention Program. Our Prevention Program is designed to fund local programs. Ninety-five percent of the money must go into program operation. Only five percent of the Prevention Program right now--and what we are requesting in terms of the At-Risk Children's Initiative Program--can be used to administer the program. Ninety-five percent has to go into program operation. Five percent can be used by the state government for operating the program. Mr. Latham. Is there any provision, and I don't have a breakdown, as far as funding in rural areas rather than urban areas? Is there any targeting at all for going into the rural areas? Mr. Bilchik. I don't have that information on hand. I can try to find out if we have it and get it for you. The way the program is designed, it allows all communities within the state to come in with three-year prevention plans and submit those to state agencies who administer our formula funds and then give grants down to local communities. I know anecdotally that a lot of rural communities are using the money. In particular, I know that in Iowa they've been very aggressive in doing a statewide evaluation of the Prevention Program through the Social Work Department at the University of Iowa. They've analyzed 20 sub-grants that have come about as a result of the program. They have done on-the-ground surveying of those communities to see what their reaction was to the program, what kind of money they were receiving, and what kinds of activities they were engaged in. And they have some outcome evidence as well, particularly from Sioux City on a couple of the program things they're doing. But, I can't profile those 20 communities for you today. Mr. Latham. Can I have access to that information? Mr. Bilchik. Absolutely. This is just coming out as a part of our report to Congress on the Title V Program that will be coming out in the next several weeks. [The information follows:] Evaluation--Iowa Prevention Program This information, from the report to Congress on the Title V Program, is not yet completed. It will be provided to the Subcommittee as soon as available. Mr. Latham. Obviously, Sioux City is---- Mr. Bilchik. Sioux City has experienced a 37 percent drop in police calls over the three-year length of the program and an 80 percent drop in juvenile adjudications for the targeted population under the program. So, I'll be glad to get you that information. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Brann, it is my understanding that at the end of fiscal year 1998, there will be jurisdictions that are graduating from the program. Mr. Brann. Yes. Mr. Dixon. And you have a list of those communities that will be graduating? Mr. Brann. We can identify every community and exactly when they will have to move from Federal funding to local funding. Mr. Dixon. Could you provide those to the Committee? Mr. Brann. Yes. [The information follows:] Graduating Communities Up to 6,619 police agencies have hiring grants that could expire in FY 1998, depending upon when they began to draw down grant funds. Many of these grantees will apply for ``no-cost extensions'' of their grants. For example, a grant may have been announced in FY 1995, but the grantee may not have hired the officer until months later. The grant period runs three years from the date of the announcement. Many grantees thus want to extend the grant period, or the time during which they can ``draw down'' funds, to three years from the hiring date. These no-cost extension requests are routinely granted. In these cases, some FY 1995 grantees may not reach the end of their grant period until FY 1999. retention of positions Mr. Dixon. As I read the law there, is there a requirement in their application or the actual law that they notify you of what they intend to do? Mr. Brann. Yes. We've typically asked for that up-front in their application process, an acknowledgement on their part that they understand that there is that action required. Mr. Dixon. So, in this application there is a numerical figure as to what they will retain. Mr. Brann. The requirement is that all of the positions be retained. Mr. Dixon. Well, as you are well-aware, in a police department there is the attrition factor. Mr. Brann. Yes. Mr. Dixon. There are people that die. There are people that take disability retirement. There are people that retire under normal circumstances. So, unless there is a miracle number that the jurisdiction will sustain, it is very different to say whether one is retained or not, except the individual. Is that correct? Mr. Brann. You're absolutely correct. Mr. Dixon. There is no numerical level that a community in fact will stay above or at. Mr. Brann. They have to identify with their base line prior to the application. Mr. Dixon. Oh, they do. So, there is a numerical number. Mr. Brann. Yes. Mr. Dixon. I look at the COPS Program a little bit differently. So, correct me in my philosophical view. I thought that the program was designed in part to give a spike to the employment of law enforcement officers. In other words, to give a rush or increase the population through federal assistance with the hope that it would bring a decline in crime which may or may not be sustained at a later date with a smaller population, police population. Mr. Brann. That is correct. Mr. Dixon. In other words, a community may decide for political reasons that they need to keep this spike or they may make a political judgment that they have crime under control and they can reduce that by a certain amount. I mean, is there necessarily in any given community, any magic in retaining a certain number. Mr. Brann. There is no magic number. You're absolutely correct. If I could use by way of an example, my personal experience in Santa Ana where in one year we increased staff in that city by 110 additional personnel. This was in fact to get our community policing efforts launched. As a result of that huge infusion of resources, we saw a tremendous decline in the crime rate, not only in the subsequent years but over the long haul because of other subsequent fiscal difficulties, such as--Proposition 13 in California, it impacted the ability to maintain that staffing level on a continuing basis. The agency certainly has no trouble mandating. These are all local funds. But the community, the department, made a determination to. They were better able to maintain their crime decline, though, because of the influx of personnel there, the infusion, and ultimately getting some of this under control. I think that, in my view, is what this Crime Act ultimately does. Mr. Dixon. So, the fact that there is a retention number is kind of confusing. Some people think the purpose is to maintain x-number of police officers at all times and that the Federal Government is just financing the first three years. Mr. Brann. There is no way that we can go back and hold anybody for the long-term to account. Mr. Dixon. Those are generally political decisions made by counties and city councils and those people change from time- to-time? Mr. Brann. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. That would also account for the COPS MORE program becoming more and more popular, COPS MOREbecause community-x may realize that they are at a certain level and can't or don't want to afford more, but they want to shift into giving these people that they've hired better equipment or technology to work with. Isn't that true? Mr. Brann. We find with many jurisdictions around the country that their staffing levels or current staffing levels are by and large based upon their assessment of their desire to free up existing staff. I've gone through this experience in both agencies I've served in where we realized that we had personnel who were working in support and administrative assignments that could have been better staffed and more cost efficiently staffed by civilian personnel, and putting those personnel back on the streets. That's exactly what the COPS MORE Program does accomplish. Mr. Dixon. My colleague, Mr. Latham, said that in his travels in his district that, in fact, there were people that were not satisfied with the program because they couldn't afford it. You're not pushing these programs on communities; are you? Mr. Brann. Absolutely not. Mr. Dixon. There is no requirement that anyone do this. Mr. Brann. No. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. drug use among juveniles Now, I want to talk to Mr. Bilchik about drug use among juveniles, a favorite annual topic of ours. Mr. Bilchik. I was wondering if it was going to be on the agenda again today. Mr. Rogers. So, here we are. Whatever else may be happening on the crime rates I think, as your testimony and the chart that you included in your testimony shows, the drug use among teens and a continuing decline in the perceived harm of drug use, is skyrocketing. Last year we displayed some charts which showed the increase of drug use amongst teens. This year we've got some new charts that show a continuing rise in the problem and that we are approaching levels of drug use among teens that were witnessed ten years ago at record high levels. Cocaine use by tenth graders is up 142 percent. Marijuana use by eighth graders is up 205 percent. Juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations increased 138 percent over the last four years. While the Attorney General reported a 3 percent decline last year in youths arrested for violent crime, youths arrested for drug abuse violations increased by 20.3 percent. A 1995 DOJ report found that one in three juvenile detainees were under the influence of drugs at the time of their arrest. Studies have also found that marijuana is a gateway drug leading to the use of other drugs such as cocaine, heroin; and marijuana use among teenagers continues to skyrocket. The latest survey conducted by the Partnership For a Drug Free America, reported this month that the rising popularity of illegal drugs amongst teenagers is trickling down to their younger brothers and sisters who are starting to try marijuana themselves. The study which focused on children ages 9 through 12, that's grades 4 through 6 roughly, found that 24 percent of these kids were offered drugs; one in four. Those who had experimented with drugs rose to 4 percent from 2 percent. Children were less likely to believe that people on drugs are ``stupid''--71 percent said so in 1995; only 65 percent said so in 1996. NIH reports in 1995 the serious and harmful affects of marijuana as we recollect, which include that it impairs learning and memory, perception, judgment, complex motor skills. It causes difficulty in speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, forming concepts, a decreased drive in ambition, shortened attention span, poor judgment, high distractibility, diminished effectiveness of interpersonal skills, intense anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia. And daily use of one to three joints of marijuana appears to produce the same lung diseases and potential cancer risks as smoking five times as many cigarettes, speaking of which I don't see the Administration pushing eradicating smoking marijuana as much as they are eradicating smoking cigarettes, tobacco. So, the question is what are you doing about all of this? I want to look now at this year's charts. We're going to do this every year for awhile here just to give you your report card. So, here is your report card. The one on my left, in 1995 an estimated 9.8 million Americans were current marijuana users. And 3.6 million of these were between the ages of 12 to 17. That's 37 percent. [The information follows:] [Page 969--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Overall--that's the lower chart, the one in purple on the bottom; the upper part of that chart. Overall, 4.9 million youth, ages 12 to 17, are current users of illicit drugs. The most disturbing trend is that teen drug use may soon exceed 1985 or even 1979 record levels. And you will notice that deep shift in 1992. And that's when we changed policies on drug use. [The information follows:] [Page 971--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Now, to the other chart. Between 1994 and 1995, the rate of marijuana use among youth ages 12 to 17 increased from 6 percent to 8.2 percent. That continues a trend that began during 1992 and 1993. Since 1992 that rate has more than doubled. What happened? Now, you said last year, to refresh your recollection, Mr. Dixon asked you in essence, and I'm going to paraphrase his question to shorten it, that somehow we backed off the focus on teenage drug use and therefore there has been an increase. ``Is that your view?'' he asked you. And your answer was, ``Yes. I believe that we are focused on guns. We are focused on violence. Those have become the preeminent issues. And that we need to be sending consistently strong messages about drug use as well.'' And then he also asked you ``what happened?'' And you said, ``I think a part of it was a drifting in terms of other critical issues that have come up that have caught our attention and we're sending strong messages now on those things. There is a divergence of attention to a certain degree.'' That's page 695 of the hearing last year. Now, here we are a year later and that skyrocket is even stronger than it was last year. We've not only not made a dent in it, we've actually seen the rate accelerate. Can you help us out? Mr. Bilchik. We're trying to help us out. The increases are of concern to us as they were last year and they continue to be a concern. We've tried to identify the things that we think work best in supporting local and state communities and supporting families in sending messages to kids about the harmfulness of drugs, and which encourage them and cause them not to use drugs. That's why I attached this chart to my testimony because it really displays how the perception of risk in our children's minds about the harmfulness of drugs relates to their usage. And if we send strong messages to our kids about the harmfulness, the reduction in use is there. You can see it over the years; the late 1970s reflected on that chart all the way into the middle 1990s. So, we try to identify things that can work in supporting families in taking on this very difficult task in reversing this trend. It's going to take us a long time. One of the things that I would like to share with the appropriators that we've done most recently, particularly since you've funded these activities, is getting information out to communities on things they can be doing that will help to decrease drug and alcohol use, and not just through long voluminous documents--I have additional copies of this to share with the Committee. This just came back from the printer yesterday, coincidentally, and is not even out into the field. It will be mailed over the next week. It describes how mentoring programs can have an impact on alcohol and drug use. And you know one of our categories of appropriated funds is for mentoring--which is also one of the strong areas of funding that plays out in our Formula Program. Although we're funding 93 communities' mentoring efforts through the Jump Program; another 91 communities are being funded through the Formula Grant; so, almost 200 communities. What the mentoring programs have shown is that they can influence the level of drug use and alcohol use; in particular, the initiation of alcohol and drug use. That pathway that you've described, Mr. Chairman, we can interrupt it. A 46 percent reduction in drug use by children who went through the Big Brothers and Sisters Program 18 months after their entry. A 27 percent reduction in alcohol use. That's just one piece of it, but it is a type of approach that we're trying to work with the communities or by getting the information to them on the things they can do as they rally around this issue. This year we're funding with the President's Crime Prevention Council an effort that will go into at least a dozen communities that will rally youth around the issue. So, youth will also send these messages. Our goal is to have the messages sent to our youth in the home, in the school, in their church, and by their friends at the community center--to bombard them with this message. We have a grant with the Congress of National Black Churches that is reaching 2,000 congregations and 1.5 million youth and their families in addressing the issues of drug abuse and violence. We're working in a variety of settings through our sub-grants and formula programs to send that message. It's going to take awhile for us to send it strongly and often enough, but I'm convinced that if we change that perception through those messages, like the mentoring programs, by funding local communities through our voucher program at a cap of $10,000 and as a result, reaching small community-based operations that cannot otherwise really compete for the big grants to help them develop efforts on the local level to take on the drug and violence problems. It's our hope that this in total will allow communities to address this issue and see that trend reversed. juvenile drug abuse strategy Mr. Rogers. Well, pardon me for saying this, but I don't think you or I have a big enough microphone or megaphone to reach the people that we're trying to reach. I don't see in the Administration a concentrated strategy emanating from the White House; new laws, tough penalties, law enforcement strategies, targeting resources, using the bully pulpit, whatever. I just do not see that happening to address kids to increase their perception that the use of drugs is harmful, and risky, and bad. We don't see that message out there. I don't want to compare Administrations. The only one I can think of is the ``Just Say No'' Program that the Reagans had. It may have been corny. It may have been naive, what have you, but it was a message and it got out there. It penetrated the fog so to speak. I just don't see anything equivalent to that type ofbully pulpit preaching coming out from the only people that have a big enough microphone to reach these masses of teenagers and that's the White House. Am I wrong in that? Is there a big message coming out that I'm somehow missing? Mr. Bilchik. Well, I think General McCaffrey has recently announced---- Mr. Rogers. I don't mean the General. I'm talking about the President. I mean you, and I, and the Secretary of State can holler and scream all we want and no one pays any attention. It's like that old saying back home, don't worry about what people are saying about you, they ain't saying nothing. I mean, we can scream all we want and no one listens. It's got to come from the President. What's he doing about the nation's crisis in teenage drug use? Mr. Bilchik. I think President Clinton through the Cabinet Members, as well as through the individual efforts of the agencies, is trying to send that message--through Secretary Shalala, through the Attorney General, through General McCaffrey, through his own comments about the need to address this issue and the need to stop our youth from getting involved in drug abuse. Mr. Rogers. I mean all the messages we hear from the White House is these bad cigarettes are going to kill you. Stop smoking tobacco. The kids aren't dying from smoking tobacco. They're dying from the use of drugs. Just this past week there was an absolutely horrible story. Four teenagers in my district obsessed with drugs and the occult massacred a family in Eastern Tennessee, a young family; a parent and two or three small kids; just absolutely massacred them. Then fled to try to get to Mexico and were caught at the border. Drugs and the occult--this is our problem. It's not, for God's sake, smoking cigarettes. It's smoking marijuana and cocaine by eight and nine and ten year olds. And all the President talks about is smoking cigarettes. How can we convince him to get on the bandwagon to stop this curse that's taking over our nation? Mr. Bilchik. I think we've identified some of the strategies that we can advocate to communities and train them in using. And that's what we're out there trying to do. Hopefully, over time it will be successful in getting the message out there loudly and strongly enough. Mr. Rogers. Well, where in your budget request are new programs that directly address the drug crisis amongst teenagers? Mr. Bilchik. It is our expectation that with the At-Risk Children's Initiative, increasing the Title V Program from $20 million to $75 million, the communities will be able to fund the types of programs that can address this in a preventive mode and in an early intervention mode in interrupting the cycle of children getting involved in drugs. That's what the Mentoring Program does. It interrupts that cycle. Mr. Rogers. But is it directed at drug use? Mr. Bilchik. It's directed in a way that communities can determine what their particular problems are and where their funding needs are and then utilizing it appropriately. Mr. Rogers. You said we had drifted last year. There had become a divergence of attention to a certain degree. I still think there is a divergence. You're spreading your message across all sorts of arenas. I don't see anything in your budget request that focuses like a laser on this serious problem. This is not just an average increase of some proportion. This is a skyrocketing use of drugs by teenagers at even lower ages than we've ever seen before and at record levels. This is a crisis we're into here. Do you admit that? Mr. Bilchik. I admit that. Mr. Rogers. But you're diverging your message. It's across all spectrums. Why can't we focus on this drug use? Mr. Bilchik. Mr. Chairman, I think that the things that the At-Risk Children's Program will fund will result in the outcome that you're looking for; in creating a healthier family, and healthier children that are more law abiding. You will see a reduction in drug abuse by children and juveniles. It may seem broad, but family strengthening, a life skills curriculum in school, has reduced drug abuse by 59 to 75 percent in some communities. That may seem like a broad approach, but it results in alcohol and drug abuse reduction. That's what the At-Risk Children's Initiative is about. Hopefully not just reducing drug use, but also delinquency and violence. Mr. Rogers. Assistant Attorney General Robinson, what do you say about all of this? Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that we're trying to do to address this. I do think that General McCaffrey, and I'm not intimately familiar with his budget, but as I understand it that he has proposed a large new initiative to, in fact, get that message across, and across very strongly, to America's youth. Through our Bureau of Justice Assistance we have several programs we will be pursuing, including the National Crime Prevention Council. From the supply side to the multi- jurisdictional drug task forces which have targeted marijuana specifically in a number of jurisdictions to make sure that the plants never get processed into marijuana that can be sold on the street. Clearly, that's an important side of it as well. Mr. Rogers. That's not a new strategy. That's the same old stuff. We've tried the same old stuff. You've tried the same old stuff during your Administration. Here are the results. Look at it. It's skyrocketing. It's not working. Do you admit that? Ms. Robinson. There is a crisis. I agree with you. Mr. Rogers. What we're doing is not working, though. Is that not an accurate statement? What we're doing is not working, for whatever reason. Ms. Robinson. As Administrator Bilchik has said, we are identifying strategies now that can work in communities and often times it is a comprehensive strategy. It's something that draws in the families and the schools. In addition to that, the requests that we have in the area of youth courts and prosecution strategies can zero in on those problems as well. Juvenile drug courts, for example. I had the opportunity recently to be at a juvenile drug court graduation. The drug court judge told me that these are kids who were really going over the edge and we were able to pull them back. Now, that's not addressing the kids who are not yet into it, but it is certainly helping to draw back those who are involved in drug use. Mr. Rogers. Well, let me just say in closing this portion of the hearing and I am going to yield to Mr. Dixon on this subjectbecause this is also one of his things, what we're doing is not working. I mean this is living proof. I don't know why. I don't guess any of us know why. But the point is it is just not working. The problem is getting worse. The age is getting younger. The percent of use is getting higher. The perception that drugs is bad or harmful is down--we're losing the war. And I don't know the answer. Obviously you don't either or you would have told us today and the President is doing nothing about it. I'm just frustrated and flabbergasted that we sit here with all of the money in the world, pumping it into law enforcement. I mean we're pumping billions of dollars into law enforcement. This Subcommittee has I think quadrupled the Justice Department's budget in the last several years, quadrupled the Justice Department's budget and we get results like this on these charts. Whatever else you're doing, I can commend you for it. On this, you are failing. We're failing to help you adequately. We're all failing in this respect. Mr. Dixon. legalization of drugs Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't know who is best prepared to answer this, but the Chairman just indicated that we're losing the war on drugs. I'm not sure how to read these charts of yours, but there are some who say that the war is over. That we should legalize drugs. Does anyone have a response to that? Ms. Robinson. The Administration is adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs. Mr. Dixon. Why? Ms. Robinson. The harm it will cause children, the harm it will cause adults in this society. When we look at addicted populations, we can see the dysfunction that permeates their lives, the pain they cause their families, their inability to work, the pain they cause their children. The fact that they are not good parents. And the list could go on. Mr. Dixon. I happen to agree with you, but I do talk to people from time-to-time who say let's just give up. We've lost the war or it's up to an individual person to decide whether they want to use drugs, similar as with cigarettes. drug courts Madam Assistant Attorney General, my Staff pointed out to me that one, you're asking for a large increase in the drug court project from $25 million to $75 million. On page 11 of your testimony you talk about that program, in particular in Los Angeles and Pensacola. You say there that there is only a 2 percent recidivism rate among graduates of drug courts. Ms. Robinson. Of those two drug courts. That's correct. Mr. Dixon. Well, that looks like it's having a major effect. What is a graduate? Is this somebody that's died? Ms. Robinson. No. Mr. Dixon. I mean first we've got to define what a graduate is. Then we've got to talk about the duration in which you measure this recidivism. That's startling, Mr. Chairman, that of every young person who went through the drug court and came out in Pensacola or Los Angeles, only 2 percent of them were ever arrested again. Ms. Robinson. Mr. Dixon, those are numbers 6 and 12 months after completion of the program; a program that has lasted about 12 months. The important thing will be to track, and in fact with our NIJ research, we're planning to do that, to see the results over a period of time. But I will also tell you that when you talk to people in the criminal justice system, many of whom are very skeptical and cynical about seeing criminal behavior change and seeing addictive behavior change, they come away from the drug courts concept feeling excited about it because they in fact see it catching the attention of the criminals, the offenders, and getting them to help change their lives through sanctions, through drug testing, through mandated drug treatment, and through keeping them on a short leash under judicial supervision. That's the reason, I think, that we see so much interest around the country in drug courts. Two years ago, there were fewer than 50. Now, there are more than 150 and there are 140 in the planning. And the reason for that, in part, is the money provided by this Subcommittee; but in large part it's the excitement in the field when they see criminal behavior changing. So, we do want to look at the long-term results. We're very cautiously excited about what we see out of this. drug use statistics Mr. Dixon. So, it does appear that maybe we are at least holding our own in the war where people have already been exposed to drugs, I mean, if we look at these statistics. Ms. Robinson. With those who have gone through these programs, yes, as well as the drug treatment in prisons programs, which are showing very good results, as well. Mr. Dixon. I noticed the chart that you referred to. Am I reading it correctly in 1992 our youth percentage using marijuana once or more in the past 30 days in 1992 was roughly at 10 percent? Mr. Bilchik. Of twelfth graders, yes. Mr. Dixon. Right. And in 1994 it had climbed to 18 percent. Mr. Bilchik. Yes. Mr. Dixon. Can you correlate that with the figures up there? That's the past month up there. The age range is a little lower, but the Chairman's figures look better than yours. In two years you have an 8 percent increase. In two years there, at most it looks like a 2.6 percent increase. Mr. Bilchik. They both appear to be about 80 percent increases; the 3.4 to 6.0 and the 10 to 18 both appear to be about 80 percent increases. As you know they are different age groups. So, it's hard to correlate, but it looks like they're pretty consistent, 80 percent, which is much too high. Mr. Dixon. What figure do you think is acceptable? Mr. Bilchik. I like the figure in the bulletin we just issued that shows initiation of use going down 46 percent by children who are mentored in one-to-one mentoring relationships. I like those kinds of figures much better than 80 percent increases. I think we have to start seeing it go down. When you have occasion to look through the bulletin in more detail, you will see that one of the things that's estimated is that only about 5 percent of the children in this country who need those positive adult role models are getting them right now. That is estimated by Big Brothers and Big Sisters. So, if you look to why we aren't winning the war yet, the battle, it is because we need to do much more of this. We can't just use the isolated pockets of support--the 180 sites between the Jump Program and the Formula Program we funded through the Federal Government or the things that are being done locally through Big Brothers and Big Sisters, or the mentoring done through the YMCA. We need to do much more of it across the board with Federal support, but also at the state and local levels. That will help us get the percentages down. We need to build the curricula into the school so they start working on this as a school issue. Those programs have proven to be successful as they've been evaluated. When you can do a life skills program that shows up to a 75 percent reduction in drug and alcohol use and the results extend out six years, those are the things that give me hope that if we really invest in this, if we see some increase in our investment and almost quadruple our investment in this type of programming, we'll see continuing improvement, not just for those small pockets of kids, but for larger groups of kids. administration's drug message Mr. Dixon. Well, the Chairman and I both are smokers. But if I hear him correctly, he thinks that during the Ronald Reagan era that the Reagans were doing something that you aren't doing now. In other words, there was a successful technique. He wraps it up by saying, ``Just Say No'', but you have somehow abandoned a technique that was very successful. I think that the climate has changed. The problem has gotten more difficult. Drugs have gotten stronger. There are more sophisticated methods of transporting drugs. I think you should respond to, his statement that all we need to do, in part, is for the President to get on the bully pulpit on this. Now, is that true? Is that all we have to do here? Mr. Bilchik. I think you need to do both things. I think you need to both send strong national messages from the bully pulpit, from the---- Mr. Dixon. Is that being done in your opinion? Mr. Bilchik. I think the messages are being sent. Mr. Dixon. By the President? Mr. Bilchik. I think the President talks about this issue as well as the Attorney General and Secretary Shalala. I think we all talk about this issue when we go out to communities. Mr. Dixon. Now, that confuses me because you hear the Chairman talking about the President. He goes as far to say that no one else can deliver that message; not the Secretary, the Attorney General. And you clump them all together. Do you think the President of the United States is doing enough, personally, with the bully pulpit to get that message across, not any of his Cabinet? I mean, I think we have to address this issue that the Chairman raises. It's a very valid one. Mr. Bilchik. Mr. Dixon, I think the President is out there talking about this. I think it's hard for me to detach him from Members of the Cabinet who carry out his plan and his policy. So, when General McCaffrey announces a major national campaign to educate the public and to send that bully pulpit message on TV and radio, that's carrying out the President's message as well. So, I think the President is working very hard at getting this out, and using as a part of that strategy the ``Just Say No'' type campaign where we feed information to people in the mass media in a way that can help carry the message, in addition to them hearing the message in their community center or in their classroom or at their dinner table. We need to do both of those things. Mr. Dixon. So, you disagree with the Chairman saying that the President's emphasis is on diverting people from smoking cigarettes, tobacco, and has abandoned the emphasis on the use of illegal drugs. Mr. Bilchik. I think the President is trying to address both issues. Mr. Dixon. Well, the only reason I press you is because it's very serious when the Chairman says that or any Member of Congress says that. And you don't hit it head on. So, you think that the President is doing a good job at that. Mr. Bilchik. Absolutely, but we need to do more. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. The bully pulpit message out of the White House, as far as I know, is just don't inhale. Mr. Mollohan. at risk children's initiative Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said that we need to address life skills issues in your response to Mr. Dixon. Then I heard you say quadruple funding. What accounts are you speaking of and have you requested for quadrupled funding? Mr. Bilchik. I was approximating the quadrupling as we would go from $20 million to $75 million for the At-Risk Children's Initiative that would fund those types of programs. I think we need to respect the local determinations in deciding their needs. Mr. Mollohan. That is your request actually; isn't it? Mr. Bilchik. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. What account is this? Mr. Bilchik. It's in the At-Risk Children's Initiative which takes the Title V Community Prevention Grant Program and increases it. Mr. Mollohan. Is that the new Anti-Truancy School Violence Program? Mr. Bilchik. Yes, Mr. Mollohan, it is. Mr. Mollohan. I totally agree that effective intervention is crucially important. That's very hands on. You gave some anecdotal evidence of successes, but my concern about this effort for many years has been the ability to address it programmatically across the country. One area can have a good program and one school can have a good program, but can the Federal Government make a real contribution nationally that every child can have access to who is at risk? I question whether $75 million can do that. Mr. Bilchik. I think it gets to one of the issues that, again, we discussed last year which is the scale issue. How do you bring these things to scale nationally? And that the Federal Government can't do that. What it can do is to seed activity in local communities so they are aware of the kinds of things that they can do and really fully invest in. Then it can provide the training and technical assistance capacity to help them as they try to put it into place. One of the issues you have identified is how do you take one program from one community and then make it work in your own community, and that's not easy. You need to really understand why it worked in the first community and then bring people in to help that second community implement that program in the right way so it will be successful for them also. We haven't always done that in the past. That's one of the things that's unique about this proposal. It sets aside additional training and technical assistance money out of these program categories to have more of a presence in communities in helping them implement the programs that we, through the research, know can work. anti-drug message Mr. Mollohan. Some of these programs are being questioned. Like the University of Maryland study questioned the DARE Program and some of the other programs. I always questioned that animal that said, ``Take A Bite Out Of Crime.'' Does the Justice Department have a program, a communications program like a television advertising program that puts all of this kind of behavior into powerful messages? We know Madison Avenue people do it with products. Can they do it in an anti-substance abuse, and anti-bad behavior? Do you have that program? Where are you requesting funds? Mr. Bilchik. We are working on developing these approaches to solving the problem. Then when people call from communities to say I'm interested in that type of approach. Mr. Mollohan. Well, what about television advertisement? Mr. Bilchik. Our media messages will be on television. They will be on radio. They will be in print. Mr. Mollohan. What would they be? Mr. Bilchik. There will be individual segments, and of course it is very expensive to do. So, you want to be very targeted in how you do it. I haven't seen them yet. There are national companies developing them right now. They will talk about the things that are effective like I mentioned--the life skills program or this mentoring program. There are things that we know about; informing communities that there are things we know about that work. Mr. Mollohan. What about informing students that taking drugs is a bad thing? Mr. Bilchik. I think that's a part of the campaign that General McCaffrey is putting together right now. Mr. Mollohan. Is that a media campaign? Mr. Bilchik. Yes. It's a media campaign. Mr. Mollohan. Where is that coming from? Mr. Bilchik. I believe that's through a request from his appropriation. Mr. Mollohan. Where is that? Ms. Robinson. The Treasury-Postal Subcommittee. Mr. Mollohan. Did we do any of that? I personally think that would be very effective. Mr. Bilchik. Yes. The television program can put taking drugs in a very unfavorable light, a very un-cool, however you say that now, light---- Mr. Mollohan. Who looks at that? Who looks at the issue of what would be the best strategy for spending more money in your shop? Mr. Bilchik. I think the Agency that is taking the leadership on that is the Bureau of Justice Assistance, working with the national media to determine what the most effective campaigns are that can be run. Mr. Mollohan. That can be done in a very cost effective way with public service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow-up on that. Mr. Rogers. If you will yield on that. One of the most memorable things in mind about the television war on drugs was the, ``This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.'' That was, I think, was one of the most effective advertising campaigns there has been. In fact, I think I've seen those things on T- shirts even; your brain on drugs on T-shirts. I just think there are a lot of effective weapons out there that we're not using. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, just to have them come back on how they are looking at what is the biggest bang for your buck. This isn't a lot of money. You can't reach every school and every child programmatically. Mr. Rogers. There is no doubt in my mind that things like the mentoring program and the various things that you're doing are useful; very, very useful in fact and the studies show that. Mr. Mollohan. They are very effective. Mr. Rogers. But there is nothing--it's like trying to stamp out ants one at a time. We've got ways to go at the whole ant hill with television and mass media and with people like Tiger Woods. If there is anybody that captures the imagination of young people in this country of all sectors, it's Tiger Woods and people like him. He can do more to eradicate teenage drug use than any other living being probably. Do you agree with that? Mr. Bilchik. I agree that those are very powerful messages. I really am hopeful that we can do both of the things that we've been talking about, sending national messages, and make certain that when a child goes home or leaves the TV set, they are actually going someplace where they have a positive adult role model that can reinforce the message, or to hear it in school. I don't think it can be isolated. I'd like to see this done everywhere. Mr. Mollohan. But there is nothing on television. Maybe I just don't watch the right programs. Maybe I don't watch enough of it, but there is no advertising on television that runs messages that show very unattractive youngsters standing on a corner looking really stupid waiting around to sell drugs. I mean I've got it right over here where I live in Southwest. It's a marketplace. If those kinds of incidents and those kinds of youngsters even saw themselves on television doing that, they might reconsider. I think there has got to be a way to capture that and market it. Mr. Rogers. The only thing that I've seen on television on Saturday mornings during the cartoons is all of the anti- smoking cigarettes ads. There are tons and tons of them. Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I've watched those same programs, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. There is nothing on TV about drugs. I can't understand it. Mr. Bilchik. I hope that when we visit this topic next year we will see some of the outcomes from our campaign that we will be developing on the broader issues, as well as the General's efforts to do a broader campaign. university of maryland report Mr. Rogers. Now, this is the last thing we're going to get into, this Maryland report that Mr. Mollohan alluded to. In the 1996 funding bill we increased funding for local law enforcement by 61 percent. But we also required the Attorney General to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the over $3 billion annually we were funding in DOJ grants to the state and local law enforcement agencies and communities to prevent crime. That 500-page report is out. And conclusions drawn by some reporters say, ``The Federal Government fights random violence with what appears to be random spending.'' The report has a series of recommendations and conclusions. It draws its conclusions based on available research regarding programs that are centerpieces of our government's fight against crimes such as COPS, the Block Grants, Prison Grants, Juvenile Prevention Programs. Generally, the researchers say effective programs seem to share a key characteristic. They target specific types of crimes, convicts, or potential law breakers. Then they go on to say what works and what doesn't work. I assume you've gone through this report, all of you. It is forbidding reading. It is not good bedtime reading because you read this and you are awake for the night. What do you think about it, Madam Assistant Attorney General? Ms. Robinson. The Maryland report provides us a wonderful, comprehensive summary of the evaluations that have been done over recent years. We know that, over the 30 years of the Federal criminal justice assistance program to state and locals, that there have been successes and failures. I frankly think that we do learn from our failures. What I was delighted to see was that we, in fact, have been on top of much of the research and evaluation coming out. When I spent a number of weekends--like Shay, reading this, there was very little in it that surprised me as far as research and evaluation findings. In fact, over the last few years that we've been in OJP we have taken a number of steps to shape our programs, including the Crime Bill Programs, based on the evaluation and the research. I will give you a couple of quick examples. As you know, with your concurrence, we've taken money off the top of the Crime Bill Programs and transferred it into NIJ in order to do evaluations of these efforts and help inform future spending. So, in the boot camp area, as an example, and I know we talked about boot camps last year, when we started that program in 1995, we looked carefully at what the research said--and the Maryland Report talks about this--that military- style boot camps alone probably don't have an effect. But boot camps that also mandate drug treatment and teach work skills and work habits, and have aftercare to transition these folks back into the community can actually reduce recidivism. So, we've tried to take research results, and in fact we had a conference of our grantees. We had the researchers there, and we had them talk to the grantees and say, ``Here is how to make a program that can work.'' Mr. Rogers. Well, would you make any changes in your budget request based on the findings of this report? For example, they say, the Weed and Seed program works well. They say that policing crime ought to be targeted in ``hot spots'', Mr. Director. That the COPS grants across-the-board, which are politically appealing to everybody, is maybe a good thing, but they say, we ought to be focusing on the ``hot spots'' with all of these programs, including the COPS programs. They say, for example, and I found this hard to believe, but they say that midnight basketball doesn't work. They say mentoring works. That Boys and Girls Clubs work and so forth. Would you make any changes in your budget request, any of you as a result of this report? Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, I would not make any changes in our budget request, but what we will do is shape programs differently within the appropriation categories that you fund. I'll give you a couple of quick examples. With the DARE Program, we are concerned about the evaluations, and have been for several years. There was one out of the University of Kentucky this past year, by Richard Clayton, which I read that showed very minimal impact out of the DARE program. We've actually been in conversation--before the Maryland Report came out--with other Federal departments about this. The Department of Education, for example, puts a tremendous amount of money into DARE. And then, with the people who run DARE America, to talk to them about how we adapt that curriculum to make it as effective as possible. We know things out of the research totry to do that; make it interactive, have booster sessions, focus it in a way that links it back to the family. And those are the steps that we would plan to take. Mr. Rogers. We have a series of votes on the Floor. I have a number of questions that I can submit for the record that would allow you the opportunity to answer for the record. I appreciate your testimony here this afternoon. Thank you very much. [Pages 984 - 1010--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday, April 10, 1997. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE WITNESSES DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ANTHONY MOSCATO, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW MARY RYAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We are pleased to welcome a distinguished group of people that represent the Federal Government agencies charged with oversight and enforcement of our immigration laws. Testifying before this Subcommittee this afternoon is Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; Anthony Moscato, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review; and Mary Ryan, the Assistant Secretary for the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. Controlling illegal immigration is one of the Nation's greatest concerns. For a number of years, in a bipartisan way, the Congress and the Administration have worked together to add significant resources to address this problem. No one can say any longer that there is a lack of commitment to provide resources to address this problem. INS has grown by 52 percent over the last two years. Congress has provided increases of over $500 million each year; more than any Justice agency. And the 1998 budget is seeking another significant increase for INS, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and Consular Affairs. While we've been making some progress on the border in California, stopping illegal border crossings is only one facet of the fight against illegal immigration. We still lack an effective strategy for dealing with the over five million illegal aliens living in this country. We've put new laws in place, provided the resources that are needed, and now it's up to the Administration, and these agencies, to turn those into real results. I'll be frank, I'm not sure INS, as the primary agency with this responsibility, has the capability to do it. We'll see. I want to continue to work in a constructive way to find the solutions, but I'm getting frustrated. Before we can continue to pour funding into these initiatives, we need some evidence that they are working. The other thing this Committee has been trying to accomplish for a number of years is to get INS and State to work closer together, pool resources, information, talent, whatever is necessary, in order to protect our borders. We hope to hear evidence of that today. And if not, we want to know that you are taking the necessary steps to address any problems that are standing in the way. We have your written statements. We will make them a part of the record. We hope that you can give us a five-minute summary of your statement. We will put your full written statement in the record. Commissioner, Meissner, would you care to begin. commissioner, ins--opening statement Ms. Meissner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I'd like to begin today by reporting on my recent participation in the very successful visit to the U.S./Mexico border led by Congressman Jim Kolbe and other Members of the House Appropriations Committee. The trip was important because it allowed the Members and staff of your Committee to see first-hand the progress that INS has made in just three years in fulfilling one of its toughest and highest priority missions. It provided a close-up view of the improved competencies of the Immigration Service since 1994 when we began to undertake significant management reforms of the agency and when this Subcommittee and the Administration began working together to provide the resources that were long needed. The Southwest Border Strategy is a microcosm of the work this agency is capable, truly capable, of performing. The Multi-Year Comprehensive Enforcement Strategy that we began implementing three years ago centering on the busiest illegal crossing point on the entire border, California, contains all of the challenges facing the agency as a whole. Those challenges include hiring and training unprecedented numbers of new agents and other personnel, redesigning and streamlining outmoded systems and procedures, developing, installing, and adapting new equipment and technologies to make us more efficient. They also involve working cooperatively with other Federal and local agencies, especially Customs, DEA, the FBI, the Department of State and local law enforcement officials. These are all difficult tasks. They have all started from a base of serious performance deficiencies and they are all against the backdrop of historically high migration pressures from around the world. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am keenly aware of the agency's historic management weaknesses and the problems that have emerged in attempting to address the dramatic surge that we faced in our naturalization applications. We are working both internally and externally by drawing on help from outside experts to address these problems. But while the problems of the Citizenship Program reflect longstanding infrastructure and management weaknesses of the Immigration Service, they do not accurately reflect the agency's overall abilities and progress. meeting the challenges The reality is that on many fronts just like at the border we are meeting the challenges that both the Administration and the Congress have set out for us. We are applying effective new strategies to meet a historic rise in enforcement and service delivery needs. They include implementing a new immigration law that requires developing more than 60 new regulations and more than 70 new forms and training almost 20,000 staff to use them properly. We are effectively managing unprecedented growth in technology and personnel resources. And most importantly, we are facing and fixing chronic decades-old management problems that have plagued the Immigration Service's efforts in the past. Moreover, we are doing all of these things at the same time. I am proud of the progress we, and this Subcommittee working together, have made. I am pleased that this progress has been recognized by a distinguished panel of the National Academy for Public Administration with whom we contracted to analyze the INS budget and priority setting processes that we established in 1994. Their January report signaled approval of our new initiatives and provided valuable guidance on the next steps for continuing the advances. At the same time, we know that we face major challenges in improving the accountability, the effectiveness, and the professionalism of the agency. Some key steps to ensure that a culture of accountability takes hold include the following examples. We have rebuilt the Office of Internal Audit and created the new INSpect Program with resources dedicated to top to bottom reviews of all field offices on regular two and three-year cycles. I have concluded that further organizational and senior personnel changes are needed. The plan that I have developed for those changes will be forwarded to the Subcommittee in the coming weeks. It will strengthen field management and send a strong signal about my expectations for effective management and integrity of INS work processes. We are implementing competency-based criteria for promotions as a means of overcoming seniority as the sole basis for career advancement in the agency. These and many other measures build on a myriad of steps that I have already taken to bolster the accountability and the professionalism of the Immigration Service. In support of strong management reforms such as these, the Service's fiscal year 1998 budget request contains critical infrastructure proposals that we hope the Subcommittee will grant. They include continued equipment and technology infusions, important status verification and files clean-up, and centralization initiatives. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close by saying that our problems are not intractable. We have demonstrated that in many areas of our work. But they do require multi-year, often laborious step- by-step efforts. INS has come a long way in these past years. With your continued support, I am confident that we can come even further. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Meissner follows:] [Pages 1014 - 1050--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Moscato. Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Opening Statement Mr. Moscato. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to present the President's 1998 budget request for the Executive Office for Immigration Review which is the Department's component responsible for the administrative adjudication of immigration cases and appeals. Our corps of Immigration Judges hear primarily deportation and exclusion cases, including asylum cases and those involving criminal aliens. Under the 1996 Act, these adjudications are now referred to as removal proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates appeals from the Immigration Judge decisions and those of certain officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Finally, our Administrative Law Judges hear cases arising from employer sanctions, document fraud, and anti- discrimination provisions of immigration law. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss briefly our most significant current challenge, the implementation of the 1996 Act. As you are aware, the Act encompasses enormous changes in the immigration laws of the United States. It has required the preparation of implementing regulations and the establishment of new adjudicative policies and procedures. We have coordinated consistently with INS on all policy and regulatory matters implicating the adjudicative process. Our interaction with INS over the last several months has been at a very high level and resulted in our capacity and the capacity of the Department of Justice to publish a very broad set of regulations in a timely fashion. In addition, and more specifically for our program, we've established a training program through which Immigration Judges themselves have worked together to create an understanding of the new law and to provide input into final policy and procedural determinations. Senior Judges from all courts, all of the 39 courts around the country, have worked as a group first to identify and discuss the major issues presented by the Act. Second, to consult with colleagues from their home courts. Third, to reconvene with their colleagues. And finally, to return to brief all members of the court as to implementation policies and procedures. Regarding provisions for expedited exclusion and mandatory detention, we have again worked closely with the Service to ensure workable and successful outcomes. Current plans involve the lodging of aliens subject to these procedures at nearby detention centers. Because we are staffed at many of those facilities, we hope and expect that our judges will have the capacity to render determinations within the mandated 24-hour to seven-day time frame. In terms of our 1998 request, Mr. Chairman, we seek a total of $127.701 million to support 1,122 permanent positions, and 1,087 workyears in 1998. This represents a net program increase of $10.106 million; 105 positions and 52 workyears. Program increases include 28 new Immigration Judges, 12 BIA staff attorneys and the necessary legal support positions for those activities. This request has been made in conjunction and in coordination with the proposed INS enforcement initiatives and budget request that you have before you as well. In general, the Immigration Service is requesting new enforcement positions in support of a variety of goals including the expansion of the Southwest Border Initiative, the removal of greater numbers of criminal and non-criminal deportable aliens, and the expansion of detention facility bed spaces. We estimate that these Immigration Service initiatives will increase Immigration Judge workload by as many as 30,000 cases, and the Board's caseload by perhaps as many as 2,500. In summary, Mr. Chairman, this budget reflects our estimate of the resources required to maintain and enhance our record and our performance. I would be happy to take any questions you and the Subcommittee may have. [The statement of Mr. Moscato follows:] [Pages 1053 - 1059--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Madam Secretary. Assistant Secretary, Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Opening Statement Ms. Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am very pleased to have been invited today to testify on behalf of the Bureau of Consular Affairs in support of the Department of State's fiscal year 1998 budget request. Our responsibility for key elements of the U.S. border security system is one of the Department's national security functions. In cooperation with the Congress which provided the Department the authority in 1994 to retain the machine readable visa fee, we have made great strides in improving those elements of the U.S. border security system for which the Department is responsible. Let me highlight a few of our major accomplishments to date. Every visa issuing post now utilizes the more secure machine readable visa system. In addition, every visa issuing post now has a sophisticated automated name checking system. We have strengthened the name checking system by introducing our date-of-birth algorithm and a custom designed system for checking the names of Arabic origin. We have made major investments in automation, main frame computers, and telecommunications infrastructure. Finally, the Department has made strides in securing electronic access to data from other agencies. Of course, Mr. Chairman, improving border security like ensuring our more traditional national defense against aggressive states is not a matter of making a few investments and then ignoring the problem for years. Consequently, the Department is making a series of targeted investments in fiscal year 1997 and in fiscal year 1998 to strengthen further the U.S. border security system. These include installing a more secure and functional machine readable visa system which we call MRV-2. During fiscal year 1998 we plan to install MRV-2 at as many as 100 posts. Our goal is to complete worldwide installation by the end of fiscal year 1999. We are procuring a new generation printer that will result in a major improvement in the security of the U.S. passport. It will allow the introduction of a digitized image of the authorized bearer into the passport's data page. We are also helping to finance the migration of our overseas computer technology from the 1980's era of WANG technology to a contemporary local area network system. My final comment regarding border security, Mr. Chairman, is to note that the Department will spend nearly $200 million on this activity in fiscal year 1998. And none of this money comes from the U.S. taxpayer. Our success in this program is indicative of what the Department can and will accomplish if we have the resources to do our jobs. I can honestly say without the revenue from MRV fees, the Border Security Program would have been devastated by the budget constraints of recent years. I sincerely hope that the Congress will extend the Department's authority to retain all fees we collect. The passage last year of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act will have a significant effect on our work. It will necessitate even greater cooperative efforts between the Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, most notably, in implementing provisions requiring that an automated entry and exit control system be developed, and that all border crossing cards contain machine readable biometrics. On the issue of an automated entry and exit control system we have developed a strategy with our INS colleagues. The Department and INS already cooperate to share lookout information. INS has access to our lookout system and we have electronic access to INS lookout information, including deportation data. The sharing of data with INS has only been accomplished after overcoming significant technological obstacles. issuance of border crossing cards However, I believe that the two organizations, under the direction of Commissioner Meissner and myself, have made incredible strides in these cooperative efforts. This unprecedented cooperation will continue as we tackle other challenges set out in the new Immigration Act. I would be remiss if I did not point out at this point what a daunting task it will be to meet the requirement to issue border crossing cards with biometrics. Each year the Department of State and INS adjudicate between us approximately one million applications for either border crossing cards or the combined border crossing card/non- immigrant Visa. There are also millions of these BCCs outstanding issued years ago which will need to be readjudicated and reissued. With our colleagues at the Immigration Service, we are grappling with the numerous complex issues raised by this mandate. I can promise you that we will make our best effort. And we will keep the subcommittee fully informed of our progress, but we need your help, especially in terms of fee retention authority if we are to have any hope of pulling this off in a timely, cost effective, and customer friendly manner. non-immigrant visa applicants The Bureau of Consular Affairs has also been working with the FBI on how we might gain access to that part of their data base relevant to non-immigrant Visa applicants. We can never lose sight of the fact that our primary job is to serve our customers. The customers are the American public. While our first priority is the protection and support of American citizens around the globe, our overall work load isdriven by passport and non-immigrant visa applications. According to the World Tourism Organization, the United States was the second most popular tourist destination in 1996 and number one in receipts from international tourism; 44.8 million visitors spent $64.4 billion in this country. Lots of those visitors came on visas issued by Consular Offices. However, many others came from the 25 countries participating in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. I cannot overstate the importance of this program to the U.S. economy and to the ability of Consular sections to mobilize their resources most effectively. We thank the Congress for having established this program and we fervently hope that it will be made permanent this year. increase in passport issuances Fiscal year 1996 was a record year with domestic passport issuance totaling 5.6 million. Based on current trend lines, it appears that we will issue at least six million passports in fiscal year 1997. We've been able to meet this demand through the incredible productivity of our passport agency personnel and the establishment of unique operations such as the National Passport Center where government employees and contractors work together to produce passports. Around the world and around the nation Consular sections and passport agencies are staffed by wonderful, hard working individuals. In the Consular business our most important asset is our people. While demand for our services is growing, the Department's personnel resources remain strictly limited. As a result, we have been forced to secure personnel through creative means. We now employ seasonal workers, hire American family members overseas to provide temporary assistance, and we offer what we call excursion tours in Consular work to Civil Service and Foreign Service specialists. This past year working with American University, we instituted a co-op program with over 20 students who are being trained to work in Consular positions in the Bureau of Consular Affairs as a part of their education. We intend to use these students to fill in behind Department personnel who will be sent overseas this summer to cover our staffing gaps. While I am very proud of these initiatives, particularly our cooperative effort with American University, I realize that there is no substitute for full-time, career Foreign Service and Civil Service professionals. I hope that the Subcommittee will take these needs for permanent staff and infrastructure to support them into consideration when reviewing the Department's budget. Consular Services are the only phase of the Department of State that most Americans and foreigners will ever see. We take seriously our role as first line representatives of the United States and of our foreign policy establishment. If you come to visit us at any of our overseas Consular posts or domestic passport agencies, you will see what I mean. We very much appreciate the support that this Congress, especially this Committee, has given in the past. We look forward to working together to meet future challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. [The statement of Ms. Ryan follows:] [Pages 1063 - 1075--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] citizenship usa Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, for your testimonies. Now, Commissioner Meissner, I promise we will deal with other things besides this, but I do want to deal with naturalization/ Citizenship USA again, briefly here because I want to see where we are. We still don't know the extent of the damage that was done last year and probably will never know how many of the naturalized citizens were convicted felons. Of the 1.1 million aliens that were naturalized at a record rate, three or four times the average year, at least 250,000 may have been improperly granted citizenship because they didn't undergo the full criminal history check or because they had a criminal record, but were naturalized anyway. Of that 250,000, correct me if I'm wrong on this summary now, of that 250,000, 71,000 had criminal history records with the FBI, but were naturalized anyway. And of those 71,000, 10,800 actually had felony records; such things as criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault, criminal possession of narcotics with intent to sell, in other words, drug pushers, child molesters, prostitutes, grand larceny with a firearm, criminal possession of weapons, sexual abuse, endangering the welfare of a child, and spousal abuse. And in one particular case, an alien had 27 arrests and four convictions, but is now a citizen. Then of the 250,000 the other 180,000, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, 180,000 did not undergo an FBI fingerprint check before they were naturalized because the INS did not submit fingerprint cards or the cards submitted were unreadable by the FBI. Obviously, they are now naturalized and out in the world. We will never know if they were erroneously naturalized because you can't go back and refingerprint those people and run proper criminal checks because they're gone. So, the number of felons that are now citizens through that process last year could be in the tens of thousands for all we know. We will, as I say, probably never know. Now, I'm not going to let this rest until we get it resolved. And you and I have talked about this at length privately and publicly. I know that you've attempted to take certain actions. I don't know whether they're working or not. Tell us what we're doing currently. Are we naturalizing people this year at the same rate we were last year? Ms. Meissner. Let me start with the direct answer to that question and then back track on some of these other items. We are continuing to receive historic numbers of applications. We are receiving even more applications this year than last year. Our present projections are that we will receive 1.8 million applications this year. Last year, we received about 1.2 million, I believe. So, it is again almost a 50 percent increase. The processing of applications has slowed down. We were able to reach a level last year of handling the applications timely, which for us is six months. We are, at the present time, somewhere in the neighborhood of nine to ten months in processing time for applications. That time is increasing as we continue to receive large numbers of applications and as we put the new procedures into place. As of this past December, we are doing a 100 percent check and verification of every applicant's fingerprints. That 100 percent check of every applicant's fingerprints---- Mr. Rogers. Are you sure of that? quality assurance program Ms. Meissner. I'll finish my sentence and then I'll go to the next one. That 100 percent check is a more time consuming process than we used last year, but it is a reliable process. The check on that process, the control to be sure that process is occurring is another step we put into place in December. And that is a detailed Quality Assurance Program. The Quality Assurance Program and the 100 percent fingerprint check, along with a commitment to long-term reengineering of the entire naturalization process are the package of responses that we made that we believe put the program on a strong footing; and on a footing with the integrity that we expect. Now, the Quality Assurance Program is among the efforts that Peat Marwick, the outside accounting firm that we have brought in to do the audit of the criminal cases that might have been improperly naturalized last year, is reviewing. Peat Marwick is not only doing that review, but it is overseeing our implementation of the new procedures. A part of the implementation of the new procedures is the Quality Assurance Program. We will receive the first formal report this week from Peat Marwick on the efficacy of the Quality Assurance Program. In other words, we will find out how it is being implemented, and whether it is being implemented properly. I have received a brief summary of their findings in that first report. And it is clear that there are serious problems that need to be addressed in the way the quality assurance is being implemented. Their findings seem to be that the quality assurance procedures themselves are thorough, effective and proper, but that the implementation has serious deficiencies. We have asked them for an office-by-office explanation of where those problems exist. We will have a chance to review the explanations in the coming week. However, we already have a plan that we have put into place for how to address it. What this review gives us is an example of a tool foraccountability, the kind of real time feedback that we have not had in the past in the naturalization program, or indeed in our programs. So, we are anxious to receive this information. We will act on it immediately. It will be followed in 60 days by a thorough audit to be certain that things are working properly. naturalization numbers Now, the numbers that you made reference to earlier in the comment; we can go through with you and staff and detail the numbers. But I would want to clarify some points that you made. Because the review that is taking place of last year's naturalization is a review that has asked for all of the rap sheets--in other words, any information that the FBI has, concerning criminal history information, and 71,000 is the number. In other words, of the entire caseload that we naturalized last year, 1.1 million, there are 71,000 idents; 71,000 rap sheets. Those rap sheets are the ones that are being reviewed to determine whether those people were improperly naturalized. Just because there is a rap sheet with arrests, or even in some cases with conviction information, does not automatically lead to an improper naturalization. We need to be certain that those records were not expunged, and were not overturned on appeal. There are a series of things that can occur that render the information on the rap sheet inoperative from the standpoint of the naturalization decision. That is what the review consists of. In that review, we have found as you have distilled from it, about 10,000 plus cases where there were felony arrests. The statutes essentially focus on felony arrests as disqualifying for naturalization. It is from those 10,000 felony arrests that we are reviewing all of the files. We know for certain that 168 of those cases were improperly naturalized. We will be issuing revocation notices in those cases. There will be additional numbers added to that 168, but until the audit is complete, we won't know that number and we won't be able to supply it. Mr. Rogers. How many of the 10,800 who have felony records, that you say only 168 were disqualifying felonies, have been reviewed out of which you got the 168? Ms. Meissner. We've reviewed the files. Out of that 10,800, I believe we have reviewed the files of about 8,000. But I'm going to ask to be corrected here; the total is 9,500. Mr. Rogers. Well, you're talking about the 71,000 out of the 250,000 that were possibly improperly granted citizenship because there was criminal record of some sort. That still leaves the 180,000 where there was not a full criminal history check. Ms. Meissner. That leaves 180,000. Now, the 180,000 are cases where we cannot verify whether a fingerprint was submitted and checked. We have submitted those cases to an FBI name check. That is different from a full criminal history check. But we have submitted them to a name check which gives us some degree of information on the cases. We are presently looking at a variety of options in order to determine what is the best way to decide those cases. That remains the portion of the caseload for which we do not yet have a final plan on how to address. Mr. Rogers. Well, those auditors are also reviewing the number of aliens that were provided citizenship even though they've been ordered deported by an immigration judge. Is that not correct? Ms. Meissner. In terms of the files where there is a criminal record, a check as to whether there was an outstanding order of deportation has been a part of that review. Mr. Rogers. And how many of those are there? Ms. Meissner. I would have to provide that number. I don't have it. Mr. Rogers. Steve Colgate knows it. Mr. Colgate. We are looking at the 34,700 administrative cases which are a part of the 71,000 to-date. We've just done a preliminary day-to-day run using the ANSIR system and we're focusing on about 470, if my recollection, is correct. We have additional data matches to do, but that's our first indication of individuals who had outstanding orders of deportation that we're not going to look at under indices that will potentially be disqualifying. We've just started that review, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. When will you have it done? Mr. Colgate. I think it will take another 30 days. Mr. Rogers. We need that report in our hands within 25 days. That will work; won't it? Mr. Colgate. Yes. I hear you loud and clear. [The information follows:] Individuals Naturalized While Subject to Deportation Proceedings or Orders KMPG Peat Marwick has been tasked to compare INS and EOIR databases in order to determine the number of individuals who may have been naturalized while subject to deportation proceedings or deportation orders. Those individuals naturalized while subject to deportation proceedings or deportation orders. Those individuals naturalized between August 31, 1995, and December 31, 1996, will be covered by this review. A preliminary analysis indicated that as many as 449 case files may need to be reviewed to determine if any individuals were wrongly naturalized. KMPG is currently engaged in a more complete review of these databases and will report its findings by July 31, 1997. review of current procedures Mr. Rogers. I mean I will not put up with this anymore. We will not use additional funds to naturalize one more citizen until this mess is cleaned up. Can we make that any clearer? There will not be money for you to do this unless we know that it is cleaned up, the past and the future. Now, you are processing people at a rate higher than last year. And I don't feel comfortable with the process that you have. You, yourself, are saying the auditors have already found that it is not working this year. That there are serious problems I think were your terms. I mean we can't keep up. The FBI is going to be working full-time checking on the felons that you're naturalizing without having to worry about the new ones already coming in. When can we see the review of the current procedures, Ms. Meissner? Ms. Meissner. My understanding is that the report was delivered to the Justice Department today. I have not yet seen it. I don't know whether in fact it was delivered. Mr. Colgate. We plan to release that to you. We plan to release that report to you next week. Mr. Rogers. That's the auditor's review of the current procedures? Ms. Meissner. Of the current procedures, that's correct. Mr. Rogers. That you mentioned a moment ago. Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. We can see that early next week? Mr. Colgate. I believe it was delivered to my staff sometime today or either late last night. I'd like to take a look at it. I will deliver it to you next week. Mr. Rogers. But now you are requiring, at this moment, that the FBI check the criminal records of every single person before they're naturalized. Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. Mr. Rogers. And you have that in your file, the FBI scrub of their records, before they're naturalized? Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. You're positive of that in every instance. Ms. Meissner. That is the standing instruction and that is what this quality assurance procedure is verifying. Mr. Rogers. Do you receive verification on that point from the reviewers? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Rogers. They say that part is okay? Ms. Meissner. We haven't seen the report, but that is one of the items that the quality assurance checks. Mr. Rogers. We just don't know whether it's being carried out yet or not? Ms. Meissner. That's correct. Mr. Rogers. Now, there have been a few instances in the past, when you issued orders that were not followed? Ms. Meissner. That has happened. But this is what I'm saying in terms of the real time information that we now have. We all understand that it is one thing to issue orders. It is quite another thing to implement and administer orders properly. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Here is what we're going to do. Ms. Meissner. The feedback on our ability to determine whether things are being done properly in the field has been very difficult. What this gives us is direct information that we can act on immediately. And we are acting on it immediately. accountability of managers Mr. Rogers. And what actions do you intend to take to hold managers accountable for not implementing those procedures? Ms. Meissner. We have already scheduled a training session to retrain everybody in these procedures next week. The week after that we are bringing all of the responsible managers in to discuss with the auditors, office-by-office, what the findings are, develop the cure, or, in other words, the proper response. That will be followed by a thorough audit 60 days later to be certain that it has occurred. If people are not complying, we will take the appropriate action. Mr. Rogers. Which is? Ms. Meissner. Which include personnel actions. Mr. Rogers. Which is? Ms. Meissner. Depending on the seriousness of the noncompliance. Mr. Rogers. At what point in time can I expect you to say, if they don't follow these procedures, they will be fired? Is there ever a point when that will take place? Ms. Meissner. That certainly will take place if it's warranted. Mr. Rogers. Here is another action we're going to take. I want the names of the managers of the offices where these instructions are not being followed the minute you get them. The next thing we will do, they will be issued subpoenas to appear before this Subcommittee to answer to us as well as you. Do I have the assurance you will give me those names? Ms. Meissner. If I am legally able to give you those names, I will do so. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Colgate. Mr. Colgate. We will consult with the Department---- Mr. Rogers. If you don't want to do it voluntarily, we will be prepared to issue subpoenas. Mr. Colgate. I don't think that will be necessary. Mr. Rogers. Whatever it takes, I want their names and I want them here. And I want to know why they're not followingthese instructions from you and from this Congress and spending the American taxpayers' dollars to let felons in the country and make them citizens. I want them here testifying before us under oath if necessary. Ms. Meissner. Well, I frankly find that quite helpful. As a matter of fact, my attitude is exactly the same as yours and that is why we have, even in advance of reading this report, put a procedure into place to fix accountability. Mr. Rogers. You send me their names, not just the managers, but all those who are disobeying your orders, and I will have them here and they will answer to the Congress as well as to you. Ms. Meissner. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. You may not have the personnel procedures, but we certainly do because we're paying their salary. And we may not after they appear here. If it takes specific line items in our appropriations bill to cut off their salary then so be it. I will not tolerate, this Subcommittee will not tolerate, Federal employees disobeying their superiors on a matter this serious and disobeying the Congress. That will not happen under my watch. Send me their names. Ms. Meissner. I understand. Mr. Rogers. And then send the bodies. Mr. Mollohan. reorganization Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Meissner, Mr. Moscato, and Ms. Ryan I join the Chairman in welcoming you here to the Subcommittee this afternoon. I would like to really reinforce the point the Chairman just made, Ms. Meissner, that the Subcommittee is disconcerted upon hearing that there are people within your organization who are not approaching your reorganization in a positive way. And I think the Chairman's strong remarks are really positive reinforcement of your efforts to effect those reorganizations and those new policy changes. We talked a little bit about the significant reorganization that you have undertaken, and your response was encouraging when you said you welcomed our participation. I'll bet you really do welcome the Congress looking very carefully down to the individual level. I join the Chairman in wanting to make whatever recalcitrance exists within your organization change, and to make the kinds of improvements that will allow you to do the kind of job that we know you want to do. personnel increases With regard to personnel, what increases in personnel are reflected in your budget request? Ms. Meissner. The budget request for fiscal year 1998 includes continuing substantial personnel increases. I believe that the number is about 1,500 additional personnel for 1998. It is also a request, however, that is asking for very important infrastructure investments so that our infrastructure growth keeps pace with our personnel growth. We have grown by about 7,000 in the last three years, which is an extraordinary effort where recruitment, hiring, and training are concerned. And we need to be certain that, that order of magnitude in personnel growth is matched by our ability to support the work of that personnel. So, in this budget, the personnel growth is not as dramatic as it has been in the past. We are looking for a balance in that growth to make sure that we don't get out of sync. border patrol agents Mr. Mollohan. Before I follow-up with that, I just want to emphasize that the issues that the Chairman was getting at during his questions are issues I am also concerned with. There will be a complete bipartisan effort to get the kind of information that he is after, and probably in large part a bipartisan support for the approach that he is suggesting. So, I hope that's helpful throughout your agency. With regard to the Border Patrol agents, I know that the authorization bill that we passed authorizes another 1,000 Border Patrol agents this year. Can INS assimilate another 1,000 Border Patrol agents in an orderly sort of way? How many do you think you need? How many do you think you could accommodate in fiscal year 1998? Ms. Meissner. The budget request for fiscal year 1998 that the Administration sent forward asks for 500 Border Patrol agents. We have asked for 500 rather than 1,000, which is in the authorization, or indeed the 1,000 that we did bring on last year, and I believe the year before, because of the balanced growth point that I just made note of. We have built up very, very quickly on the Southwest Border. By the end of this fiscal year, we will have increased the Border Patrol by 75 percent on the Southwest Border in the last four years. That is a huge, huge increase. Obviously, we have targeted those resources to the four corridors of heaviest illegal crossings historically, and will continue to do so until we get the control in those corridors, which we think we need. The need for infrastructure, not only the direct equipment that supports those agents, but the more indirect training, supervisory training, journeymen training, and the replacement of vehicle fleet. Although we have added many, many, many vehicles, the age of our overall fleet for the size of the organization is well behind what the replacement cycle ought to be. We have a great deal of equipment in this budget to continue to provide the sensors and the scopes and so forth that our Border Patrol needs. In other words, there is a great deal of support for Border Patrol efforts here that leverage the personnel, and without which the personnel cannot be effective, but we need to catch-up on the infrastructure. That's why we've asked for 500 in order to give ourselvesthe opportunity to catch up, while still putting people into the field as quickly as we possibly can. Mr. Mollohan. Do the other areas of your request support your catching up in what you're describing? Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. It's a very integrated budget request from that standpoint. Automation Systems Mr. Mollohan. The Inspector General raised some issues with regard to your automation systems. Do you care to comment on his observations? Where do you disagree and where do you agree with them? Ms. Meissner. Well, I have had the opportunity to speak with the Inspector General about that testimony because we believe that testimony was not fully accurate. We still need to see the Inspector General's report on those matters. If he can provide us with information that we don't presently have, obviously we will be very interested in receiving it. Mr. Mollohan. You think some of his judgments were wrong? Ms. Meissner. From what I know at this point, I do believe that some of his judgments were incorrect. Mr. Mollohan. What does that mean; what you know at this point? What judgments do you think are incorrect? Ms. Meissner. As I said, I haven't seen anything written. I have just read his testimony. But what I am most concerned about in that testimony is the IDENT system, which is extremely important to us. The IDENT system is on, or ahead of, schedule in terms of deployment. We have more than 80 sites where IDENT has been brought in; most of them along the Southwest Border. We are now moving IDENT into our detention centers and into other locations away from the border where it is important to us. By the end of this fiscal year, we will have completed more than, I think, 110 IDENT sites. There are some places, and this may be the source of the misunderstanding, that were on the original IDENT schedule where we have not been able to install IDENT. This is due to telephone lines or other external factors that we cannot control that have to do with the telephone companies and so forth with which we work on the Southwest Border. But where this has been the case, we have installed it in other places in order to distribute it as widely as we can throughout the Service. In other areas of automation, we continue to provide our offices with office automation, desktop equipment, and that has continued at a very, very fast pace throughout the Service. We have exceeded our own planning schedules in that effort. Each year, we have received industry awards for excellence of our various automation efforts. Just this last year, we received the Best of the Best Award from one of the industry groups for our INSPASS program at airports. The Olympics is a good example of where we are on the cutting edge of technology. It was our card technology and the expertise that we have with identity documents that were the source of the identity card that was used for the entire Olympic family and event this past year. The cooperation with the State Department here is extremely important. The Chairman made reference to this earlier, so let me just say a word about a program that's called DataShare, which is something that we are both very, very proud of. What DataShare does is create a seamless system between the State Department from point of visa issuance through the point of coming to the United States. In other words, now we are in about 15 consular posts issuing an immigrant visa electronically. That electronic record comes to us at the point of entry. We no longer create a separate paper file or a separate record. It becomes the basis of INS' record. That record carries the person through the various steps of adjustment that he might undertake once he is in the country. That will be extended to non-immigrants later this year. So, the automation effort is exceeding expectations. Communication Between Databases Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you just in the identification area, the area where you are trying to identify people coming into the country. This is a question for anybody who wants to speak to it. To what extent do your respective databases communicate with one another or can they be accessed by the other systems? In other words, to what extent can the IDENT system access the State Department's system that you've just described. Ms. Meissner. Now, that, I would have---- Ms. Ryan. Congressman, we get real time information from INS on deportations. Mr. Mollohan. No. That's not my question. I'm asking to what extent can your databases communicate to each other. To what extent can you access each others' databases? And if you cannot, explain why there isn't a need to do that. Ms. Ryan. Well, we can access each other's databases on Category One refusals, visa eligibility, and deportation. INS gets all of our information as fast as we can share. Mr. Mollohan. How do they get that information? Ms. Ryan. Electronically. I'm not a high-tech person. So, I can't explain to you how it works but it goes electronically. It's not a paper file. Mr. Mollohan. There is $68 million being spent on thisIDENT system, for example, and I don't know how much on your other systems. There is a lot of money being spent. The IAFIS system--there is a lot of money being spent on that at the FBI. We have asked questions here year after year about the ability to communicate back and forth, the ability to access databases, and questions trying to get at the issue of if we are creating duplicate capabilities, standing up parallel identification systems, and doing research and development on all of them. And I'm not saying that there isn't justification for doing that. I just haven't seen why there is. Most witnesses who come up here and testify as you are just doing, say well, gee, I don't know how you even access a database. I guess I'll just follow-up after this hearing with people who have a bit more technical appreciation, which is understandable. But it is also a policy issue when you're dealing with the millions and billions of dollars that this is all costing. And at the end of the day, us lay people who are up here in Congress, we're going to have a hard time, at least this one is. We're going to have a hard time understanding that if you catch a person for the third time with your IDENT system or the tenth time with your IDENT system coming across the border why you can't at the same time go into the FBI IAFIS system and find out if you have an even worse person. And if they aren't in IAFIS why INS can't create a separate database for you that you can access and use for the hundreds and millions of dollars you are spending on the IDENT system. So, maybe you can talk to this general inquiry that I am making here and give me some reassurance that there are reasons why you can't do that and you can't, can you? Ms. Ryan. At the time we began cooperating with each other we had some three million records in our database. We now have six million records because we've gotten all of this additional information, primarily from INS, electronically, but also by cable or other means from the other law enforcement agencies. One of the handicaps that we have in the State Department, particularly in consular work, is that we are not regarded as a law enforcement agency by the FBI. Mr. Mollohan. What is the significance of that? Ms. Ryan. Well, they are reluctant--they believe that we need legislation in order to allow us to have access to the information that they have electronically so we can get into the files and look. We are working with them. We're trying to overcome some of the concerns. If legislation is needed, we will request that legislation, but the story that we have between our two agencies is a very good story. We have really accomplished a tremendous amount thanks to the Commissioner's leadership. This information is not duplicative. This information is fully shared. We have it; both of us. We're not trying to get into there. We don't keep different records. They know what we have and we have the same information that they do on visa ineligibilities and on the deportees. Interfacing IDENT Fingerprint System With IAFIS Mr. Mollohan. Ms. Meissner, why wouldn't we consider interfacing the IDENT fingerprint system with IAFIS rather than establishing separate databases with the matching function of IDENT? Ms. Meissner. We not only would, that is the vision as it were for these two systems. The IDENT is a one print. Mr. Mollohan. I know that. Ms. Meissner. So, it's---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, so what? Ms. Meissner. Well, the point is that it is a system that is a lookout system, not a criminal history system. However, the FBI is moving toward ten times one. In other words, we only need the one print in order to be running our IDENT system as the lookout system. That's what serves our operational needs. Mr. Mollohan. So, you've got separate development costs. Ms. Meissner. No. Mr. Mollohan. Sure you do. Ms. Meissner. No. It's exactly the same technology. It's a question of whether you do it ten times or whether you just do it one time. Mr. Mollohan. That makes my point; doesn't it? If it is the exact same technology, why are we funding research and development for IDENT? Why don't you just copy it from the FBI? [The information follows:] [Pages 1087 - 1088--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Ms. Meissner. There are different purposes, mission purposes, that these data serve. Mr. Mollohan. I know they are different. Ms. Meissner. But they can be compatible. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask you---- Ms. Meissner. And they will be compatible. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I'll follow-up after the hearing because this is so technical, but I am going to find out about it. ACCESS OF CONSULAR OFFICES TO FBI INFORMATION Mr. Chairman, there was a report due to the Subcommittee by February 1st asking the FBI and the State Department to provide a report which would provide a plan which would ensure that the consular offices would have access to information currently available to the FBI in order to exclude criminal aliens from entering the United States. Has that report been submitted to the Congress? Ms. Ryan. No, sir. It has not yet. Mr. Mollohan. Why not? Ms. Ryan. We have sent over our latest draft to the FBI I think it was sometime last month. We are waiting to see what they think. Mr. Mollohan. When can the Committee expect it? Ms. Ryan. We are trying to get it out. So, I don't know. I can't tell you exactly because they have to review what we said to see whether they agree with us. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. When was it due? Mr. Mollohan. February 1st. Mr. Rogers. Of this year? Mr. Mollohan. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Who has the report right now? Ms. Ryan. Right now there is a draft with the FBI. Mr. Rogers. Are you waiting on their review? Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. You can't do anything until they review it? Ms. Ryan. No, sir. Mr. Rogers. Who has it at the FBI? Ms. Ryan. I don't know the specific name. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kolbe. VOTER REGISTRATION Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Meissner, Commissioner. It was wonderful having you travel with us to San Diego and to Arizona to look at some of the border problems. I think we both agree that it was a very worthwhile visit for all of us that went and for the Members and staff who were able to go. I hope this Subcommittee will be able to do the same. I think for me the best thing was to see it in a coordinated fashion to deal with the issues of law enforcement that touch both on the Justice Department, as well as the Treasury Department, Customs, and Immigration, INS. So, I think it was very, very worthwhile. Ms. Meissner. Thank you. Mr. Kolbe. We both found some useful things. You certainly said to me you found it to be a useful trip. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the issue of voter registration. There is one question I did want to ask because it related I think to a question I asked when you were here with the Attorney General. You said that INS had not discussed the possibility of gathering voter registration information on the N400 form that is filled out by individuals seeking naturalization. But since that time there has been a memorandum submitted dated May 1st of last year by Louis Crocetti, the Associate Commissioner which indeed does say they're going to revise the form to ask for or to include information about voter registration. It's not clear exactly what they mean by it unless the revised form, N400, will incorporate forms N600 and N643, and include data collection for voter registration. Is it safe to say that the statements you made to this Subcommittee before are not operative at this point? Ms. Meissner. I'm actually unfamiliar with what you've just cited. Mr. Kolbe. I'm sorry. I thought it came from your people. It was submitted to us. I'm not exactly sure when it was submitted to the Subcommittee here. It's entitled Naturalization Process Changes, dated May 1st. And maybe Mr. Crocetti, since he is here would answer but it's a memo to all Regional Directors, District Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Service Center Directors. Let me just read this. The Service determines the current naturalization application form. N400 is too complex, confusing, and needs revision. As a result, the working group is revising form N400 to make it more user friendly. The revised form, N400, will incorporate forms N600 and N643, and include data collection for voter registration. Ms. Meissner. I'll have to find out. I'm sorry. I'm just not familiar with what that refers to. Mr. Kolbe. You don't know anything then whether this is-- would you care to comment on whether it is in the works? Is it still being done? Have we revised that form to include that voter registration information? Ms. Meissner. That may have been an idea that was circulating internally one way or another. As I said, I will follow up and see what it refers to. I believe my statements made before the Subcommittee here earlier are accurate to the best of my knowledge and I will restate them. We do not, to my knowledge, and certainly not as a matter of policy, collect voter registration information. Mr. Kolbe. Okay. Again, as I say, you are going to revise the form to include that data collection. So, I would like to know what that---- Ms. Meissner. I will follow up on that and I'll get you an answer. [The information follows:] [Pages 1091 - 1093--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] NUMBER OF AGENTS Mr. Kolbe. On the number of agents this Congress has said we think you should have, I've listened to your testimony here and the answers that you gave to Mr. Mollohan about it, but I'm still not sure that I'm quite satisfied. You did manage to incorporate 1,000 new agents this last year, am I not right, or close to it? Ms. Meissner. Yes. As a matter of fact, actually with attrition we have hired and trained more than 1,000 agents. Mr. Kolbe. What is it that makes it impossible for you to do that this coming year, in this next fiscal year? Ms. Meissner. It is not impossible to do it. It is a judgment as to the best type of growth for the agency in this 1998 budget. As we all know, this agency has grown in very, very large increments. In order for that growth to be effective and properly managed, we need to be sure that there is a balance between personnel and infrastructure. The judgment that we reached for this budget was that the proper growth in the Border Patrol as against other needs for border enforcement, not as against other needs in the agency, was a request for 500 Border Patrol agents and additional infrastructure. Mr. Kolbe. Well, we've seen the results of having those thousand agents. I mean you and I saw them together down there. It really is having an impact along the border. Ms. Meissner. It is, but it is also, as we saw, in combination with the proper package. Mr. Kolbe. Yes. Ms. Meissner. In combination with a variety of other factors. And it's that putting together of the package. It's the comprehensive approach that makes this effective. Mr. Kolbe. But the reality is that this really is a congressional mandate. This is a congressional direction, isn't it? I know you are telling us about this, but have you gone back to the authorizing committees and said, hey, we don't like the law you passed? We want you to change it. We don't want to have a thousand new agents. Ms. Meissner. Well, the level for the growth of the Border Patrol that the President set several years ago was to reach a level of 7,000 by fiscal year 1998. This budget, the fiscal year 1998 budget, takes us over the 7,000 to 7,300. As I said, it was a judgment call on what the best way was to achieve our border enforcement. Mr. Kolbe. Commissioner Meissner, what we're talking about with a thousand agents is to comply with congressional direction that was signed into law by the President. Ms. Meissner. Obviously, I know that there is concern in the Congress, both in the authorizing committees and obviously amongst some in the Appropriations Committees and in the border states. As I said, it is a judgment that we reached within the Administration. We clearly have shown that we can effectively bring on 1,000 agents. We have done that for I believe two years now. We have moved those people in as quickly as we possibly can. At this point, for fiscal year 1998, we felt that our most important responsibility with growth and with the budget is to use these dollars wisely. We've done, I believe, a very good job in using the dollars wisely. But we are, we believe, in a precarious position at this point between personnel and what is needed to support the personnel properly. INFRASTRUCTURE Frankly, I would give you the example that when we talk about infrastructure and weaknesses in infrastructure, it's infrastructure weakness that has created most of our serious management problems. The fingerprint issue is a good example. So, these infrastructure needs don't sound as appealing. It's clearly much more satisfying to people in the agency to get additional personnel. But we are trying very hard to be responsible and serious about this. This was the best mix that we thought we could come up with for the 1998 budget. Mr. Kolbe. I do appreciate the infrastructure concerns and problems. One of the reasons that I'm concerned with your request for only 500, they're all, I believe, they're all in the Border Patrol and your request includes no new border inspectors--and if I could just finish. I know that issue was addressed in a letter to you from Members of the U.S. Senate from border states. I know they are still awaiting your reply to that. I'm concerned to the fact that there is increasing traffic at the border. So, the legitimate traffic is not going to get processed. Ms. Meissner. Well, we, of course, have been very, very committed to inspector growth along with Border Patrol agent growth. As you know, we have argued very strongly for the interconnections between the two; that you can't have one without the other. We have now increased our inspector force on the Southwest Border by 100 percent in the last four years. Those people are still coming on. There are people that are still coming on and being trained. We are still realizing, and yet to be realizing, all the positive affects of that. When I talk about infrastructure, we are at the point frankly, where we don't have a place to house all of these people. We don't have enough physical facilities for continued growth of that order of magnitude each year upon each year. So, we are trying to keep it in balance. We are trying to keep it responsible and yet very aggressive growth. CHECKPOINT SELECTION CRITERIA Mr. Kolbe. One last question, Mr. Chairman. You and I have had some discussions on the issue of the checkpoint onInterstate 19, north of Nogales and those discussions have continued I think. Could you just tell me, recently the checkpoint was moved to a different location a few miles north, a few kilometers north. And it has been closed I think you said for purposes of doing some training. You are putting all of your people in training. I just wondered if you could tell me what the criteria is for how you select where a checkpoint is going to be and how long one of these temporary checkpoints remain at a specific location? The previous one down at Peck Canyon was there for a year or more. I'm just wondering if you could tell me what the criteria is for this. Ms. Meissner. The checkpoint locations and the determinations of checkpoint locations are judgments that are in the hands of our Border Patrol Chiefs. I mean the locations are field operating decisions that are made. Now, there are certain legal parameters that need to be observed. Checkpoints can only be a certain number of miles inside of a country. You can't put up a checkpoint for immigration purposes in Peoria, Illinois or something like that. But consistent with the legal standard from an operational standpoint, that is a judgment that we leave to our Border Patrol Chiefs. They obviously change them or move them around based on their experience. The specific I-19 checkpoint that we're talking about in Arizona obviously is one where we are trying to find the proper balance between the community's concerns, legitimate concerns about traffic movement, et cetera, on the Border Patrol's operational judgment, and where they can best do their enforcement work. Mr. Kolbe. All right. I'm sure our discussions on this will continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. contact with fbi regarding convicted felons who are non-citizens Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have to tell you that I've done a lot of town meetings over the district work period. And there is nothing that makes me or the constituents at home more irate than when they hear that hundreds of thousands of people have been made citizens of this country without a background check. There are now tens of thousands of convicted felons made citizens of this country because there was a big push to get people registered last year. There is nothing that outrages those people at home any more than this. I think anyone who knows about it can't believe it, and I wish we didn't have to believe it. Have you had any consultation with the FBI to find out how long it will take to find all of these people that are convicted felons that are now citizens? Ms. Meissner. As we began to talk about earlier, the review of last year's cases of possible convicted felons is on a very aggressive timetable. Now, I must say that it is inaccurate to say that there are tens of thousands of convicted felons who have been made citizens. There are 71,000 who have an FBI record that is subject to review to determine whether they should not have been naturalized. But as difficult and as wrong as these errors have been, I think it's also very important that we try to be as factual as possible. It is a thorough review that is underway. It is being done by outside parties so that there is no question about the credibility of it. And we will settle this. locating the 71,000 who have an fbi record Mr. Latham. Have you had any conversation with the FBI as to the number of man-hours that they're going to have to put forth in the next years to find these people that are gone? And incidentally, by your own standards, about 18 percent of these people are normally rejected for citizenship. And there would be tens of thousands who would normally not have received citizenship if they hadn't been greased through the system without a background check. Whether they are convicted felons or not, which most of them are, have you had any conversations with the FBI---- Ms. Meissner. Yes. It is the INS' responsibility to locate these people. We have the authority and we have the responsibility to locate these people. Mr. Latham. Do you have the authority to go after citizens? Ms. Meissner. If they were improperly naturalized, it is our responsibility and we will revoke their naturalization. Mr. Latham. But who is going to find them? Ms. Meissner. It is our responsibility to find them and locate them. We have their addresses, and we have their records. We have the jurisdiction over them. We will revoke their naturalization if they were improperly naturalized. Mr. Latham. If I remember correctly in your testimony, you had identified 20 people and tracked them down. It had taken a period, if I remember, of four to six months to find 20 people. And that was your testimony. Ms. Meissner. There are 69 people that are under revocation proceedings at the present time. There will be an additional number that will be served with revocation proceedings when this review is complete. We expect that is what will happen. The review of those criminal cases should be completed by the end of April. We believe that we will have the report by the end of May and then the revocation will begin at that time. border patrol agent attrition rate Mr. Latham. Okay. On the Border Patrol situation, there apparently is a tremendous turnover of agents, and that probably has a lot to do with the jobs they have to do. What is the turnover rate as far as the border agents themselves? Why is it so high? Maybe it's not a concern. Ms. Meissner. Of course it is a concern. Mr. Latham. A high rate. Ms. Meissner. The attrition rate is different along different sectors of the border. The attrition rate is the highest in California. We believe that's a combination of the California environment having been the most highly stressed environment for our Border Patrol, as well as the highest cost of living area along the Southwest Border. This year we actually are seeing lower attrition rates than we have seen for the last several years. We are actively reviewing the process, and we have looked very carefully at attrition. We've brought in some outside experts to do extensive interviewing of our people to be certain what steps we might take as an agency to have the best retention that we possibly can. We don't really know why we're seeing less attrition this year. But there are a number of things that we have begun to do in order to get the optimum retention. In the first place, you want your people, your good people, in particular, to move forward. There are real promotion opportunities within the Immigration Service now because of our growth. There are real promotion opportunities for Border Patrol agents to move into supervisory positions, which there had not been in years past. That is a very positive thing, because it gives people the incentive to stay. In addition, we have been working on what we call a series of worklife issues. Those worklife issues include making it absolutely certain that we are properly selecting people in the first place, making certain that their families are aware of the conditions that they are going to face, helping families and young spouses to be in a supportive environment so that they are not so caught off guard by their spouses working into the deep hours of the night, et cetera. As a result, I think that we actually are feeling somewhat encouraged about our ability to deal with the attrition rate and the retention rate in positive ways. state department retention rates at foreign locations Mr. Latham. Secretary Ryan, I had a conversation with the Inspector General a couple of days ago and talked about the issuance of visas in countries where they have trouble retaining people at the Consulate. I was amazed that sometimes the spouses of State Department people have to come in to help at places like Nigeria that have a tremendous workload. Spouses also help in certain countries with major drug trafficking concerns. What's the answer to that? Should we be splitting out the administrative part of the State Department from the rest of it? Everyone seems to want to someday become an ambassador to a country. There is not much interest in the administrative side. Ms. Ryan. Well, I'd have to point happily at Ambassador Swing in Haiti and Ambassador Render in Zambia who are two Consular Officers who are Ambassadors so that the possibility does indeed exist for people to move up through the---- Mr. Latham. And that's why we can't keep anybody in these places. Ms. Ryan. We do have difficulty in staffing our positions. Our workload has grown tremendously. We have been unable to bring in a sufficient number of junior officers because of our reduced budget situation. So, we have developed a series of alternative hiring and staffing our consular positions, including spousal employment, excursion tours for Civil Service employees in the State Department to go overseas for a tour or two, and excursion tours for Foreign Service specialists like information management specialists, or other types of administrative specialists. All of them receive the same consular training as our officers do. Should they not pass the consular training course, they are not then allowed to perform the work. My own preference would be, if we had the resources for it, to have only Foreign Service officers doing this work. But we don't have the resources. So, we have developed these different programs. They are working well, to my knowledge, to date. We don't have any serious complaints except that they are generally inexperienced. Mr. Latham. It is my understanding that there really isn't so much a problem with the number of people available, but it's the number of people willing to take jobs in certain countries. Ms. Ryan. That is a part of it, very definitely. But it is a combination of factors. The bottom line being that we really don't have enough people. Yes, Lagos, Nigeria would always be difficult to staff, clearly, because it's a very high fraud environment, a very heavy workload environment. Some posts are desirable. Some posts aren't. Mr. Latham. Are there any proposals on the table today, or anything going on in the State Department, to address this as far as trying to get some answers as to the possibility of having two different career tracks; one being administrative? Ms. Ryan. Well, we have talked about that. I personally would oppose that. I prefer a cohesive Foreign Service. I think that's better. I don't think we should have a blue collar and a white collar Foreign Service. The blue collar being consular and administrative, and the white collar being political and economic. I would really not want to see that. That was what it was like when I came into the Service 31 years ago. We got away from that because the opportunities weren't there for all officers, because certain categories of jobs were looked down on as not being worthwhile to do. Over the course of my career, we have largely overcome that. I personally fought against this discrimination even before I came into this job. I don't think there is anything more important that the Department of State does than deciding who gets a visa to come to this country or who gets a U.S. passport as an American citizen. So, I think that's very, very important work. I want that done by the same kinds of people who are doing all political analysis. Mr. Latham. So, it's more of a case of stereotyping in the Department. Ms. Ryan. Precisely. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. fingerprint identification Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Now, in addition to the naturalization problems we've discussed heretofore, all of the FBI checks and the scrubbing of an applicant's record depends upon, frankly, the fingerprint that they submit withtheir application, right? Ms. Meissner. It depends on a variety of things, but the fingerprint is crucial. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Well, I mean we've got all of this machinery setup; the IAFIS system, the worldwide fingerprint ID, the machine readable visa. Ms. Meissner. It's the reliable factor. Mr. Rogers. It's the reliable piece. So the integrity of that fingerprint is all important, correct? Ms. Meissner. We need to check the fingerprint. That's exactly right. Mr. Rogers. Now, it used to be that INS itself, when an applicant applied to be a citizen, INS officers did the fingerprinting for security reasons. It is very plain why you would want to do that. Now, you rarely do that. During Citizenship USA last year, anybody could take a fingerprint, without restriction. Even though both the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office had both reported in 1994 that, that practice was extremely flawed. For example, an applicant that had a criminal record, all he had to do was find somebody else's fingerprint and escape the FBI checklist using that fingerprint. That print would come up clean. He's in. I know you've put some regulations in place now that require people that take the fingerprints to go through a certification process, but here are some of the ones just in California, that apparently are doing the fingerprint taking. And there are hundreds of them. I'm just looking through the list; Pooky's Post and Parcel is doing fingerprints for you; Fast Photo does fingerprints for you and they don't charge anything; Freeman's Hallmark in Pasadena charges $19; and on, and on, and on, including Hermandad Mexicana Nationale. That rings a bell. That's the group that last year was now made famous for organizing non- citizens to vote. There are immigration lawyers representing people applying for citizenship authorized by your agency to take their fingerprints. Now, do they have a conflict of interest or not? I can imagine it probably wouldn't cost 33-cents to have two- thirds of these fingerprint takers of yours fake a fingerprint. So, whatever safeguards the fingerprint process should have is being undercut because of an idiotic lack of requirements on your designated fingerprint service agencies. Now, under your new regulations, the commentors say, quoting from the Federal Register, that you allow convicted felons of aggravated crimes to take fingerprints. How can we clean this up? Ms. Meissner. Well, the Immigration Service has for years no longer been itself taking people's fingerprints. That is not something that originated in the program over the last year or two. It's been since the 1980s. Mr. Rogers. I don't care if it started in 1812. It's crazy. Ms. Meissner. Well, the designated fingerprint service is a considerable improvement over the system that it replaced. Mr. Rogers. Your own Inspector General of the Justice Department in 1994 told you, fix it. The GAO told you in 1994, fix it. Ms. Meissner. That's right. Mr. Rogers. And here we are today. Ms. Meissner. The designated fingerprint entities are the ``fix its.'' They are the fix it that has been suggested by the Inspector General and the GAO. The designated fingerprint service provides a certified entity where all of the people who take the fingerprint are trained to do so. That addresses concerns both from the standpoint of dependability and from the standpoint of reliability. Mr. Rogers. Can you assure me that they're not taking bribes to fix them? Ms. Meissner. They are being monitored. Mr. Rogers. By whom? Ms. Meissner. They are being monitored by an outside contractor. Mr. Rogers. Who is the contractor? Ms. Meissner. I will get you the name of the contractor who does regular and unscheduled inspections of the fingerprint services in order to be certain that the procedures that they have been trained on are being followed. [The information follows:] Contractor for Inspections of Fingerprint Services USATREX is the contractor that conducts regular and unscheduled inspections of the fingerprint services to ensure that the procedures implemented are being followed. Electronically Scanned Fingerprints Ms. Meissner. Now, we recognized that this is not where we ultimately want to be. Where we ultimately want to be is with electronically scanned fingerprints. We and the FBI have a methodology and a time schedule to replace the current system with a better one. Under that system, when the person actually comes to us for their interview, we will be able to electronically scan their fingerprints as they sit before us and compare them with those that had already been submitted, thereby ensuring their accuracy. That system is, as I say, on a time table and will be put into effect within the next two years. Mr. Rogers. Well, we're appropriating the funds to the FBI for their system. And I'm telling you, it will not happen in two years. I mean we're providing money as fast as we can, but it will likely not happen in two years. Ms. Meissner. Well, we will be beginning to phase that in. Mr. Rogers. What are you going to do in the meantime? You're going to process 1.8 million applications this year. I mean, the horse is going to be out of the barn before you get around to that gizmo. Ms. Meissner. Of course there are cross-checks that occur where these people are concerned. After all, these people have had many other contacts with the Immigration Service. Use of INS or Other Law Enforcement Entities to Take Fingerprints Mr. Rogers. Why don't you just use the INS or a Federal, State, or a local law enforcement entity to take the fingerprints, people that we know? Ms. Meissner. We have discussed this with the local law enforcement community. The local law enforcement community is not only unwilling to take this on from the standpoint of workload, they also do not have police officers take fingerprints. Fingerprints that are taken by local law enforcement organizations are taken by clerical and non-professional personnel because it is a time consuming process. After a great deal of effort, it has been determined that the designated fingerprint services offer the best way to proceed. As I said the current system will be replaced by an electronic scanning system. We and the FBI are moving forward on that as quickly as we can, recognizing that it is more reliable. Mr. Rogers. What would it take in terms of money or anything else for the fingerprinting to be done only by INS people? Ms. Meissner. I would have to give you an estimate on that. I don't know that off the top of my head. Mr. Rogers. How soon can you let us know? Ms. Meissner. As soon as we can. It will take a little work. Mr. Rogers. We can't wait too long. Ms. Meissner. We'll try to get it to you within---- Mr. Rogers. We're going to mark up a bill here in about a month. Ms. Meissner. Well, I was going to suggest two weeks; if we could at least have that. Mr. Rogers. Two weeks is fine. Convicted Felons Taking Fingerprints Mr. Rogers. Now, are you still going to let convicted felons take these fingerprints in the meantime. Ms. Meissner. I must say I don't know what you're referring to. I'll have to find out about that. Mr. Rogers. Well, there is a regulation that was issued, published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1996. It's an INS regulation that allows people to take fingerprints. And it allows convicted felons---- Ms. Meissner. I don't know the answer to that. I'll find out. Mr. Rogers. Somehow it doesn't seem right. That's what you were going to say. Ms. Meissner. That's right. It certainly doesn't. Mr. Rogers. I agree. It's awful. And in the meantime, I just know that in this list of fingerprint takers in Los Angeles, everybody from immigration lawyers to Pooky's Post and Parcel, that somewhere in there we're not getting good fingerprints. And people are sneaking into the system. I don't know what you're going to do about it; do you? Ms. Meissner. You've named a few of the designated fingerprint entities that sound as if they are trivial. Maybe they are trivial. I would not want to reach that conclusion. We have worked very carefully to try to determine who would be providers of this service. It's a part of the overall effort to have the proper and effective balance between privatizing certain functions and staffing up government agencies to carry out functions. Mr. Rogers. When it comes to finding felons trying to enter this country, I want the most reliable, secure information there is, even if it takes a Federal employee. You can't trivialize that. That cannot be played around with. We're talking about the most important and valuable thing this country can give a person and that's citizenship. Ms. Meissner. I agree with that. Mr. Rogers. And if you can't do it, we'll have to do it for you. So, make up your mind. You either do it or we will do it for you. Ms. Meissner. I agree with that, but I am telling you that the designated fingerprint program, although it is not the perfect answer, is a far improved answer over what had been decades long practice. It is a program in which there is careful monitoring and careful training, certification, and revocation. Mr. Rogers. I disagree. It was formerly done by INS officials. It used to be we only allowed INS people to do the fingerprinting. Ms. Meissner. That was a long time ago. Mr. Rogers. I don't care how long ago it was. I don't believe this system is working properly. I think you're letting in a lot of people that have criminal records because they're faking fingerprints. I think it's absolutely the biggest sieve in the whole system. And you've got to clean it up. Now, if you don't want to do that, we'll do it for you. Ms. Meissner. That's not what I said. I do want to do that and we have a plan to do it. Mr. Rogers. Which is? Ms. Meissner. It is simply not a plan that can go into place tomorrow. Mr. Rogers. You're going to wait on the FBI to have the fingerprint analysis machines which will not be here for a long time. That's not an acceptable answer. Ms. Meissner. There are a series of interim steps moving up to that and a series of other measures that are in place. COST OF INS EMPLOYEES ONLY DOING FINGERPRINTS Mr. Rogers. What I want to hear from you immediately is what it would cost to have INS people only, take fingerprints; INS or other law enforcement agencies that are recognized. Pooky may be a wonderful fellow; no doubt he is, but I just don't know. Ms. Meissner. Let me just give you a back of the envelope estimate and we will refine this. Thirty percent of the designated fingerprint entities are law enforcement agencies. The preliminary estimate on what it would cost for the Immigration Service to do the fingerprinting is $50 million. Mr. Rogers. Who says that? You just said a moment ago it would take two weeks to determine that. Ms. Meissner. I just said I will give you a back of the envelope estimate which was just passed to me. And I said that we would refine that. Mr. Rogers. Can we have some more illumination of that estimate from whomever helped with the number? Identify yourself for the record. Ms. Sale. My name is Chris Sale. We've done some very preliminary work looking at the timing and how many staff we would have to hire. That estimate basically looks at INS taking three million sets of prints a year, because it's more than just the citizenship prints that I imagine we'd have to worry about. But it does not fully constitute a real analysis because we haven't looked at facilities and things of that nature. But it is a very, very large number and one that would really, I think, need to be scrubbed thoroughly before we gave you a final estimate. Mr. Rogers. Scrub it thoroughly and get me the scrubbed number in two weeks. And I don't want the reverse of a Washington Monument figure here. Ms. Meissner. We share an interest in this and are absolutely committed to having a reliable, credible program. We are trying to do it as quickly as we possibly can, recognizing, as I've said before, that we inherited an inherently insufficient, weak system for it. Mr. Rogers. I agree; you did, but that doesn't excuse you and I for allowing it to stay that way. Ms. Meissner. And I agree with you. INS REORGANIZATION Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to talk about the INS organizational structure and the effectiveness of the so-called reorganization. In Citizenship USA, you and the top managers of that program say that you had no idea that more than 20 percent of those being naturalized had not undergone a complete criminal background check. So far, no one has been held accountable for that failure. In the task force visit of this Congress to Miami, you say that you were also deceived and lied to by your own employees; had no idea about that deception. In addition, it is a widespread impression within INS, one that's been communicated to the Congress by personnel in all ranks of the agency, that the reorganization is a failure. Morale in the field is at a very low ebb. There is little confidence that field managers will have any input in the selection process of new key personnel. Can you tell me that the reorganization is a success or it is some degree of a success? Or am I being too pessimistic here? Ms. Meissner. The reorganization that we put into place in 1994 moved us in the right direction. It was an incomplete effort which we are now completing and I made reference to that in my opening statement and to our conversation earlier this week. We will be giving you a written plan and explaining it in more detail as soon as we have done the proper clearances within the Justice Department and the Executive Branch. The overall idea of the reorganization was to create a line management structure that could, in a complex high volume work organization, move the decision-making and the accountability as close to where the work takes place as possible. We did not, in my opinion, give our regions sufficient tools to do that. We will now do so. We have also had some serious problems of understanding roles and responsibilities which we are attempting to clarify. Our forthcoming plan will provide clarification in much more direct terms. Mr. Rogers. Would you agree that under the current structure, there is inadequate communication of information from field officers to the highest management and program officers in Headquarters? Ms. Meissner. There has been inadequate communication. I call it the lack of bubble up. We don't have the kind of two- way dialogue that I think a healthy organization needs to have. We have some ideas in mind on how to address that. That is not necessarily all, a part of the problem is structural. A part of that also has to do with other factors. As far as morale is concerned, I think that it's not fair to make a blanket judgment about morale in the field. There is extraordinarily high morale in some parts of this agency. That morale comes with a number of factors. It comes from the fact that we are finally growing in the right direction. There is a strong sense among many of our field people that for the first time in a long time there is a clear sense of direction. There is a vision of where we are going and that vision is the proper one from the standpoint of our mission and of carrying out our duties effectively. Our people, for the first time, have the equipment and the support that they have been needing in order to carry out their jobs. They have computers. They have cars. They have technology. They are able to act as professionals in many ways in which they were deprived of in the past. Now, that is not universally the case. We have certainly not finished this by any means. Where we have applied our efforts, our working staff are positive about the changes that they have seen. ACCOUNTABILITY Mr. Rogers. Would you agree that under the current structure it's difficult to hold agency officials accountable for specific actions? Ms. Meissner. I do agree with that. It has been difficult to do that. Mr. Rogers. What steps are being taken to reform that structure and address other management problems within the agency? What are we doing? Ms. Meissner. We are taking a series of steps. One of the steps is what we've just been talking about. We're going to refine and make some major steps forward organizationally. The INSpect program is an extremely good example of what it is that we have been trying to accomplish. An audit that is now taking place in the naturalization program. The information from that audit will be used it for direct accountability purposes. I intend for that to serve as an example, in general, of the kind of rigor that we expect throughout our programs, and not simply in the naturalization program where field procedures are concerned. I think that the Miami incident and the actions that wetook where the Miami incident was concerned have sent a very, very strong signal throughout this organization. And it has not been an implicit signal. It's been an explicit signal. It's one that we have talked directly with senior managers about. And they understand that this kind of performance is simply unacceptable. Mr. Rogers. Why have we not seen that same kind of decisiveness in Citizenship USA? Ms. Meissner. When we know who is to be held accountable we will hold them accountable. Mr. Rogers. Shall I tell you? Ms. Meissner. I would prefer to come to you with my conclusions first, if you wouldn't mind. Mr. Rogers. I just think that some heads ought to roll because this is a massive failure. And it's clear. I don't know where it reaches, but I will not rest my little body until we reach the final place, wherever that may be. But right now, it's in your agency. When will we see the list of people that you're going to hold accountable for the gross violations in Citizenship USA? Ms. Meissner. We need for this audit to be completed in order to know how to fix the accountability. Mr. Rogers. When? Ms. Meissner. The major part of the audit should be complete. I believe the results should be available to us by the end of May. There will be, as we talked about earlier, a sub-effort of that taking place with the quality assurance piece report that we have just received. INS selection process Mr. Rogers. All right. Now, what changes in your selection process are you looking at that would ensure field managers have some input and therefore a stake in the new management? Ms. Meissner. We have actually reallocated some of the selection authorities in order to return to field managers authority in some categories of personnel where it had not existed before. We do in the case of senior personnel selections, in fact, involve the field in the selection process. Those personnel selections go through something that we call the Executive Resources Board. And all of the Regional Directors, depending on what region we're choosing people for, always sit in on those discussions. The recruitment that we are presently undertaking for Regional Directors and several other senior positions will involve a recruitment both within the INS as well as a broader career recruitment throughout the government and among other communities where we might find qualified people when we make those selections. I think that you had a good idea when we talked earlier this week about bringing in some field people to sit in on the decision and we will do that. staffing of investigative positions Mr. Rogers. Now, staffing. The latest staffing and training reports from the Department show that INS is 400 investigators below the level we provided. Last year, you were about 200 below this funded level. And that was a part of the reason we didn't provide additional investigators for worksite enforcement. Your training report also shows that you intend to only bring on about 120 new special agents this year. Why are we so far behind on this hiring? Ms. Meissner. We are not far behind on the hiring of investigators. What we are dealing with is a longstanding problem between authorized positions and funded positions that dates back to the 1980s. That is a discrepancy that we have tried in other Congresses to address. And we have never been successful in getting it reconciled in the budget. Mr. Rogers. These are funded positions we're talking about. Ms. Meissner. My understanding is that the discrepancy is between authorized positions and funded positions. Mr. Rogers. My information from your office shows the funded positions from Department of Justice, I'm talking funded positions, you are some 400 below the funded level from 1,787 to 2,190. Am I reading the numbers wrong? Ms. Meissner. Well, if that's the information you have then I'll have to look into it further. And I believe that we just received a call around noon on this point. So, perhaps we didn't understand the question properly. We will follow up on it and will get you the information. [The information follows:] Funded Versus Authorized Special Agent Positions The FY 1997 appropriation enacted for INS provided a total of 2,190 authorized special agent positions (direct and reimbursable). Due to personnel compensation funding reductions taken by INS over the last 15 years, as explained below, the number of funded special agent positions in INS is 2,023 for FY 1997, a difference of 167. This 167 is the amount of unfunded special agent positions that INS has carried in its authorized position total, for which INS lacks the funding to fill. The INS has set an end-of-year goal of having all of the 2,023 funded positions on board by September 30. The disparity between the authorized and funded number of special agent and other INS positions has been a long-standing problem. As early as FY 1982, INS attempted to correct the disparity by requesting a total reduction of 605 positions spread across several programs. Using the Investigations Program as an example, where the vast majority of our special agent positions are found, the FY 1982 budget request to Congress included a reduction of 81 permanent positions for this program. The purpose of the reduction was to maintain employment at the current on-board level at that time. Instead of approving the position reduction, the Congress added 188 positions and reduced funding by a net of $453,000 in the Investigations Program as part of an overall $10 million INS- wide reduction. This action created a funding shortfall for positions. In FY 1989, INS again attempted to correct the personnel funding shortfall by requesting personnel funding in the Investigations Program to correct the problem. This was not included in the President's budget request. However, the Congress cut 145 work years and $1,673,000 from the Investigations Program, further widening the disparity between the authorized and funded level of positions in the program. A year ago, INS began an initiative, that has just been completed, to reconcile all funded positions in INS. This resulted in a Table of Organization (TO) that reflects by program, by account, by location and by position type, the number of funded positions INS can support. This shows that a number of unfunded positions exist when the TO is compared to the authorized position level. It also highlights differences in how the positions are deployed programmatically and how they are budgeted. The Department has been briefed on this analysis and INS will soon be submitting a reprogramming request to the Department to realign positions as displayed in the budget with those in the TO. This reprogramming will correct any disparities between funded and authorized positions, as displayed in the budget. Mr. Rogers. Well, these are funded positions that you asked for and we gave the money for. And they're not being hired. Ms. Meissner. There may be a definitional issue here because it may be the case that the way in which the Justice Department keeps the records on this has to do with what we would have thought of as authorized positions as compared to-- the terminology we use. Mr. Rogers. From your own records, what does it show? What's your position on this hiring from your records? Ms. Meissner. From our records, what we have done in the last year in order to deal in a straightforward fashion with this type of question for investigations, as well as for our other occupations, is we have gone through an exercise to develop a table of organization in which we have actually counted every single person in every single office. We created a table of organization for each office and for each occupation so that we know where they are and we can track hiring against that table of organization. My information is that where special agents are concerned, we have, as of March 15th, 1,819 special agents on-board. We need to add 204 to reach the table of organization number by the end of the year of 2,023. Our hiring is on track to do that. Now, if there are discrepancies there, we will have to sit down with staff to work it out. Worksite enforcement Mr. Rogers. The reason why I bring it up is because the 1997 Act that we passed included an increase of $536 million for INS; $9 million more than you requested. We gave you more than you asked for. Despite that increase, INS still publicly complained that they didn't get everything they asked for. Specifically they said that we didn't fund their worksite initiative. In 1996, we provided 300 new positions, primarily investigators for INS worksite enforcement. We didn't add funding in 1997 because at that time, you were 230 investigators below the ceiling. You had the money, but you didn't hire them. And we weren't convinced that the worksite strategy would work because you couldn't demonstrate you were deporting aliens. We recently asked for information on how many of the aliens removed by INS in 1996 were the result of the worksite enforcement initiative. INS said we can't provide that because you didn't track it. And the staffing story gets worse. The latest staffing reports, as I've said, indicates you're still about 400 investigators below your ceiling and your training report only shows you're planning training for only 120 new ones this year. Now, the 1998 budget request includes another request of $7.8 million for 73 positions for worksite enforcement. How can we justify adding that much more money when you're still 400 below what we've already funded for you? That's the question I have. Ms. Meissner. Well, I come back to the answer as I understand it. We are indeed hiring investigators funded in 1996 because the training schedule and hiring schedule was such that those were at the end of the process. But the problem of the 400 and the discrepancy is an historical problem in the budget as between funded level and the authorized position level. I can't give you any more information than that right now because I don't know the answer. So, this is something where we will need to sit down and work with you to try to determine the answer. Let me simply say that we are obviously, in all areas, including special agents, committed to hiring up fully to the levels that were funded and to using those personnel effectively. The lags have been training lags, but they have not been weaknesses in the hiring process. Our hiring process has worked well. Mr. Rogers. Well, we're having trouble deciphering numbers. I don't have this trouble with the FBI or the DEA or the Department of Justice or other agencies. But I can't ever seem to get some hard cold numbers out of INS on some of these things. Steve Colgate. Mr. Colgate. Maybe I can help. It is my understanding that we will receive from Immigration Service a reprogramming aligning the authorized level of positions versus the funded workyears that can support those positions. I've been informed that we may have the same type of issue that we had previously when we were dealing with Border Patrol that we had an authorized level that did not have sufficient funded workyears to support, that this reprogramming will align--the authorized positions compared to what were funded positions as outlined in INS' table of organization. We will work with the Committee, once I receive this reprogramming, on what the issues are here. Mr. Rogers. Well, we know how many positions we've funded. There is no doubt about that. We know that. You know that. I'm not talking about authorizations here. I'm talking about funded, appropriated FTEs. Mr. Colgate. It may be the same type of situation that was experienced with the Border Patrol--where either pay raises or across the board type of reductions--reduced the number of funded positions. We did not sufficiently reduce the number of authorized positions. So, that we may have in part, only in part, a situation where there may be an overstatement of the authorized positions. I think your point still follows the notion of what is your authorized--versus the funded FTEs. With redeployment, those types of positions do not require training. So, they wouldn't necessarily show up in the training report. But I have been informed that we may have the same type of issues in the investigations programs that we experienced previously I think in the 1994-1995 time frame with Border Patrol. Mr. Rogers. All right. But you will get back with us. Mr. Colgate. Yes, sir. deportation of illegal alien population Mr. Rogers. Now, let me shift to another topic quickly. By recent INS estimates there are five million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S.; the same peak level of illegal immigrants in the country as 1986 which was the reason why we passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. We've given you triple the resources you had in 1986. And despite these unprecedented increases in funding, a 105 percent increase over the last four years, your strategy to reduce the number of illegal immigrants has not made a dent in the illegal immigrant population living here. Instead, the population continues to grow. You seem to be making some progress on the border in California, I admit; stopping illegal border crossings, though, is only one facet of the fight. And I'm talking about the other facet and that's removing illegals presently here, including criminals. You deported 68,000 people last year. That's less than 1.5 percent of those living here. You fell short by 37 percent of your own plan to deport 110,000 aliens in 1996. The Institutional Hearing Program--is 23 percent short of your own goal. There are 193,000 outstanding orders of deportation right there on the books where an Immigration Judge has ordered somebody deported and they're still here; can't be found. We hear nothing out of you on a way to ensure that these people will be deported. INS and the State Department have not implemented an exit control program. This Subcommittee and the Immigration Subcommittee have been screaming, yelling, pushing, and shoving on this for I don't know how many years to put in place a united system so that people who overstay their visas can be prevented from returning on future visas, at the least, not to mention deported when they overstay. We haven't seen that program. Neither of you can say that your problem is because you don't have the resources. We've shoveled money at you. We've given you more money than you've asked for year in and year out. So, in 1996 and 1997, for example, we gave INS over 1,600 new positions, and $243 million to detain and remove deportable aliens. In 1997, we gave INS $78 million and 2,000 more detention beds; more than you asked for; 2,000 more than you asked for. You said in 1996 in your budget statement that you would deport 110,000 illegal aliens; triple the number deported in 1993. In fact, there were 68,000 deported as I've said. port court and deportation of illegal aliens In addition to falling short of those goals, we're being misled with your statistics on removals which paint a far rosier success story than what is actually occurring. You began a so-called Port Court Initiative in 1996, which was a quick removal process for aliens trying to enter illegally at some of the ports of entry on the border. That produced 10,500 of the removals that you've used in its reported numbers. But our goals for removals of illegal aliens have always been a part of the strategy to reduce the population living in the U.S., instead of a border strategy. And for that reason, INS has never used statistics of aliens that the Border Patrol sends back across the border in its removal estimates. The Port Court Initiative is essentially a border control strategy. And it generates good, fast statistics. It's a good initiative. I like it. But we shouldn't confuse that with the removal and deportation of illegal aliens inside the country that have been here for some time. If you take the Port Court removals, 10,500, away, then you've only deported 58,000, despite a 44 percent increase in resources for that purpose. What do you say to that? Ms. Meissner. Removals are a crucial part of an effective strategy to counter illegal immigration. We have always said that border control and prevention of illegal entry at the border is one piece of a comprehensive strategy. It is not the only piece. It is the most important and is the one we have focused on most heavily, but it cannot exist by itself as a deterrent or a preventative. Removals are crucial for the integrity of the system in the eyes of the deportable alien and the immigrant community. They are crucial from the standpoint of sending the message back to communities that we mean business in terms of enforcing our immigration laws properly. Removals are an initiative where we have had very substantial progress and major moves forward in the last three years as the funding for this initiative has increased. The removals for last year were 36 percent higher than the year before. This year, when we move up into the 93,000 range, that will be, I believe, 37 percent higher than what we achieved last year. Those are very substantial gains. They rely, however, on the ability to put together a system that works properly. That system rests heavily on not only the removal action and the personnel to take the removal action, but detention facilities and detention capability which has also been funded very generously by the Committee. Using that detention space effectively is a major link that needs to be properly developed in order for the removals to increase at the level that they've been increasing. We have virtually, in the last two years, doubled the amount of bed space that we are able productively to use. Our goal and funding level for this year on the number of bed spaces is 12,000. We are presently at 11,500. Bringing all of those pieces together, staffing them properly, and coordinating them properly, has to be done in order for the removal initiative to function correctly. It is working well. We will continue to increase at very substantial rates each year. But it is a multi-year endeavor to achieve the removal numbers that we want. In addition to removals, in order for the resident illegal alien population to be reduced, there are a series of other things that need to take place that are taking place. One happens to be in the success that has been achieved with the asylum system. In the asylum system, we now have 60 percent less receipts than we had when the system was in crisis and when we first put our reforms into place. That is an important element of deterrence and an important element in reducing illegal stays in the United States. There are very important deterrence elements in the issuance of secure documents. We are replacing border crossing cards. We now have the technology to issue new employment authorization documents that are absolutely state-of-the-art in terms of security. Clearly, everything that improves worksite and employer enforcement contributes to an overall reduction in the reasons for people to be in the United States and therefore reduces the numbers of resident illegals that are a part of the illegal alien population. Finally, the program that you have been very properly pushing us on, departure management, is a very important element of an effective strategy to reduce the resident illegal population. We owe you a report on our plans and timelines. That report is currently in review and in circulation, but let me tell you that it depends on a pilot program which the Subcommittee asked for. That pilot program is being implemented this month in April. It will run through August. It is working off of a magnetic strip technology to produce an I-94 that is an automated form. That is another important piece in putting together an entire framework of programs and initiatives that have to work cooperatively in order to change the psychology, and the overall deterrent message in the environment that exist in this country. But those pieces are all coming together. They are being funded. They are being aggressively pursued by the Immigration Service. The numbers of removals each year, 9 percent higher one year to the next, the next year 36 to 37 percent higher, the next year 36 percent higher reflect that. Those are major, major steps forward. They are not incremental changes. And we will keep them going. Now, I think perhaps, if I might, my colleague may want to add some things to that. Mr. Moscato. Mr. Chairman, your reference to the 10,000 cases at the Port Court, you are right. They are quick. They are easy. That's one of the reasons we put judges down at the port--to allow for those kinds of turn around. Mr. Rogers. That's great. That's great. Mr. Moscato. Had we not--were we not in that environment, a good size majority of those numbers would have become a part of the general population. I didn't raise that to argue it. outstanding deportation orders Mr. Rogers. That's great. Congratulations. I'm just saying you prevented that 10,000 from becoming a part of the 193,000 for which we have outstanding deportation orders which are not being executed. Congratulations. No, seriously. Why can't INS find these 193,000 that you've got orders for deportation and they're just staying here? Ms. Meissner. We do very well on deporting those people who are in detention. It is very difficult and labor intensive to deport people who have orders of deportation who are not in detention. It's crucial. That's why we ask for it. That's why you provide it. That's why we look very, very closely at having the maximum turnover in that bed space so that we can remove the largest numbers as effectively as we can. We obviously want to get to a point where we are able to deport a large share, if not all, of the people who have outstanding orders of deportation. But that takes some working up to. There are tools in the new immigration law that give us a strengthened hand in achieving that result. We are in current discussions about a new regulation that we refer to as a surrender regulation which would strengthen our hand where outstanding orders of deportation are concerned for people who are not in detention. So, there are a number of things on the table and in process that get us closer to that goal. But as I say, detention is the most reliable handmaiden of removal and we are bringing that up as quickly as we can. Mr. Rogers. On citizenship applications, do you check whether or not there is an outstanding deportation order against that person? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Any of these people that were admitted last year, was there any pending deportation order on any of them? Ms. Meissner. Yes. And that is a part of the review of the criminal files. When we spoke earlier about checking against EOIR's database on these cases, that is the check that we were looking for; outstanding orders of deportation. Mr. Rogers. Is the outstanding deportation order list growing or diminishing? Are you bringing that down or does it keep growing; the 193,000? Ms. Meissner. Well, obviously EOIR's productivity increases as theyget more judges. I don't know. Tony can tell you what the projections are for this year. Mr. Moscato. We issued approximately 155,000 deportation orders last year, Mr. Chairman, and expect to issue some 170,000 plus this year in response to cases filed by the Immigration Service. Mr. Rogers. Well, you've got 193,000 outstanding orders as of January 1997. Is that figure up or down from January 1996? Ms. Meissner. I'd have to check. I don't know the answer to that. [The information follows:] Active Outstanding Final Orders of Deportation, January 1996 to January 1997 The number of active outstanding final orders of deportation increased from 145,000 in January 1996 to 193,000 in January 1997. The 193,000 total active outstanding final orders reported to Congress in April 1997 was obtained from the INS Deportable Alien Control system (DACS). The DACS supports field casework activity associated with aliens who are detained or placed under docket control for deportation. Since DACS cannot provide a number of outstanding final orders for a date in the past, INS used the PAS (Performance Analysis System) to estimate the number of active outstanding final orders for January 1996. The data used from PAS to produce the estimate is a snapshot of data from DACS. Because the data in PAS combines certain DACS categories, adjustments were made to eliminate certain groups of orders such as those issued to aliens who were still incarcerated. Based on the PAS data, INS estimates that there were 145,000 active outstanding final orders of deportation as of January 1996. The increase of active outstanding final orders of deportation from 145,000 to 193,000 by January 1997 is mainly due to an upsurge in the number of active final orders issued to non-detained aliens by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The INS historically has had difficulty removing aliens who cannot be detained due to a lack of detention space, because non-detained aliens fail to surrender for removal at a rate of almost 90 percent. Initial indications are that the rate of increase in the number of active outstanding final orders of deportation appears to have slowed; the increase from 193,000 at the end of January 1997 to 201,000 at the end of March 1997 was 4 percent. However, the effect of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act on the number of orders issued to non-detained aliens remains to be seen in its entirety. For the most part, the active outstanding final orders of deportation are issued in absentia to aliens who failed to appear for their deportation hearing, or to aliens who were not in INS custody when they received their order and who subsequently absconded. The number also includes aliens who received orders of voluntary departure from Immigration Judges, but who either failed to provide required documentation of their departure or whose authorized departure period has expired. The number does not include orders of voluntary departure issued by an Immigration Judge in which the departure period granted has not yet expired, nor does it include deportation orders issued to aliens who cannot be deported due to difficulties in arranging for their travel documents. The number also does not include outstanding orders in cases that were administratively closed by INS after a three or five year period following the issuance of the order. Mr. Rogers. Does anybody here know? [No response.] Mr. Rogers. Are those outstanding orders for criminal aliens? Mr. Moscato. Those are outstanding deportation orders covering the entire range of aliens who come before our courts. Mr. Rogers. How many of those would be criminal or for criminal activity? Mr. Moscato. Approximately 14,000 of them were issued in IHP settings and virtually every one of those is going to be criminal. For the remainder, Mr. Chairman, I can get it for you. I don't have it right at my fingertips. Mr. Rogers. All right. [The information follows:] Removal Orders Involving Criminal Aliens EOIR's responsibility lies in the adjudication of immigration cases. We are not in a position to know specifically which of our removal orders are ultimately enforced. However, of the 156,528 removal orders issued by EOIR during 1996, 37,389 involved criminal aliens. Mr. Rogers. After a judge orders an alien deported, how and when is INS notified of that? Mr. Moscato. INS is present in court represented by counsel. So, they are notified at the same time as the order is issued. Mr. Rogers. Do you have any suggestions about how your orders can be carried out by INS for deportation? Do you have any good ideas to give us? Mr. Moscato. Without being cute, we wrestle very hard to get them done and get them out. That's the shoreline of our responsibility. Mr. Rogers. I understand. Mr. Moscato. I don't have an expertise about how to effect them from there. Mr. Rogers. You don't have any good ideas that we're not using now that we could use. We're not proud. Mr. Moscato. Nor am I, if I could have some time to think and answer for the record, I'd be happy to do that. Mr. Rogers. If you've got a good idea, we've love to hear from you. If there is some shortcut that you can see that INS could use to execute those orders, we'd appreciate hearing from you. Mr. Moscato. Thank you, sir. [The information follows:] Enhancement of the Execution of Removal Orders An efficient method of enhancing the Service's execution of removal orders is to maximize the use of the detention. The 1996 Act provides for the mandatory detention of a broader cross section of aliens subject to removal proceedings. The Service is seeking to expand their detention capacity. EOIR, by relocating existing resources and through resource increases requested for 1998, will increase Immigration Court presence at or near Service detention facilities. An increase in the number of EOIR removal orders issued in detention settings, should result in a similar increase in the number of orders executed by the Service. exit control strategy Mr. Rogers. Secretary Ryan and Commissioner Meissner, in our House report this year we asked you for a plan and time line for a pilot project to begin to implement the exit control strategy. We want to have that plan before us. We've talked about this before. I think we've got this ironed out with Mr. Colgate about getting that report. Now, when we get that report, what are you going to do about it? Ms. Meissner. When we develop an exit strategy, Mr. Chairman, it will give us, for the first time, the tools that have always been lacking for us to review the visas that we issue. Mr. Rogers. That's what I said 14 years ago; almost those exact words, ``when we get a plan.'' Ms. Meissner. Well, that's what the two of us are working on. We're trying to develop the plan, and put it in place. We're very anxious to have this information. Mr. Rogers. Ten years ago I had to force State and INS into the hearing room over in the Capitol on this very thing. That was ten years ago. ``We're developing a plan,'' they said. Pardon me for being skeptical. Ms. Meissner. I think that there actually has been some progress. As I said, we are starting a pilot during May on a method for doing the recordkeeping on departure management. We will be doing it withU.S. Airways as the carrier. It will be on the Munich to Philadelphia route. They will be producing a magnetic strip technology and an electronic I- 94. That pilot will be completed in September. It will give us the data that we need to know how much more reliable the departure match is and the time that the airline needs to put into it. We will need to enlist the cooperation of airlines in this and need a variety of other pieces of information. We are very cognizant of our responsibilities in this area. We are moving ahead. The pieces that need to follow are the actions we take against people that are not departing properly and how we deploy the technology into a generalized departure management. In fact, it is now becoming real. Mr. Rogers. Well, I anxiously await the report. 245(i) funding Commissioner Meissner, the budget request includes a request to repeal the sunset date of the so-called 245(i) fee. What impact would a repeal have in both financial and programmatic terms for INS? Ms. Meissner. The financial implications for the State Department and for the Immigration Service are, we believe, severe. The estimates that we sent forward for the 1998 budget reflected 245(i) funding of about $233 million in revenue. That was very speculative because we need to know more about how the new immigration law actually will affect this. But we do believe that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million in revenue that would be sacrificed if that provision were to sunset. Mr. Rogers. From an immigration policy perspective, how can you advocate allowing people to become legal residents when we know that they've been in the country illegally for some period of time? Ms. Meissner. Well, the point where 245(i) adjustment is concerned is that the people are eligible for a visa. It's a question of where they obtain their adjustment decision. If they go overseas to obtain it in the way that it was before the 245(i) provision existed, then the visa is issued at the Consulate and it's a consular workload. If they are able to do that business in the United States, they come to an Immigration Office and it's an Immigration Service workload. It's been working as an Immigration Service workload. The resources that the Consular Service had at one time to deal with this caseload, as I understand it, don't exist anymore. And I'm sure that my colleague will want to speak about that. We believe that it is a practical, effective system in the way that it exists. We think the revenue is being put to good use for people who are eligible for that adjustment. There is nothing that detracts from the effective implementation of the immigration laws by allowing that adjustment to occur in the United States. Mr. Rogers. Secretary Ryan, what impact would the repeal have on Consular Affairs? Ms. Ryan. It would have a severe impact on us as well because one of the reasons that we went to this type of procedure on 245(i) was that we were seeing people who had been in the United States illegally returning to their home countries for visas, but they were eligible for those visas. We were doing in effect pro forma immigrant visa interviews. We don't have the workforce to do that kind of work when we have needs in other places with high fraud, with ever increasing non-immigrant visa workloads. We thought that the resources were best utilized in other areas of consular work. The Immigration Service took over this job. They were able to charge and to keep a fee and we were able to move consular resources to areas where we thought they were better utilized. Mr. Rogers. What I'm looking for is what additional resources would you have to have to handle the workload? Ms. Ryan. I will give you the exact number. What we would have to have is the number of positions back that we had reprogrammed to other consular needs, to what we thought of as higher priority needs. I don't have that figure off-hand, but I can get that for you. Mr. Rogers. Well, it could be an even bigger workload than you had before. So, I'm not sure those numbers would be exactly the accurate ones. Ms. Ryan. I'm sorry? Mr. Rogers. You could have an even bigger workload than you had before. Ms. Ryan. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And what I need is the best information you can give me. Ms. Ryan. We will give you our best judgment on what we need. Mr. Rogers. Okay. [The information follows:] Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act Question. What additional resources would the Department of State need if Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act expires at the end of this fiscal year? What was the number of positions that you reprogrammed when this provision was implemented in 1994, and could the figure be higher now? Answer. Section 245(i), which was limited to a validity of three years and expires on September 30, permits certain aliens who entered the United States illegally or were employed without authorization to adjust status in the United States with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If the Congress does not approve legislation extending Section 245(i), those persons will have to go abroad to adjust status and considerable workload will be transferred from the INS to Department of State consular posts, particularly in Mexico. The implementation of Section 245(i) shifted 100,000 to 130,000 cases per year from consular posts to the INS. From December 1994 through November 1996, the number of petitions that would otherwise have gone to posts for processing was reduced by 25% worldwide. The reductions by region were: [In percent] Latin America and Caribbean....................................... 34.6 Europe and Canada................................................. 21 Sub-Saharan Africa................................................ 13.9 East Asia and Pacific............................................. 10.6 Middle East and North Africa...................................... 10 South Asia........................................................ 9 As a result of Section 245(i), 26 Foreign Service Officer (FSO) positions and 69 Foreign Service National (FSN) positions were reprogrammed, and 25 FSO and 169 FSN positions were eliminated. The savings were $1.5 million in FSO salaries and $3.4 million in FSN salaries. We estimate that, if Section 245(i) sunsets, we will need at least 43 new FSO positions and 147 new FSN positions. This takes into account a higher refusal rate and slower processing time because of changes in the law. The cost of establishing the new FSO positions and the related salary and support costs are likely to total $10,819,048. The FSN costs would be at least $3.7 million. We are aware of the concerns of some members that 245(i) provides advantages to persons who have violated U.S. immigration law. It is the experience of the State Department that the requirement to apply for immigrant visas abroad rather than adjusting status in the U.S. has not been a serious deterrent to violating our immigration laws. Section 245(i) did not make immigration easier nor change the rules of eligibility. It merely changed the location of processing and provided a penalty fee which can help offset some of the government's processing costs. Mr. Rogers. What percentage of those cases are likely to be denied, would you say? Ms. Ryan. Are likely to be denied? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Ryan. Very few. That's one of the reasons that we wanted to get out of that particular business because there was no penalty for their having been illegally in the United States. They waited here until they accumulated all of the documents that they needed and their appointment turn came. Then they went back overseas, went to the interview, were issued the visa and came home. Very, very few, a minuscule percentage, of immigrant visas were denied. Mr. Rogers. I don't know any agencies that have more work ahead of them than the ones I'm looking at right now. You've got some really tough problems. I don't diminish that. They are some of the toughest. The INS historically has been an agency that's tough to manage. I don't know why, but it is. So, I don't mean to be overly critical of you, although I may seem so at times. I'm like you; I'm frustrated with some of the lack of progress on some serious, serious problems. But I'm going to stay with you and I'm going to help you get to the bottom of as many of these things as we can. Commissioner Meissner, I'm prepared to back you up with subpoenas or whatever it takes to help you gain control of this unwieldy organization that's letting some serious incursions into American rights take place. I'm serious about that; dead serious. So, I not only will be critical of you and your operation, but I will be helpful to you, if that's what it takes. And if it would improve your organization, I will even praise you. I'll do whatever it takes. But I have to say that although we can see some progress in places like the Southwest Border in California, there are some real big time problems that we're still facing. Five million illegal immigrants currently in the country. One hundred ninety-three thousand outstanding deportation orders and so on. So, we will continue to work with you year round. If you see during the year some need to reprogram funds that you had earlier thought best used in one place that you want to move around given the change--I want you to feel free to consult with us about that. We will do everything we can to be helpful in that respect. I know you've got almost an impossible task. I'm not yet willing to say it's impossible. In the past, I've come close, but I can see a little bit of light on the horizon. But I'm not sure that it's not a comet. I don't believe there is anything following that comet. Well, thank you all very much. [Pages 1118 - 1123--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, April 9, 1997. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION WITNESSES KATHLEEN M. HAWK, DIRECTOR EDUARDO GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE RICHARD P. CONABOY, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. Good morning. This morning we welcome to the Subcommittee the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Kathleen Hawk; the Director of the Marshals Service, Eduardo Gonzalez; and the Chairman of the Sentencing Commission, Judge Richard Conaboy. The Bureau of Prisons and Marshals Service are critical Federal agencies responsible for protecting our communities by ensuring Federal criminals are kept off the streets. Since the Sentencing Commission is responsible for Federal sentencing guidelines, it ultimately affects the prison population. The Justice Department is requesting a significant amount of resources, over $5 billion for fiscal year 1998, for Federal, state, and local prisons, and detention capacity. In addition to our traditional Federal responsibilities, we understand the Administration will be proposing a plan to transfer District of Columbia prisons, court system, and other functions to the Federal Government. Although your fiscal year 1998 budget does not include funding for that proposal, it will have a significant impact on the resources, workload and operations of all your agencies. We would like to get a better understanding of the impact of this proposal from you today. We're all committed to keeping criminals off the street and ensuring that criminals are fully punished for their crimes, but we can't lose sight of our commitment to do this as efficiently and economically as possible. We're honored this morning to have with us the distinguished Vice Chairman of the Full Committee on Appropriations and the most senior Republican Member of the House, although he looks much, much younger than me. I'm very honored to have my good friend Joe McDade, Chairman McDade, who will introduce one of our panel members this morning. Mr. McDade. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and my colleague, and Ranking Member, thank you, as well. I wanted to come over this morning because I've known Judge Conaboy for about 30 years, give or take a decade, here and there. Too often it seems to me in this community that we all work in, this pressure cooker that we work in, we never get to know each other personally. We never get acquainted enough to be able to get to know the person who is going to execute the decisions we make very well. That's always been a troublesome thing for me. And I know it is for all of us on both sides of the table. It's a shame that we can't interface in the world a bit more and get to know each other better. So, I wanted you to know that I've known Judge Conaboy as a State Judge, as a Federal Judge, as a citizen in my community, as a lawyer, as a lawyer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as the Chair of the Sentencing Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and now doing his job here in Washington. He is the kind of a person that we can take supreme confidence in. He will do a superb job for you, and I just wanted to share my knowledge of him and my friend. I admit to being prejudiced because he is my friend as well. So, I hope you will treat him kindly. I have to run to be at another hearing at 10:15 a.m. Godspeed; nice to see you. Mr. Rogers. After that kind of an introduction, I don't think we even need a hearing. Why don't we submit your request, stamp it, and here we go. We will proceed now with opening oral statements from the three of you. Judge Conaboy if you would like to proceed, then Director Hawk, and then Director Gonzalez. We will include your prepared written testimony in full in the record. We ask you, if possible, to limit your opening remarks to five minutes or so. Judge Conaboy, welcome. Mr. Conaboy. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. The only concern I have is when you mentioned how senior Congressman McDade is because I'm still a few years older than he is. And I mean anyplace I go anymore, I'm the more senior person in the room. That's a frightening thought at times. But it is good to come over here. I said to some of your staff members this morning as just an aside that one of the things that has struck me in coming here from being 35 or so years on the bench--which is so much more of a quiet operation than yours--it's really startling how many things you have to address on a daily basis. I know after hearing from us and the Bureau of Prisons and the Marshals Service, you're hearing from other people with different concerns the next day. So, we appreciate the chance to come over and just tell you a little bit about what we do and what we're trying to do. As we also told your staff, if there is any other information we can provide you or give to you we will be glad to do that. I will take this chance to talk to you very briefly this morning; of course, it's supplemented as you know by a written statement that we've submitted. So, I will be very brief which is sometimes unusual for me. I will try to be very brief and just touch on a few things. We at the Commission, following through on some of the remarks that you made today, try to develop and maintain and administer a strong and effective criminal justice system, at least our part of it, and at the same time try to be as wise and as prudent as we can about being careful not to waste funds and not to waste such things as expensive prison cells. It's a very expensive thing keeping people in prison.What we do essentially is provide the product that keeps the prisons going by virtually providing the sentences throughout all of the federal prison system. Our budget is very small. At this time of fiscal austerity and balanced budgets we've tried to live up to those strictures and at the same time we try to run our Commission as efficiently as we can. We feel that what we do there is extremely important. I won't go through my entire written testimony, of course, but let me just touch if you will on several of the things that we're doing that I think might be of interest to you. First, I would mention that for the past several months, we've been working extremely hard implementing much of the important crime legislation that you people passed in the 104th Congress. While there is no single crime bill in 1996, you did pass, as you well know, much important crime legislation, some of it addressing terrorism, immigration, economic espionage, stalking, and child pornography, all of which are very highly emotional and highly important topics to the people of this nation. It's our job after you pass that legislation to translate it into the sentencing guidelines to make it usable in the courts of this nation in a way that the judges, the lawyers, and the probation officers who are working with those laws will understand how they should proceed through the sentencing process and what kind of sentences should be imposed in most cases. So, it's a very difficult, time-consuming job to take your legislation and to try to understand it as best we can what you intended to do, and then to work it into the system so that the sentences imposed under that legislation fit into the pattern that we have developed at the Commission. Secondly, we would like you to know that we're using, as best we can, many new technologies wherever possible to accomplish the better results and at a lower cost where that can be done. We're developing, for instance, together with the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Federal Judicial Center, a teleconferencing center which will allow us to train more federal judges across the nation, more prosecutors, and more probation officers. Training is one of our most important jobs and one of our strongest arms. This we hope will allow us to reduce the need to send our staff traveling quite as much as they normally have to do it. In addition to that in this area of technology we've introduced our own home page on the World Wide Web. I have to confess, I don't even know what some of that terminology means, but I know how well it works and how we've been able to hold conferences through this World Wide Web without any of us at the conference ever leaving our offices. More importantly than anything else, just yesterday afternoon--in fact we thought we'd might be able to bring one to the hearing and show them to you on the television screen-- we've developed our first series of public service ads that we're hoping we can get stations across the country to use. The purpose of it being to demonstrate, especially to young people, how severe the sentences are that are imposed in the federal courts. We perceive through some of the studies that we've made that young people across the country still sometimes feel they can be involved, particularly in the drug area, and be hit with very simple or easy sentences. But I want to tell you, the sentences under the federal guidelines are very, very severe. We have developed this series of ads that demonstrate that in ways that we think will hopefully be impressive. I might point out to you that we conducted countless focus groups of young people trying to find out who would be most impressive with them. The kids told them, don't give us ads with the leading governmental figures telling us what to do. Don't bring us leading sports figures. Don't bring us popular entertainers. We know they're all paid to do that kind of work. The person who was impressive most to them was their mother, believe it or not. This was across the nation with all of these focus groups that they used. So, one of them is very interesting, particularly since it's Mother's Day Commissioner Gelacak who is with me today, our Vice Chairman, was very active in helping us develop these. We hope to have those on the air before the end of this month. Thirdly, the Commission has been trying to work closely with the Bureau of Prisons. We've developed some new associations recently to better target our resources and to work more closely with the Bureau in trying particularly to determine how we can best organize our information so that it does translate into the proper use of the facilities at the prisons, so that our expertise will mesh with theirs. So, that when we're deciding on what kind of sentences we should impose, we can immediately translate that into what kind of impact it will have and what kind of cost it will be to the Bureau of Prisons. We hope to continue to work closely with the Bureau on that and to use the data that we collect daily to help them to make their decisions. In that area, I just want to mention finally, the collection of data. That is one of our most important jobs. There are approximately 40,000 sentences imposed in the federal courts every year. It's been reduced the last couple of years. It might be 39,000 last year. We monitor every one of those sentences. We collect dataon every single sentence. We have a warehouse of data that we're trying to use now in a variety of ways, not the least of which will be interfacing with people like the Bureau of Prisons to see what an impact that information will have on them. As an example of it I think we've given to each of you a little folder that's just a small example of how our data can be used. It shows you how the crime statistics in your specific district compare nationwide. I've begun to take that with me every place I go in the country to visit district courts and so on. They find it one of the most important, most interesting pieces of information we have. It tells you what kinds of crimes have been prosecuted in your districts, how many of those there are, and how that compares nationally. It gives you some idea of the fight against crime and the efforts to control crime. As you know, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, one of the other things we've tried to do in this past year and a half is to strengthen our liaison with the Congress so that we keep more close touch with you. One of my counsel, Jonathan Wroblewski is here with me today. He, in particular, has been assigned by me to develop better liaison with the Hill so that we will be more in tune with your desires and your concerns about what we're doing. We've tried to cover much more in our written testimony. I would conclude by just saying to you this past three months, and particular yesterday and Monday, we spent hour after hour after hour working on important sentencing issues. We had a very, very interesting public meeting yesterday trying to translate some of the legislation you've just passed on immigration, terrorism, and stalking. We are trying to take the legislation that you've passed, try to understand what it is you want it to accomplish, and then translate that into directions for judges across the country to use in sentencing that will be in the courts. These are just some of the things we try to do on a daily basis. I'd be glad to respond to any of your questions. I have several members of the staff here with me. As I said, Commissioner Gelacak, one of the other Commission members is here, and if there are any questions, we'd be glad to do that. Mr. Rogers. If you would like to ask the Commissioners to raise their hands. Mr. Conaboy. Yes. [Hands raised.] Mr. Conaboy. Mr. Gelacak, by the way, spent a lot of time on the Hill here. He was staff director from the Senate Judiciary Committee sometime ago. John Kramer was a Staff Director for the Sentencing Commission in Pennsylvania. He is a professor at the Penn State University. When I became Chairman he became Staff Director of the Sentencing Commission. He is a renowned person nationwide in the whole business of sentencing guidelines. He is the Staff Director and he is doing a great job. [The statement of Mr. Conaboy follows:] [Pages 1130 - 1147--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thanks, Judge Conaboy. Director Hawk. Ms. Hawk. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Good morning. bureau of prisons director's opening remarks Ms. Hawk. I'm pleased to appear before you today to present the Administration's 1998 budget request for the Bureau of Prisons. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Mollohan and the other Members of the Subcommittee for the wonderful support that you've given to the Bureau of Prisons over the years. Congress has recognized our continuous growth and the very challenging nature of our inmate population and has addressed significant overcrowding by providing the resources necessary for us to fulfill our responsibilities. I'm also pleased to appear here today with my colleagues, Eddie Gonzalez and Judge Conaboy. Our 1998 request focuses on adding prison beds and continuing to reduce overcrowding in our facilities. The current system-wide overcrowding rate is 25 percent. However, our medium and high security facilities remain dangerously overcrowded at rates of 45 and 70 percent over capacity respectively. It is specifically the need for additional higher security prison beds that's addressed in our 1998 request. Nothing could highlight the need more clearly than an incident that occurred just this past week in our severely crowded Lompoc, California Penitentiary. Without any provocation, a correctional officer was brutally murdered by an inmate and several other officers were attacked. After the hearing today, I'll be heading out to California for the memorial service for our slain officer, a very dedicated and outstanding young man who leaves behind a wife and two very small children. It's a very sad day and a sad time for us at the Bureau of Prisons. Our 1998 request totals $3.2 billion and provides increases to activate a medium security facility at our complex in Beaumont, Texas; construct a high security institution at Castle Air Force Base in California; convert two dormitory style housing units to single cells at two penitentiaries, enhance our intelligence gathering--primarily at detention centers; and to meet the requirements of the new electronic Freedom of Information Act. I will not repeat the details of our program increases because they are explained in my written statement. I would like to focus on one increase in particular and that's the one that affects two of our oldest penitentiaries, Lompoc, California, and Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. An increase of $16.7 million is requested to modernize and convert dormitories to cells in these penitentiaries. As I've stated earlier, our penitentiaries are very crowded; Lompoc at 62 percent over capacity and Lewisburg at 54 percent over capacity. Currently, both Lompoc and Lewisburg have over 200 inmates in dormitory settings. The resources being requested would permit us to convert the dormitory areas to single cells with steel security doors, much enhancing the security in those facilities. As of April 3, 1997 our total population reached 109,001 inmates. That includes 11,181 inmates housed outside of the Bureau of Prisons in contract facilities and 97,820 within our own Bureau of Prisons facilities. By the year 2000, we project over 127,000 inmates will be in our custody. That's an additional growth of 17 percent. This projection does not include the proposal for transferring the District of Columbia sentenced felons into our custody. Our prison growth continues as a result of increases in the actual number of commitments and increases in sentence lengths. We expect this trend to continue as the Administration focuses on violent crime, particularly gang related activities. I'm pleased to report with the resources that Congress has provided, we've made substantial progress in adding capacity and reducing crowding. During the past four years we've added approximately 28,000 beds and an additional 17,000 beds will be added by the end of fiscal year 1998. While the Bureau's primary responsibility is the incarceration of sentenced inmates, we've played an increasingly larger role in the custody of pre-trail detainees under the care of the Marshals Service. We have in design or under construction several new detention facilities. These include Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Houston, and Honolulu. Our Seattle facility, another new one, has been completed and will open within the next couple of months. The other detention facilities that I've referenced will be on-line by the year 2000. Mr. Chairman, this request includes only the increases necessary to add further inmate capacity, increase our intelligence gathering and meet the requirements of the law. Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mollohan, for the wonderful support that you've given the Bureau of Prisons. This concludes my prepared remarks. I'd be very happy to entertain any questions. Thank you. [Pages 1150 - 1162--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Director Gonzalez. U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE DIRECTOR'S OPENING REMARKS Mr. Gonzalez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mollohan. Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for the United States Marshals Service and for the opportunity to do so in the company of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Kathleen Hawk, and the Chairman of the Sentencing Commission, Judge Richard Conaboy. The Bureau of Prisons and the Marshals Service work closely on many detention issues. More importantly, the Bureau of Prisons currently provides approximately one-third of the jail space required to house Marshals Service detainees, a fact for which I am very grateful. In addition to providing a secure environment in which the Federal judiciary may administer the law, our services to the judiciary also require the detention and production of Federal pre-sentenced prisoners. The Marshals Service is currently responsible for nearly 24,500 detainees. Our Salaries and Expenses and the Violent Crime Reduction Program requests support 4,273 positions, at a cost of $500.8 million. This reflects an increase of 108 positions and $19.6 million over the fiscal year 1998 base. For Federal prisoner detention the request is for $462.8 million, an increase of $37.3 million over the fiscal year 1998 base. The Marshals Service program increase request of 108 positions and $19.6 million supports the following: 53 positions and $10.8 million to staff and equip new and renovated courthouses in 37 cities; 40 positions and $5.1 million for fugitive investigations of felony warrants; five positions and $468,000 in support of the New York Metro Witness Security Safe Site; four positions and $190,000 to support the implementation of the Witness Security financial system improvement; four positions and $413,000 to implement the requirements of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act; and two positions and $2.1 million to continue our conversion efforts to replace the analog radio system with narrow-band digital radios. The $37.3 million in program increases for Federal prisoner detention provides for increased jail costs. The Marshals Service is at the narrow end of the Federal criminal justice funnel. We have no control over the number of detainees remanded to our custody, and consequently no option but to provide housing for them. The requested increase in the Federal Prison Detention Program is necessary to fund projected increases in the number of jail days and in the daily jail day rate needed to support the growing Federal detainee population. An additional $35 million is also requested through the Office of Justice Programs to fund the Cooperative Agreement Program. This fund, administered by the Marshals Service, will support agreements in approximately 20 jurisdictions, providing as many as 1,150 new beds for the detainees. The Marshals Service is not only responsible for the safekeeping and housing of all Federal detainees, but also for their transportation and security as they are moved to and from court and other court-related proceedings. To ensure that this operation is carried out in an efficient and safe manner and to satisfy judicial mandates, we seek to house our detainees in or near the Federal court cities. The Department of Justice has consistently adhered to a detention strategy which mandates that the Service first explore the rental of detention space from state and local jurisdictions, utilizing inter-governmental agreements as a mechanism to secure the space. Local governments, in particular the Sheriff's offices across the nation, have been very cooperative. We currently have 1,200 IGAs with state and local governments. Those are inter-governmental agreements, housing approximately 16,000 or more prisoners. Unfortunately, the inter-governmental agreements by their very nature provide beds on a space available basis. When a state or local government experiences an overcrowding problem of its own, Federal prisoners are usually the first to go, placing the Marshals Service in an untenable position. In those instances where insufficient jail space is available, the strategy then recommends the use of the Cooperative Agreement Program to encourage local jurisdictions to expand the jail space which can be made available to the Federal Government. In return for a guaranteed number of beds, the Federal Government provides construction or renovation funding to the local jurisdictions. Cooperative Agreement Program agreements are beneficial to both the local jurisdiction and to the Federal Government. The local governments are able to expand or renovate their facilities and the Marshals Service gets additional guaranteed jail space at a much lower cost than if we constructed and staffed the Federal facility. Contracting with private sector detention providers, is another alternative we use, Mr. Chairman. We rely on the expertise of the contract provider to know whether the square footage being provided for the prisoners is correct, if the number of guards is adequate, if the medical services provided are appropriate, or how to deal with the multitudes of other concerns associated with the management of a correctional facility. This brings us to the final and most costly alternative in the detention strategy, the construction of Bureau of Prisons facilities to house Marshals Service detainees. There are currently seven BOP detention facilities used to house Marshals Service detainees and 18 which housedetainees and sentenced prisoners. It is important to recognize that the Marshals Service does not request BOP construction until all other detention possibilities have been exhausted. In spite of the options available to us, the Service still experiences shortages throughout the country. So, we're experimenting with non-traditional alternatives to relieve the distress on the system. With the cooperation of several chief judges throughout the country, we're exploring the use of electronic technology to address detention concerns. video teleconferencing The use of video teleconferencing can be of great benefit in those districts in which jail space may not be available in the court city, a CAP agreement cannot be negotiated, and the shortage is below the 500 bed minimum which could justify Federal construction. For example, given that the closet available jail space may be 50 or 100 miles from the court city, our deputies are required to transport the detainees to and from a myriad of court appearances, including meetings with attorneys. Fifty or 100 miles are fixed distances, but I can assure you that they represent diverging dimensions throughout the nation. Fifty miles in the summer months in Montana may be a 45 minute drive. The same 50 miles in South California may be a two-hour drive. Distances obviously present unique logistical and security problems to the courts and the Service. However, technology has advanced sufficiently so that we can provide secure video teleconferencing for attorneys to discuss cases with their clients and for the judiciary to conduct status calls, arraignments, and many other court-related functions that frequently take less than ten minutes to conclude, but impose an enormous transportation and security burden on the Service. We currently have systems operating in six districts, with six more ready to come on line in the near future. Although video teleconferencing is now being used primarily for attorney and probation officer interviews, I am appreciative of the support we have received from the local bar associations and the affected district judges. Hopefully, this will be expanded to other court-related activites. For the Marshals Service the transportation of large numbers of prisoners to and from distant locations to the court cities for court business presents a real challenge. The most challenging is the District of Hawaii where we transport prisoners between the mainland and the island routinely. I am pleased to report, however, that BOP will soon begin construction of a Federal prison which will alleviate that situation. In the meantime, we are examining the use of video teleconferencing to meet some of the transportation needs. In closing, I want to thank the Committee for the past support of the Marshals Service. You've recognized that our workload is basically dictated by the judiciary and other agencies. You have supported our prior year requests. I'd be happy to meet with the Subcommittee on any of these items. I look forward to answering your questions at this time. [The statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:] [Pages 1166 - 1176--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] death of officer williams Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for your statements. The three of you handle some of the nation's most difficult problems. I'm singling out the Bureau of Prisons here, but I don't know of a better run Federal agency than the Bureau of Prisons. I've said that at a number of locations. Since I've done that, I can say it to you here on the record. You mentioned, Director Hawk, in your statement the tragedy of the death of Officer Scott Williams at Lompoc Penitentiary last week. I hope as you travel there to his funeral today that you will convey to his wife and family the deep regret and condolences that this Subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan and myself especially, have in this respect. We want you to tell the family we appreciate very much on behalf of the people of this nation the service of Scott Williams. Can you tell us more about how that incident took place? Ms. Hawk. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the comments and I will extend them to the family when I see them tomorrow. Mr. Williams was monitoring a corridor, a main corridor within the penitentiary. It was right after dinner on Thursday evening. We have a controlled movement while the inmates move either from the dining room or their units to another location for a different activity. The officer was just doing his job walking down the corridor. In fact, we have the whole incident on video tape because we have cameras all over the institution. It is so painful watching this thing unfold when you know the outcome and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You see the inmate coming up behind the officer, first looking absolutely normal. Then he begins to move very quickly. Then you see him reaching in, and in a matter of just a couple of seconds pulling out two hand-made home-made knives, one a flattened piece of metal sharpened, and the other a rod with a point on the end. He comes up behind the officer--behind the officer--a very cowardly act, grabs him and cuts through his neck severing both arteries which made it absolutely impossible to do anything to save him even though there was staff all around him. He died within seconds. The inmate immediately then moves to the next officer. Again, when you watch it, there are two seconds unfolding. He went from the first officer to the second officer, stabbed him, and punctured his lung. He is in very serious condition, but he is going to be all right. Then, three other officers try to subdue the inmate. You see the inmate there just swinging at them all. He was very determined to do serious damage to our staff. We know that three other officers were injured, but they're okay also. We don't know anything that provoked this. This inmate has a history of assaulting law enforcement personnel on the street before coming into our institutions. He assaulted one of our staff at Oxford, Wisconsin. He got three more years added onto his sentence for that. Then he was quiet for several years and didn't cause us problems. We don't know of anything at this point in time that provoked his act against Officer Williams other than just a desire to hurt correctional staff. We're still working with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office and our Board of Inquiry to try to figure out what his motivation was. Mr. Rogers. What was he in the prison for? Ms. Hawk. He was in on a cocaine charge a pretty long charge. He was doing, I believe, upwards of 20 years, but he did have a history of an old offense of assaulting police on the streets. Mr. Rogers. Do you have any idea if this qualifies him for a possible death penalty prosecution? Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir, it should. Mr. Rogers. Will you be seeking that? Ms. Hawk. Probably. You may recall that we had another death of a correctional officer in December of 1994 in Atlanta. That case just came to closure two weeks ago. The inmate who was convicted of killing that officer was convicted to the death sentence. So, we anticipate that we will certainly be seeking that again in this case. Mr. Rogers. Well, if the decision is not to seek the death penalty would you advise the Committee why you did not seek the death penalty? Ms. Hawk. I certainly will, sir. I certainly will. violence and overcrowding Mr. Rogers. Are you experiencing greater violence in your facilities due to more violent criminals being incarcerated? Ms. Hawk. The numbers indicate that our violence has gone down. It kind of went up and peaked a few years ago and is drifting down a little bit. It is a little bit deceiving because the reality is the violence in our penitentiaries has gone up; both violence of inmate-on-inmate and inmate against staff. I think the downward turn suggests that we've been getting some control over the issue in terms of making sure that the violent inmates are moving up to the penitentiaries. That again speaks to why our request is for increasing higher security capacity. We're finding we need more higher security beds so we can keep inmates a little more under control, although obviously not completely under control because of what happened last week. It is clear that inmates coming to us have a much more violent history, when you look at their backgrounds. This is because the Administration is focusing on the violent street gangs, and the violent drug related street gangs. We are getting a much more violent population coming into our prisons. Mr. Rogers. Are there any initiatives in your budget that would alleviate the problem somewhat? Ms. Hawk. Some of these would certainly help. The new penitentiary at Castle Air Force Base, absolutely. We desperately need more high security bed space. The conversion of the two open dormitories where it is very difficult to have any control over inmates in the housing unit when they're just in rows of bunks with maybe little partitions between them. You can't even lock them in when you have a problem. So, converting those two dormitories at Lompoc, California and in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania are both very critical to our getting control over these kinds of inmates. Mr. Rogers. Apparently overcrowding in the security prisons is about 56 percent? Ms. Hawk. The 56 percent is what we indicate in the testimony. If you remove the super max or admin max in our Marion facilities which are very important for super max custody, then you have the rest of our regular USPs. If you just move those two out and look at the USPs, you're up to 70 percent overcrowding. So, it's 56 or up, depending upon how you wish to count the numbers. Mr. Rogers. We've been trying to help accommodate your request to build high security prisons. In fact, we have worked with you on a couple of prisons that were in the works to convert them over to max or high security, instead of medium or lower. Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. So, we're attuned to your problem here. Can you tell us if the overcrowding at the high security prisons may be contributing to the violence in some of these facilities? Ms. Hawk. I think it certainly exacerbates the problem. Whenever you have more inmates in a space than it was ever designed to have, I think it certainly contributes to the problem. It makes all of our security precautions and our security features that much more difficult because you have more and more inmates in there. I do, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and this Subcommittee for having noticed that problem over the years and giving us sufficient resources. We have several penitentiaries that will be opening over the course of the next four years. Unfortunately, they're not open yet. That's why we have such severe overcrowding. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SENTENCED FELONS Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to talk to you, and I suspect this topic is going to consume a lot of time over the next few years, today included, that is, the Administration's proposal or plan to transfer the District of Columbia's sentenced felons primarily housed at Lorton Penitentiary to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Two years ago the Committee heard from you that this was not a good idea. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. The recent study requested by our Committee on long-term options for Lorton gives a number of alternatives, but it appears that the Administration is choosing instead to give Lorton and all its problems to the Federal Prison System. Now, I think maybe you've changed your mind about Lorton from what you told us two years ago. Ms. Hawk. Sure. As you know, I testified very clearly in opposition to our taking over D.C. Corrections two years ago because at that time I believed that the D.C. Corrections system could get their system under control with adequate resources and adequate support and guidance. They had just gotten a brand new Director, Margaret Moore, whom I have tremendous respect for. I had faith that they could maintain their own system and that we would not need to bring them into our system which is already crowded and burdened as you well know. In the last two years, though, it's become very evident to me that that's not going to happen. I think that with the breadth of the problems in D.C., the financial problems they're suffering, not just in the correctional arena, but across the entire District of Columbia Government, I think it became very clear to me and obviously to many others that the Federal Government was going to have to step in and assist in some substantial way, but still maintain that support for Home Rule and the independence of the District. One of the obvious functions that they have is not had by most cities, but is by states--and that is to maintain their sentenced felon population. It became obvious that the Federal Government would step in and assist in some way, partly because of the large federal presence in the District of Columbia and all of the tourists that the nation's capital brings including all of the international visitors. The need to assist in the criminal justice arena and make this area safer was a very clear place for the Federal Government to step in. The corrections system is clearly in great distress. I finally reached the conclusion that they were not going to be able to do it on their own and the only obvious solution was for us to take it over. Mr. Rogers. So, you think this is the only option? Ms. Hawk. I think it's the most viable option. I think it's the option that's most likely to succeed because the only other options, Mr. Chairman, as you noticed in the NCCD study provide for either D.C. keeping their system, privatization, and management by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or somemix of the three. We have reviewed each of the options. As I've said, I've lost faith because of their serious financial, management structure and organizational structure problems, they are going to have difficulty. When you bring the private companies into the mix, somebody has to oversee them. So, whether it is D.C. overseeing the private companies, you've still got the D.C. influence or the D.C. responsibility for overseeing those private contracts. Then you have the Bureau of Prisons option. I think this option that makes the most sense, given our track record of being able, as you indicated earlier, to run an effective system and manage D.C. sentenced felons, a system where 72 percent of inmates are medium to high security inmates. That's a population where the private sector has really not demonstrated a track record yet--in terms of managing medium and high security institutions. We are very interested and willing to look at a mix-- involvement with the private sector as we do with Bureau of Prisons inmates, when as we look at taking over the D.C. sentenced felons population. But I think the responsibility for the system makes most sense coming to the Bureau of Prisons. I don't say that lightly because two years ago I said how over- burdened we are. I said how we're struggling to manage our own population, but I realize this is the right thing to do. lorton operating costs Mr. Rogers. Well, the report provided to the Subcommittee indicated that a privately-run prison operation at Lorton, or at other locations other than Lorton, would offer the lowest construction costs overall, the lowest operating costs overall, and the shortest amount of time for completion and transition of the Lorton prisoners. Plus, it would also leave open the possibility of not having to change sentencing guidelines for D.C. prisoners. What do you say to that? Ms. Hawk. In the NCCD study, you will notice, there are a lot of footnotes that caveat a lot of those numbers. The reason is that the Bureau of Prisons' numbers, both on construction and operating costs are real numbers. They're based on exactly what it costs us to do what we're doing today--managing populations of this security level and building these institutions. The D.C. numbers and the private numbers are projections. D.C. projected what their standards would be, and then the private company projected or estimated what their costs would be against those projected D.C. standards. I think NCCD, who did this study, did an outstanding job of trying to make those as real as possible. They were really aiming at an undefined and untested standard. They have not yet had to run these kinds of institutions with these kinds of inmates. So, I would speculate that the cost for the private sector operations are estimated on the low side. They match their salaries to D.C. salaries currently for their staff. When Margaret Moore, the Director of their correctional system speaks, she says so often that because their salaries are so low, they're not getting the caliber of staff they need to be able to manage this kind of population. It results in a lot of collusion with the inmates and a fair amount of misconduct that we see often times showing up in the paper. So, when the private sector matches their salary rates to D.C.'s rates, they already start on the low side. The other thing that's noted in the NCCD study is the research that's been done so far in private corrections in terms of a cost issue. I support private corrections. Ten percent of our population are in private contracts. So, I'm not at all trying to project anti-privatization. It is just when you compare the cost, I think any correctional system in this country would say to you that you don't look to the private companies if what you're trying to do is save money. There are lots of other reasons why you might look to private corrections; because they can do it quicker. They can provide you other options. They can help you change your culture if you're trying to change your culture in your organization. But all the research on cost shows that if there is any savings it is basically in the margins. Most all of the savings are in the beginning. In Louisiana, for example, they showed significant differences in operating costs, as you see in this study, projected the first year. But by the third year as they started to inch up the salaries after the staff got a year experience, two year's experience, three year's experience, within three years. their operating costs were equal. So, the cost savings issue, I think from an operating standpoint, number one, is a little bit of a low estimate because it's based on a projected operation. Number two, I think the cost savings will be short-term. lorton memorandum of understanding Mr. Rogers. Now, I'm told the Administration is currently negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the District of Columbia to transfer Lorton Prison and its prisoners to BOP. Ms. Hawk. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I understand that you are going along with the plan provided, I'm told, a number of strict conditions are met. I want to go through those with you as briefly as we can herebecause I have taken a lot of time from the other Members. One, new facilities: how many and what types of facilities will you be required to construct under this plan and where would those be built? Ms. Hawk. We would need capacity. One of the conditions is that we need new capacity or renovated capacity to hold these inmates. One of D.C.'s major problems as noted in the study is that all of their buildings are antiquated. They're not sufficient to manage high security and medium security inmates. So, we need new capacity if we're going to manage these inmates. So, what we would like to do is to renovate two facilities that are on the Lorton property. We would save money by renovating rather than constructing new, but we would need to put some money into them. We would need eight other institutions. Our projection is that we would need five high security and three medium security facilities. Now, those numbers are based upon our speculating there would be sentencing changes--85 percent truth-in-sentencing, elimination of parole, and having comparable, but not exactly Federal sentencing guidelines. We're not asking for that, but just comparable lengths of time that inmates would serve. So, we're projecting that their population would increase over the next several years if we go to the new sentencing. So, my numbers here in terms of the beds we'd need are based on a higher projected population in the out-years. We would need eight new facilities other than the two that we're talking about retaining and renovating at Lorton. We would like to have two of those on the Lorton property. That property already belongs to the Federal Government. It's prime property for building institutions. We could run a complex right there. I'd like to build a medium and high security institution there. Then the remaining six institutions would be within a fair distance from D.C. What we see as a fair distance is the standard we use for regular Bureau of Prisons inmates and that average right now is about 500 miles from home. So, we'd like them as close to the D.C. area as possible, but aiming at not more than 500 miles from home. Mr. Rogers. Now, how much will that construction cost and over what period of time would we need to provide the money? Ms. Hawk. In terms of our estimates, we use the highest amount of money to lay out what this could cost. So, if we truly were going to build eight new facilities and renovate these two, then we're projecting they would be mostly medium and high security, which are obviously more expensive institutions. We're projecting that we would need approximately $900 million. Now, if we chose to privatize a sub-section of that population, which is certainly possible, it would obviously reduce that $900 million a little bit, or if we were able to obtain another facility as we've done with a number of institutions around the country, the military bases or whatever, and convert them, then you can save some money there. We thought it would be best to speculate the worst case scenario, and that would be approximately $900 million. lorton construction and operating costs Mr. Rogers. Now, there are going to be some environmental clean-up costs, at Lorton. Who is going to pay for that and how much is it? Ms. Hawk. Well, we don't know for sure. We've initiated an environmental assessment to be done. That will take nine months or more to have it completed to do a full analysis of what the environmental issues are. There is a landfill in the middle of the property that's run by Fairfax County. There is some seepage going on there. So, a lot of the projections of how valuable this property is for development really have a bit of a question mark on it as far as we're concerned. Until the environmental impact is assessed, we don't know if it's going to cost more to clean up the land than it is for someone to come in to develop it. We have factored that in, in terms of our $900 million for construction, what we envision under a routine basis, would be needed to clean-up the pieces of the property that we would like to use. We're only looking to use 1,000 of the 3,000 acres over there. We don't need it all. We don't want it all. We want an area large enough for a complex. Our construction money of up to $900 million includes environmental clean-up on that property, unless something is found there that is far worse than we have ever imagined. Mr. Rogers. You say your construction figure includes the clean-up? Ms. Hawk. For the 1,000 acres that we want. Mr. Rogers. Right. Ms. Hawk. The rest of the property belongs to the Federal Government. So, the Federal Government, by current statute, would have a requirement to clean it up before it's handed off for re-use. There is the possibility that the developer could take it at a lesser cost and clean it up themselves. But that would have to be negotiated with the government. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Now, the operating cost of these replacement prisons. Can you tell us about that? Ms. Hawk. One of the conditions we have is that it would take us three to five years tobe able to get the funding, get the institutions, and to spread this transition over a period of time so it can be done correctly. So, we are projecting that we wouldn't have the institutions up and running until about 2002 fully. We're projecting an operating cost of about $150 million. This is additional now for just these inmates, in 2001. That would go up to $300 million added to our base operating cost by about the year 2003. Then pretty much stay at that rate, minus inflation or plus inflation, in the out-years; about $300 million. This is counting 10,000 inmates. That's projecting the increased number of inmates under the new sentencing. Mr. Rogers. How many inmates are there currently? Ms. Hawk. There are about 7,000. They're projected to grow some even without new sentencing. So, we'd be looking at 7,000 to 8,000 without revising the sentencing, 10,000 with sentencing changes. Mr. Rogers. Now, are all of these costs that you've mentioned fully covered in the D.C. budget for 1998 and assumed in the out-years? Ms. Hawk. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. The Office of Management and Budget is really working out all of the budget issues on the entire President's revitalization plan. So, I'm not sure what method they're planning to use for that. Mr. Rogers. I'm going to yield to other Members, but I want to come back to this after awhile with Judge Conaboy and all of you. Mr. Mollohan. prison programs Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to join the Chairman in welcoming everybody to the hearing this morning. I'd like to join Chairman McDade in especially welcoming you, Judge, to your position. Ms. Hawk, the Chairman asked a series of questions about overcrowding and the associated security issues. Obviously, security is the first requirement of your job. That raises all of the confinement issues. You've been dealing very aggressively with the confinement issues in your budget request. I join the chairman in being really supportive of your request to address those confinement issues. I'd like for you to speak about that in a broader context of what is happening in our prisons with regard to control issues and management issues and also rehabilitation issues, if I dare use the word. I don't have an ideological agenda here. I'd just like to hear you talk about it. What should we be doing in a holistic approach in addition to the confinement aspects of the problem? Ms. Hawk. Are you speaking just to our part of the picture, not to what happens to people before they ever become offenders? Mr. Mollohan. I'm talking about in your system. We focus here, and I say rightly so, on the security and the confinement issues. What I'm interested in is hearing a little bit about the other dimensions as to what we ought to be doing with prisoners. At some point the door is going to be open and they're going to get back into society. I'd just like to hear how we're doing with regard to that. The issue of whether we have enough money to do what we should be doing is a totally different question. I'd like to have some appreciation for what you think would be a holistic approach. Are we doing everything we should be doing? If not, what would you like to see added to your overall prison program and how you manage prisoners? Ms. Hawk. Thank you for the clarification. I want to make sure we're just talking about inside the prisons. There are a lot of things that we are doing; a lot more that needs to be done I think, and again, it all costs money. Clearly, security is the first concern, because if you don't have your population under control, then any programs you do or any attempts you make to make a positive effect on negative behavior is not going to work. So, security has to be there. Once you get past that, the things that we are doing and I think doing very effectively; one is Congress has been very generous to us in terms of resources for drug treatment. We're extremely proud of our drug treatment program. Congress passed a law that says we have to have 100 percent of our eligible inmates who need drug treatment into drug treatment by the end of this fiscal year. We have achieved that every inmate who needs drug treatment who will volunteer, that's one of the eligibility criteria. Roughly 70 percent of those who need drug treatment are volunteering for it. They're getting the treatment in the last three years of their sentence because we believe that they need this just before we transition them into the street. That's a part of our program. It's one of the resources you've given us funding for. Our drug treatment program has been operational now long enough to be able to see an impact. We're seeing that there is a significant impact upon both recidivism and on returned drug use among those who have entered the drug treatment program. We think that's only going to get better because we continue to improve our program as time goes on. We have a major research project with the National Institute of Drug Abuse to track that over time. The other thing that is very effective for us is that our inmates work. Every inmate who is physically and medically able must work. One of our most valuable programs is ourFederal Prison Industry Program, and our Vocational Training Program. The study we did a few years ago shows very dramatically that for those inmates who work in productive jobs in prison and those who take vocational training programs, it has a direct impact among recidivism and a direct impact upon having a good job upon release. So, we want to maintain that program, having viable jobs, inmates working and learning job skills. The other thing we're doing is we've developed kind of a variation of our drug treatment program for inmates in penitentiaries, because we've been running this program in our penitentiaries for some of the worst of our inmates. We're finding that we can truly have an impact. It's a restructuring program. It's the one type of program working today across correctional systems in this country. It is kind of changing the way inmates think about their values and the way they approach the world around them. We're wanting to expand that, and it is going to take some additional resources. We're hoping to be able to do that within our existing resources. If not, we're going to be coming to this Committee in future years. We have found that by offering this program to inmates in the penitentiary, we have reduced their misconduct within the penitentiary by 25 percent. That is very dramatic. Mr. Mollohan. What is that program? Ms. Hawk. It's a variation on our drug treatment program. It's built around cognitive restructuring skills. It's really back when Sam and Alan Yokelson, I don't know if you've read their book years ago on the criminal personality, it talked about the way in which to change---- Mr. Mollohan. I didn't. Ms. Hawk. You didn't read the book? Mr. Mollohan. I didn't. Ms. Hawk. I'll loan you my copy if you would like. But they talked about the way in which you can get to the most difficult criminal is, you don't do a lot of the kind of therapeutic things that we thought in the past. You know I'm a psychologist by profession. A lot of stuff I was trained in doesn't have a big impact upon inmates. But this really gets into trying to change the way inmates think, trying to change their value structure; letting them realize that their actions bring about much of the reaction and that they can have a lot more control over their environment by thinking differently about the way they approach drug use, the way they approach their families, and the way they approach other people. The only way of dealing with a displeasure is not to hit somebody, rather deal with it in different ways. It's all built around cognitive restructuring principles that are very practical, very day-to-day, and very much like trying to get them to behave and think much more like the free population does in terms of non-offensive behavior. It is truly being heard and being reacted to by these inmates. They are doing very, very well. In fact, in penitentiaries alone, we saw a 49 percent misconduct reduction rate among those that have been through the drug treatment program. I said 25 percent, but it's even higher than that. It's 49 percent, which I think is just profound. So, that's the kind of programs that we're very optimistic about. We're going to spread it out to at least the penitentiaries hopefully this coming year with existing resources, if it has the effect we're talking about. The other problem we're having and what we're working on now is the gangs issue. The gangs are pretty much the basis for a lot of the violence in our institutions. It's not the old gangs of Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, or any of those. It's the street gangs. It's the Crips, the Bloods, the Black World Family, the Latin Kings who are running the communities out there. The Crews here in Washington, D.C., the street gangs that battle each other, those gangs are now coming into the prison and getting new members within the institutions. They've become the dominant gangs in our institutions. So, we're looking at probably having to transform the way in which we designate and manage our inmate population to try to work at de-ganging these inmates. The State of Connecticut has a wonderful program there where they are working with de-ganging and actually pulling the inmates out of the gangs. Now, theirs is a small system. When you try to overlay that to a system that has 100,000 inmates in it, it's more complicated. But, we're very optimistic that we're going to be able to develop a mechanism where we can try to pull these inmates out of gangs; basically cut off the leaders and separate them because they're the ones drawing the younger, more impressionable ones into the gangs. Then, we will work with the younger members to try to get them in a different direction. We will deal with the leaders in another way. If we can get control over the gangs, we think we can get some more control over the violence and with these other programs, truly impact them. It's impacted them not only while we have them to make the jobs of our staff safer, but also as you've indicated, the vast majority of these inmates are all coming back to our streets. If we don't do something effective to change their behavior, this is going to be a never-ending cycle. Mr. Mollohan. Yes. They're simply having a recruiting opportunity in the prison. Ms. Hawk. They do. district of columbia sentenced felons Mr. Mollohan. Which makes me think about Lorton and how you would handle that population after, if you do move forward with this federalization program. How would you place the Lorton population in the Federal Prison System? How would you integrate it into the Federal Prison System? Ms. Hawk. That's an excellent question. It leads into one of the conditions that we had put forward. We believe the only way to do this effectively is for us to be able to utilize all of the resources of the Bureau of Prisons to manage these inmates, and not just go to a couple of special institutions that would just hold D.C. offenders. Mr. Mollohan. So, when you talk about a 500-mile radius, you're not talking about a 500-mile radius to transport, kind of in groups, sub-sections out at Lorton. You're talking about placing them within the Federal Prison System that operates within the---- Ms. Hawk. Exactly. So, when I say we need eight new institutions, we don't envision filling those eight new prisons with just Lorton inmates. What we need is eight more institutions worth of beds that we would build wherever, and then we would intersperse the Lorton population among those eight institutions, plus other Bureau of Prisons populations intermixing them so that we can try to change the culture of these inmates to more the way we do business in the Bureau of Prisons; break down their crews, break down their gangs, separate them out and be able to assimilate them into our system. Mr. Mollohan. Is the Lorton facility one big facility? Ms. Hawk. No. It's about seven different prisons over there. For example, there is Occoquan. You will hear them sometimes reference the different names. They're just all on a big piece of property that is referred to as Lorton. There are really seven different institutions, males, females, and lots of different security levels. Mr. Mollohan. This 7,000 population that you referenced is males, females, high security, low security, the whole mix? Ms. Hawk. It includes every security level. The only distinction is their sentence. So, the pre-trial inmates, some of which are right now at Lorton, but most of them are in the D.C. Jail, would stay with D.C. We would take only those who have been sentenced already. Mr. Mollohan. In these facilities that you're talking about building--one medium and one low at Lorton, and then five high and three medium in addition in a dispersed geographical area-- do they replicate, if you will, the institutions that are already located at what we call Lorton? Ms. Hawk. It wouldn't really because one of the problems at Lorton is they have 72 percent medium to high security inmates, but mostly all open dormitory facilities. So, their institutions are really built to be mostly low security, yet they've had to put medium and high security inmates in them. As good as I think our system is and our staff are, there is no way that we could walk in there tomorrow and run that system with the structures they have over there and not be without many of the problems they're having. It's an impossible situation. If I can just clarify one thing. The five and three are the total. If you take off the two that would stay at Lorton, that two newly constructed medium and high, that would leave six to be built. Mr. Mollohan. I thought I clearly heard you say you'd renovate two at Lorton and then build eight others. Ms. Hawk. Yes. Two of them would be at Lorton. Two of the eight others would be built at Lorton; a medium and high. We would renovate a minimum and a low, build a medium and high. So, that's four. There are ten total; eight new and two renovated. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Ms. Hawk. Sorry. Mr. Mollohan. And that's a $900 million price tag; a little less than $100 million each. Ms. Hawk. On the outside, yes. Mr. Mollohan. It is a little less than $1 billion total; a little less than $100 million for each. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. I just have one question for the Judge. We have been just focusing on prisons at this point. As far as the sentencing guidelines, drug crimes constitute a majority of the sentences. I think it's about 41 percent nationally. In Iowa it's about 63 percent. You have guidelines for specific drug offenses. When specific guidelines are increased, is there a change or response in the criminal drug community to go to a different drug? Mr. Conaboy. We certainly don't have any information that would confirm that the sentences have any impact on the size of events or the number of people involved in the drug business. But there are some indications that in the drug business there is an effort made to produce and develop drugs that can be distributed easier. Crack cocaine, and the powder cocaine situation is one of those. The reason crack cocaine was developed was there was a desire among the purveyors of drugs to begin to sell to poor areas of our communities, so they developed a cheap drug--the real instigation of crack. Crack is the cheap version of cocaine. So, whether or not the sentences and the strength of the sentences has any impact on them, I honestly can'tanswer. I don't think we have the statistical information to determine that. Mr. Kramer. We would probably expect some change to drug use, but there is little available data and research. Mr. Rogers. You will need to identify yourself. Mr. Kramer. I'm sorry. John Kramer. I'm staff director of the Commission. Mr. Latham. It would seem anyway, even though there is no study, it would seem that there are tougher sentences for certain drugs. It seems like the market would move in response to that. Mr. Conaboy. I suppose that would be a logical conclusion that if the drug marketeers observed higher penalties for certain drugs, they might move into something else. Mr. Latham. The penalties were different for cocaine and crack. Mr. Conaboy. Yes. They are at the present time, yes. Mr. Latham. Okay. That's all, Mr. Chairman, Thank you. gangs Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Madam Director, what's wrong with just transferring some of those people, breaking up their gangs by dispersal to other institutions? Ms. Hawk. That's been our response in the Federal Prison System for years. We were always able to maintain control of the gangs by taking the gang leaders, and move them off in one direction, disperse them, take the members and scatter them around. You didn't have enough at any one institution to really create major damage. The numbers of the gangs and the size of these different gangs are increasing so dramatically. Now it's the street gangs coming in, as I indicated, that are becoming the powerful ones. Then they're recruiting new members once they come inside because that is their modus operandi on the street. They bring that inside so the numbers have become so large. What we're doing is locking up a number of the troublemakers or separating them as best we can. We lock those up who prove that they're wanting to work their gang and work it in a very negative way in the institution and threaten or trouble others. We're locking those away, but we ran out of lock-up space. We've spread them as far as we can. We've locked down the ones that we could lock down. We're still not resolving the problem. Mr. Rogers. Even with rapid transfers? Ms. Hawk. Even with rapid transfers. The numbers are just so large. We have thousands and thousands of members of these gangs. Then you have wars among your gangs. Right now, there is a war between the Mexikanemi and the Mexican Mafia that, if we let any of those two open on a compound at certain institutions, they would literally kill each other. So, we lock them down and when we try to let them back out they try to kill each other again. Then you get factions The syndicate now is aligned with the Mexican Mafia so that if they are anywhere there is a Mexikanemi member, then they battle and do war. It's just this huge problem that's mushrooming, not only across our system but all of the state correctional systems too. We really feel we need a brand new approach to this. We're working on that right now, trying to pull away the more impressionable younger offenders, because what we're getting from a lot of these street gangs are very, very young men who we believe we can actually impact, if we can get to them early enough and offer them another direction. The program that I was mentioning seems to be helping us do that. But we've got to get them away from the other gang members who are active and still trying to pull them into the gangs. So, we're working on that. I think within the year we'll have something to share with you in terms of a new way of managing these inmates. They'll get under control. Mr. Rogers. We would be really interested, particularly if you need any more money. Ms. Hawk. I'm sure. district of columbia sentenced felons Mr. Rogers. Now, back to the D.C. Lorton Prison proposal. Director Gonzalez, would the marshals Service be responsible for transporting those inmates as you understand the plan? Mr. Gonzalez. Not as I understand the plan, Mr. Chairman. In fact, in our negotiations we are trying to ensure that we don't pick-up that detail. Mr. Rogers. Then who would transport them? Mr. Gonzalez. Well. Ms. Hawk. Well, I think in terms of who would transport them initially, if we opened up a new institution, we envision this thing as a gradual switch. As we bring up a Bureau of Prisons institution somewhere, we drain off x-number of the D.C. inmates. As we open another prison, we'd drain off some more. So, it would be a gradual process over three to five years. The Marshals Service, if they had the resources available, would transport them or we may bus them ourselves. Where they would become the marshals workload would be once they are a part of our system, once they are Federal inmates, then clearly they would have the responsibility. But earlier on when they're still the D.C. inmates, the Marshals would not be burdened. Mr. Rogers. Now, Director Gonzalez, what other responsibilities would the Marshals assume under theAdministration's proposal? Mr. Gonzalez. The real difficulty for us, Mr. Chairman, would be if we were to lose the 100 to 300 beds that are sometimes available to us at Lorton to house overflow prisoners. Mr. Rogers. Pre-trial prisoners? Mr. Gonzalez. Pre-trial. We house, depending on the situation at the D.C. Jail, as many as 300 at Lorton. If we were to lose those beds, we'd have to find other space within the District. There is a correctional treatment facility right next to the D.C. Jail that has about 1,000 beds. We could work through them to get some bed space. That would relieve our situation. Mr. Rogers. Is that physically possible there? Mr. Gonzalez. We're working on that now. Mr. Rogers. It could be renovated to accommodate your needs? Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. What kind of additional costs would you incur as a result of the MOU? Mr. Gonzalez. It would be privately-owned, Mr. Chairman. There wouldn't be any outlay for us. It would just be the payment of the per diem. Mr. Rogers. Irrespective of that, what's the total cost to the Marshals Service of the MOU that we're talking about? Mr. Gonzalez. Virtually zero. Mr. Rogers. Now, Judge Conaboy, how many persons are sentenced as felons or for Class A misdemeanors in the Federal system annually? Can you give us that figure? Mr. Conaboy. We have about somewhere short of 40,000 sentences that we monitor annually. Mr. Rogers. How many of those are in D.C.? Do you know? Mr. Conaboy. In the D.C. system I understand there is somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 annually. But then they would not be included in the 40,000 that I'm talking about. Mr. Rogers. That's on top of the 40,000. Mr. Conaboy. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Assuming for the moment that the Federal Government takes over responsibility for D.C. prisoners, if Federal sentencing guidelines or their equivalent are applied to D.C. criminal cases, how much of an increase would we see in the size of a prison population that the Federal Government would be responsible for? Mr. Conaboy. Well, I have not been involved there, nor has the Commission been involved in this transitional process at all. From the information I have is that there are 10,000 to 12,000 inmates sentenced each year in D.C. that will become involved with the system. Mr. Rogers. I wonder if you could, you and your staff could look at this question and get back to us on it. It may take some calculations. Mr. Conaboy. They haven't involved us, Mr. Chairman, at all because apparently the agreement that's being worked out would presume a new Sentencing Commission apart from us. We wouldn't have any---- Mr. Rogers. I understand. What I'm asking though is if we applied the same standards to D.C. prisoners as you do in all others, what kind of a new prison population would that generate for us? Mr. Conaboy. We could generate some statistics on that. [The information follows:] Estimating the Prison Impact of Applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to the District of Columbia In trying to assess the prison impact of applying the federal sentencing guidelines to felony cases prosecuted in the local District of Columbia (``DC'') courts, the Commission has consulted with the DC courts, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Prisons. The Commission has also reviewed several recent studies of the DC courts and the DC corrections systems. Based on these consultations and reviews, we have determined that the quality of data maintained by the DC courts and Department of Corrections is inadequate to make a reliable estimate of the effect on the sentenced population of applying the federal guidelines to DC cases. However, we agree with the Bureau of Prisons and a recent study completed by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency that applying the federal guidelines in DC cases would significantly increase the sentenced felon population and associated costs. This would occur in part because over 40% of DC inmates are convicted of or charged with drug crimes, primarily crack cocaine offenses, and these crimes receive very lengthy sentences under the federal guidelines. Mr. Rogers. I think what will happen in all of this, is that we're going to have to find a way to apply the sentencing guidelines to these new prisoners. Mr. Conaboy. And it will multiply the number of prison years and need for prison facilities considerably. Mr. Rogers. Director Hawk would like to know your answer as well, I suspect. Under the draft MOU, D.C. sentencing guidelines would ultimately be the responsibility of a successor Federally funded agency under the Judiciary. Do you think that would be the U.S. Sentencing Commission or do we know yet? Mr. Conaboy. I don't know. We really have no information on that as to what the contemplation is. It would be a substantial change for us. What I envision is the Sentencing Commission operation would be the size of a small state sentencing commission. So, it would be--well you can imagine. We now handle some 40,000 sentences. To add 25 percent to that is a substantial increase. Mr. Rogers. What would be the impact on your Commission if you took over that role from the D.C. court system? What would you need, do you think? Mr. Conaboy. I truly haven't given it enough thought to answer that intelligently or fully at least. Mr. Rogers. Would you think it over and let us know? Mr. Conaboy. Yes. I'd be glad to do that. Mr. Rogers. You can provide that information for the record. [The information follows:] Impact on the Sentencing Commission of Applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to the District of Columbia While it is difficult to fully and precisely assess the impact on the Sentencing Commission of applying the federal sentencing guidelines to felony cases in the local District of Columbia (``DC'') courts, it is clear that the Commission's work would be greatly impacted by such a change in policy. Applying the federal guidelines to DC felons would impact all of the Commission's primary functions and would require significant work by all of the Commission's components. Legal Analysis: If the guidelines were to apply to DC felony cases, the Commission would need to review the applicable DC Code sections and make some assessment of how each of the DC crimes would be sentenced under the guidelines. Even if the Commission chose not to specifically reference these sections in the guidelines, this review would be necessary in order to properly train practitioners on the use of the guidelines and to respond to inquiries. This would be a significant amount of work and would require significant lead time between the passage of any legislation and the implementation of the guidelines. The lead time will need to be particularly long if the guidelines are to be amended to reference the DC statutes and to reflect any unique aspects of DC law. In addition, the Commission would have to work with Congress, the Department of Justice, and the DC Council to ensure that all necessary legislative changes are made to the US and DC Codes. Also, on an ongoing basis, as changes are made in federal sentencing statutes, the Commission will have to work with the DC Council to ensure that similar changes, when appropriate, are made in the DC Code. Finally, as part of the legal staff's appellate monitoring function, the Commission would need to review DC appellate case law to facilitate training and compile appellate conflicts. Policy Analysis: To adapt the guidelines to DC felony cases, the Commission will have to complete some research on the nature of DC criminal docket and current sentencing practices in DC courts. This type of research will require both time and resources. In addition, the Commission is the logical choice and would arguably be required by current statutes to compile and release, on an annual basis, data concerning DC cases sentenced under the guidelines. Monitoring: The Commission is clearly in the best position and would arguably be required by current statutes to monitor the application of the federal guidelines in DC Superior Court. This additional monitoring function will result in a substantial increase in the Commission's workload and will require new resources. Currently, a sizable part of the Commission's budget (and more than one third of the Commission's staff) is devoted to the monitoring function. According to the best available data, approximately 10,000 felony cases are sentenced in DC Superior Court. If the Commission were required to process these cases through the monitoring unit, this would increase the current monitoring caseload by approximately 25 percent. In addition, the Commission would have to significantly adjust the monitoring systems--for example, adding the DC statutory code to its current statutory database and merging this database with our current offense codes database. These adjustments would be labor intensive. There would also be new computer hardware and software needs in addition to new personnel needs. Training: The Commission is the logical choice and would arguably be required by current statutes to train DC judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and defense attorneys in the use of the guidelines. This would be a very significant undertaking and would require significant additional resources and lead time before implementation of the guidelines to DC cases. The Commission's hotline function would also need to be greatly expanded to meet expected demand. In summary, we believe that applying the federal guidelines to DC felony cases will be a significant undertaking for the Commission and will require significant new resources and significant lead time before the guidelines could be implemented. Mr. Conaboy. We will take a look at it and make a response to that death penalty Mr. Rogers. I understand the Administration's current proposal assumes that the death penalty would not be included in the new D.C. sentencing guidelines. Two people commit the same crime and only one is given the death penalty. What impact would that have on the inmate population, do you think? Mr. Conaboy. Well, I think one of the concerns that you can see that undergirds this discussion is exactly what you're getting at, Mr. Chairman, is to have a one-prison population that's been sentenced under one system and another that's much more severe. I would imagine that the people in the prisons would agree that that would cause a great deal of mischief and exaggerate the problems that they now already have. Mr. Rogers. Do you want to address that, Director Hawk? Ms. Hawk. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That logic holds for us on all other sentencing, except for the death penalty, in that we would like to see all other sentencing very much equal. The death penalty is used relatively inconsistently in this country, not only at the Federal level, but at the state level. There is so much variation in terms of who does or does not get the death penalty. It's not as sure I think as the other kinds of sentencing from the sentencing guidelines, where it's pretty clear as to what kind of sentence someone is going to get. The death penalty has so many unique provisions around it that it's not standardized. You're not always assured of like offenses always getting the death penalty. So, there is already going to be variance. So, to say that D.C. would not have to impose a death penalty does not concern us. Mr. Rogers. Well, to make this case relevant, suppose the prisoner who killed the guard in Lompoc were a D.C. prisoner, would you be allowed to seek the death penalty? Ms. Hawk. We would because the offense now occurred in our Federal institution. It would be a presenting offense. For the offense that first brought them into prison, they would not be able to get the death penalty. Once they come to us, they're now in our custody, on Federal property, commit a Federal offense, there is a new charge and a new offense. conditions in the memorandum of understanding Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to get back to the other conditions that you are insisting upon in the MOU if we take over the system. Can you tell us about the other conditions that you are going to insist upon before you assume the responsibility? Ms. Hawk. We've really discussed most of them. One is the time frame, the three to five years. No one could take it over overnight without building sufficient capacity and having the monies available to build that sufficient capacity. So, time, money, and new capacity are a part of the conditions. So is the truth-in-sentencing, the comparable sentencing structure; not the Federal sentencing guidelines, but comparable in that there would be no parole, 85 percent truth-in-sentencing which is being required in any other state in this country to get Federal funding. Then we would see like sentences for like offenses. The other things are more like being able to retain a portion of the Lorton property because we think it is important to have some institutions very, very close to the District. That would encourage good behavior from the D.C. inmates that are being housed in other states within 500 miles from there, because they would be wanting very much to get back to D.C. So, we have to retain a portion of that which is Federal property over there to build some institutions. One other issue is their staff. We would be very interested in hiring some of their staff, very experienced talented people. We would want them to reapply and be hired under Federal standards so that issues of felony, past felony convictions, drug use, major misconduct within the institutions, all of those could enable us to screen out those staff who would not meet Federal hiring standards. We would not want to have to simply absorb all of their staff because as we see oftentimes, there is a fair number of people within their staffing who would not meet our standards, and we would not want to have them working in the Bureau of Prisons. Those are most of the conditions. There is an issue of parole--whether they would retain their Parole Commission or whether the Federal Parole Commission would take over parole for those inmates that now come into the Federal system. I think the time frame, the money, new capacity, Federal hiring standards, changes in sentencing and getting to retain a piece of the Lorton property, are the primary conditions we're looking for, all of which I think are extremely reasonable. Mr. Rogers. Do you understand that D.C. is prepared to accept those conditions? Ms. Hawk. They're working through the MOU right now. The newspaper I think just this morning said that they are moving nicely along on all other elements. There have been a lot of discussions about the sentencing. The initial misunderstanding was that they would have to totally absorb the entire Federal sentencing guidelines, and that's not what we're saying. We're talking about comparability. The Administration is, I think, very interested in allowing D.C. to play a major role and having their own sentencing commission that can craft the sentences forD.C. citizens. I think we're getting closer and closer and they're anticipating an MOU perhaps by next week. Mr. Rogers. Next week? Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Now, if they don't agree to these conditions, are you prepared, is the Administration prepared, to call off the deal? Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. I'm trying to understand the process here that D.C. and the Federal Government would have a Memorandum of Understanding which would incorporate these conditions, among other things I suspect, that we're talking about here today. Then what would happen? Ms. Hawk. The Administration is drafting legislation that would actually make all of these understandings between the Administration and the D.C. Government in the proper format and then come to Congress for consideration, by the D.C. Oversight Committees, Appropriations, and probably our Judiciary Oversight Committee because of the impact it would have on us. And every other interested party in Congress can then work with the legislation it would need to be enacted to make all of this become real. The belief was clearly that we needed to make sure that the District of Columbia is in agreement to all of this before anything comes to Congress and that there is an agreed upon foundation here to then come to Congress. Mr. Rogers. So, the timetable hopefully would be this year? Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And the first year would be fiscal year 1998? Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. If all goes well? Ms. Hawk. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. According to your point of view? Ms. Hawk. Yes. Funding for DC sentenced felons Mr. Rogers. So, how much money would you seek from us for this project in 1998? Ms. Hawk. We would be looking for, if all goes as planned, coming to Congress for $300 million in construction money to be able to begin the renovations of the facilities we want to renovate at Lorton and start the new construction. Then we would be looking at $900 million in three-year increments. So, we would be looking at $300 million, in 1998, 1999 and 2000, so that the capacity would start coming on within a couple of years and we could start absorbing the D.C. inmates into our system. It would be construction money only for the first three years. Mr. Colgate. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Steve Colgate. We are not seeking $300 million from this Subcommittee for fiscal year 1998. We'd be looking at a reimbursement in the D.C. Appropriations to the Bureau of Prisons in Fiscal year 1998. I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Chairman, that we would be seeking a reimbursement from another appropriations bill to the Buildings and Facilities appropriation. Mr. Rogers. Now, would that be true for all three years? Mr. Colgate. No sir. As the Director has pointed out, there are these transition issues. Eventually, we would be looking for the CJS bill to support these operations. We're still working out these arrangements with the Office of Management and Budget for fiscal year 1998. It is my understanding that it will essentially be a reimbursement from the D.C. Appropriations to the Buildings and Facilities appropriation within the Bureau of Prisons for this capital construction. Once the legislation is enacted, there would be a subsequent reallocation. Mr. Rogers. The first monies would be used, I'm assuming, to renovate the old buildings that you're going to keep at Lorton. Ms. Hawk. Some of that, yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Would some of it be used for new construction? Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. At Lorton? Ms. Hawk. Whichever. It could be there or it could be another site. Mr. Rogers. Well, the first $300 million that would come out of the D.C. Subcommittee in 1998, what would that money be used for? Ms. Hawk. The first $300 million would be to renovate the two and then it would be for new construction. It would also include demolition of the existing structures and the site infrastructure work. There is a vehicle maintenance building there that is very much retainable. We would put a little bit of money into that. Then we would need to construct two new facilities. That could all come out of that first $300 million. We would want to begin construction of a high in the first year and a medium in the first year. Whether those would be actually on the Lorton site or elsewhere, that's not been decided yet. Mr. Rogers. But you can get going that quickly on new facilities, new construction? Ms. Hawk. Yes, once we identify a site. Mr. Rogers. Well, it's going to take you two or three years to go through your hoops to get to actually building that new-- -- Ms. Hawk. Well, one of the things we were hoping for and to speed it up obviously is, as you know, Mr. Chairman, at some of the sites that we've been able to get in the last few years, we've gone in looking for a large enough site to be able to put multiple institutions, so that even though we're only building one today, that we could build another one later on. What we would like to be able to do is on some of these early ones that we could get them up quickly because as you're suggesting the environmental impact study takes a long time. Doing the site work takes a long time; finding the site. We have some sites out there where we have an institution and sufficient property already in place. That would really speed up the process dramatically for us. Mr. Rogers. I see. So, the first three years, you will be seeking from either the D.C. Subcommittee or this Subcommittee $300 million a year just for construction. Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And renovation. Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. In what year would the first operating costs surface? Ms. Hawk. If things go very quickly with the renovations, let's say if we get the money in 1998 and we're actually able to renovate the two facilities on site over there and get them operational, we could incur some operating costs to the tune of $12 million perhaps, in our best estimate for fiscal year 1999 in operating costs. That could go up to $20 million by 2000 in operating costs. That would probably be first getting the minimum up and beginning some work on the low, getting the low up. Then that could go up to $44 million by 2001. Those are our most optimistic numbers in terms of getting beds up and ready to go very, very quickly with renovation. Mr. Rogers. Now, the prison inmate load that we're talking about here, are you anticipating that load based on applying the same sentencing guidelines or equivalents that we have on other prisons? Ms. Hawk. The 10,000 number of inmates that we're using to base our need for the $900 million of construction is kind of a variation between. It's not quite the Federal sentencing guidelines, but it does consider 85 percent truth-in- sentencing, which means reducing the good time significantly from what D.C. has now, eliminating parole, and looking at comparability in sentences, not identical, but comparability to where like offenses would get similar kinds of sentences. So, it's a point somewhere between where D.C. is right now and where the Federal sentencing guidelines would need to be; a point that we're comfortable with, with a little bit of variation. We just don't want dramatic variation. Mr. Rogers. Now, on the D.C. Subcommittee funding contribution to the effort, tell us what you know about the situation as it is now, which may be somewhat limited. Mr. Colgate. I'll give you my best understanding. What we're looking at is through the D.C. Subcommittee there would be language in that appropriation that would essentially provide $300 million and there would actually be language that would be specific; $300 million that would be reimbursed to the Buildings and Facilities account of the Bureau of Prisons for construction and renovation for these facilities. So, the appropriation, as I understand it in my discussions with the Office of Management and Budget would be language that was in that amount appropriated to D.C. That there would be this reimbursement to the Buildings and Facilities account. Mr. Rogers. That's year one. Mr. Colgate. That's correct; fiscal year 1998. Mr. Rogers. Year two? Mr. Colgate. Year two, that's what we are still working on. In the outyears we would essentially be looking at including these estimates in the Department of Justice request. We believe that would give sufficient time for us to complete these legislative packages and resolve these other issues, as well as allow for the Congress to make appropriate adjustments to allocations between the Subcommittees in order to accommodate this. This is something, sir, that I'm still working on with the Office of Management and Budget. But that's my best tentative understanding at this point. Mr. Rogers. Well, if this Committee is charged with funding the Bureau of Prisons, the Justice Department, I can imagine the complexity if you kept D.C. prisoners separate somehow in the appropriations process. Mr. Colgate. That's right. For 1998, because we're still in this transition---- Mr. Rogers. I understand 1998. but I would not understand anything beyond that. Mr. Colgate. We're moving in the direction that we're told--I'll give you my best estimate. We're still trying to nail some of these things down. Mr. Rogers. I understand. Director Hawk, do you have any thoughts or comments about this topic? Ms. Hawk. Mr. Colgate knows much more about it than I do. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where would the $300 million come from in the first year? I know it comes from the D.C. appropriation. Where do they get it? What's being given up? Mr. Colgate. Sir, I just don't know. I've just been working on this from essentially the receiving end. Mr. Mollohan. That's a good end to work on if that's what you're receiving. Mr. Colgate. Hopefully. Mr. Rogers. If the Gentleman will yield? Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. On that topic, if I understand correctly, you're going to try to generate the monies, the $300 million give or take, by eliminating the Federal payment to D.C. Mr. Colgate. We will be earmarking it. Mr. Rogers. Earmarking it for the court system operations and the Lorton Prison. Mr. Colgate. Yes, sir, to be a reimbursement---- Ms. Hawk. Not the construction money; not the B&F funds. Mr. Colgate. I believe in the first year 1998--I'll clarify that for the record. Mr. Rogers. If you would please. [The information follows:] As currently proposed by the Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will assume responsibility for persons convicted of a felony offense under the D.C. Code. Construction and renovation funding will be requested over 3 years for a total of $900 million. In 1998, $300 million will be requested from the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. This funding will provide the initial resources required for renovations at Lorton and new construction. Funding will be requested in 1999 and 2000 from the CJS Subcommittee for the BOP Buildings and Facilities account. When BOP requires operations funding--earliest estimate is 1999--this will also be requested of the CJS Subcommittee. Mr. Rogers. I believe if that's the case over a period of time we will be left with a shortfall. One of the problems that we would have with the proposal is that over the next five years it's expected that the functions that we're talking about transferring would cost $3.9 billion, but the savings from the Federal payment would only be $3.56 million, leaving a shortfall of about $400 million that somebody has to absorb. Even if I'd like to, we don't have the money. What do you think about that? Mr. Colgate. I can appreciate your concern. We do know that when you take a look at the sentencing issues, that we would be holding these individuals for longer periods of time, and you look at the Federal operating cost such as salaries and expenses versus D.C., that we face increasing costs. I appreciate the issue. I understand the shortfall that you're raising, if you look at the cost of operating now under the present D.C. system versus the increased cost that we would face operating under the Federal system, whether there would be issues or wages or other expenses or increased lengths of sentences. It is a cost issue. Mr. Rogers. But you're aware of this as we go along. Mr. Colgate. I am basically aware of the issue. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I was going to move on to something else. Mr. Mollohan. I think that's all the questions. Mr. Rogers. Let me move on to something else. Mr. Mollohan. Just one question. Mr. Rogers. Yes. location of dc sentenced felons Mr. Mollohan. What do you do with the prisoners if you are going to renovate two facilities in the short-term, what do you do? Do those prisoners go into the Federal system immediately? You have to vacate some space at Lorton in order to renovate space. What do you do with the prisoners? Ms. Hawk. We haven't gotten that far working out the details, but you're right. We would probably absorb them into our existing institutions. Our minimum and lows are not as overly crowded as our highs are right now. So, we would be able to do that. Mr. Mollohan. Without a budgetary impact; without additional requests to this Committee? Ms. Hawk. I think so in terms of operating costs. There are a small number of minimum and low security inmates. There are not that many. It's the medium and highs when you get into the large numbers. Mr. Mollohan. But that would happen in fiscal year 1998? Ms. Hawk. Right. We could absorb some of those if we wanted to renovate the minimum first, we could absorb those and actually maybe even use some of the inmates to help do the work, which brings the cost down. Mr. Mollohan. How many inmates are you talking about having to absorb? Ms. Hawk. Well, with the renovation? Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Ms. Hawk. It's only about 500 of each; about 1,000 between the two. Mr. Mollohan. Why does that sound like a lot to me? That sounds like a lot to absorb without a budgetary impact? Ms. Hawk. Well, I guess what I'm saying is I think that when you take 500 inmates, you're talking really marginal costs because we're just absorbing that into an existing institution. If we absorb 50 inmates into ten different institutions, the cost per day per inmate when the institution is already up and running is only about $9 and something. It's really not that much. It is just the extra food they eat. The beds are already there. The staff is already there. You can do that without having to increase your staffing to cover 50 more inmates. I couldn't do that as easily with medium and highs. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. I just want to talk to the Judge here. We heard some testimony earlier from the Supreme Court Justices here about mandatory sentences. Several judges resigned because they lost their discretion in their sentencing. I'd just like your thoughts on that. Mr. Conaboy. Well, what you're talking about Congressman is the impact of a structured process that was imposed on all of the Federal judges in this country as opposed to a system in which each judge had to use his or her own discretion after they would get a pre-sentence report and a background on what the defendant was involved in. They just had to use their own discretion within the maximum term limit that was set by Congress to decide what the sentence would be. After the sentencing guidelines came into existence, there was a whole new structure that requires each judge to go through a very defined process to decide what the sentence will be in each case. There are many judges who felt that, that prevented them from designing sentences that would be more appropriate in a given case. We're finding that as time goes on, we're nearing our first decade under this process, we're finding among other things that judges who've never sentenced in any other manner are not as averse to this new system as other judges are, although we constantly hear not only from judges but from others that there is a need to make some changes in the present system that would allow more responsibility to thesentencing court to try to design a sentence that's appropriate for that given case. And we do that occasionally with amendments that we make to the system. But that's the nature of that complaint. Mr. Latham. What is your view on it? Is it justified? Mr. Conaboy. I used to say that I was much more critical of the system before I became Chairman. I was under the old system where we had total freedom. I was one of the original judges in the country who felt that we needed some kind of a guideline system because to not have any guidance or any direction as to where you start when you're going to sentence a person to me is abominable. What has happened is that the initial guideline systems that were installed in states around the country were not nearly as defined and refined as the Federal system. So, we're trying now. One of the projects that we have ongoing in our commission is to look at state systems across the country and compare them to see areas of ours that should be redone and then to add some capacity other than a departure capacity which we have now which you can only use under very restrictive conditions. It's something we're constantly looking at. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much. Mr. Rogers. Now, Director Gonzalez, you manage about 75 percent of the Federal detainee population. The INS handles the other 25 percent. You both accomplish that by renting jail space from state and local facilities and private companies and the use of Federally-owned detention facilities. Two years ago the Department successfully merged the prisoner transportation operations of the U.S. Marshals and the Immigration Service. I understand, based on a request by Congress last year, the Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the possibility of consolidating the detention responsibilities. Do you know what the status of that study is? Mr. Gonzalez. I believe it is in the data collection stage, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Justice Management Division is doing this study for the Department. That's where they're at now. Mr. Rogers. Well, in your opinion, and based on the successful merger of the transportation functions, is it possible that Marshals could take over some or even all of the INS detention functions? Mr. Gonzalez. I guess anything is possible, Mr. Chairman. I'd rather wait to see the results of the analysis on the appropriateness of doing that. Mr. Rogers. Do you have input into that study? Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, We do. Mr. Rogers. Well, are you going to recommend it or not? Mr. Gonzalez. Well, I'm not recommending it, but it's being looked at. I'd like to have an opportunity to look at what the data shows before I commit one way or another. Mr. Rogers. Couldn't you gain a lot of efficiencies by managing all of the inter-governmental agreements with state and local jails rather than have them done separately? Mr. Gonzalez. Well, we're already doing some of that with INS. In fact, in Utah, INS and the Marshals Service are combining together to do one IGA, so that the jails only have to pay one person. Mr. Rogers. It seems to me like that makes so much sense to do it that way as a general rule; doesn't it? Mr. Gonzalez. And that may be very well what that study recommends if we do it in that fashion. Mr. Rogers. So, you'll do whatever they tell you to do? Mr. Gonzalez. I'm going to do what's best, depending on what the study shows. Mr. Rogers. Who is in the group doing the study? Mr. Gonzalez. Well, we're all participating in the study; all of the detention components, INS, the Bureau of Prisons, and the United States Marshals Service. The study is actually being coordinated through the Justice Management Division. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Colgate has his hand up. Mr. Colgate. My mother told me I should do that. I apologize for that. The Deputy Attorney General has charged the Justice Management Division to coordinate this study. We're running it through our Detention Planning Committee. The U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, the Immigration Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review as well as the U.S. Attorneys are all involved in this. We're looking at all issues, whether they be consolidation within the organizations and consolidation of like functions. We plan to have our report to the Deputy Attorney General by June 30 of this year. We will, and we're making a commitment that we will have the final report which is due to Congress on November 15, 1997. Cooperation is good. We are in the data collection phase. We're adding an additional task to it and that is bringing in an accounting firm to help us do the cost-benefit analysis. We will keep your staff apprised of this significant milestone. Mr. Rogers. Well, we'd like to know as soon as possible because it will probably be after our appropriations process for 1998 takes place. We could reprogram later on to accommodate any changes you might recommend. It seems to me that this is another area where we can save some money, time, and trouble for everybody, including the local people who don't understand why there are three or four Federal agencies askingthe same thing. Mr. Gonzalez. We've actually amongst ourselves, Mr. Chairman, agreed to do our jail inspections. If the Bureau of Prisons goes in and does a jail inspection at the facility at County General, Kentucky, there is no reason for the Marshals to come in two weeks later and then INS three weeks later. Mr. Rogers. Absolutely. Mr. Gonzalez. So, we're working jointly on some of those projects. Mr. Rogers. And number two, we can save money. Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir. INFECTIOUS DISEASES Mr. Rogers. Now, Director Hawk, do we have a real serious problem of Hepatitis C in the prison system? Ms. Hawk. Infectious disease in general is a serious problem for all correctional systems in a confined population. Hepatitis C is a problem because of its volume, but not because it's contagious. Hepatitis C is a very serious illness in that there is no vaccine so we can't inoculate people against catching it as we do for Hepatitis B. All of our staff can be inoculated for Hepatitis B and protected in that way. For Hepatitis C, there is no inoculation. There is really no treatment that has proven to be very effective for large numbers of people who have Hepatitis C. The thing that makes Hepatitis C the problem is just its volume. On average it's 30 to 40 percent of inmates across the entire country, not just in the Federal system, but across the entire country. The thing that makes it less troubling for us than, for example, Hepatitis B and perhaps Tuberculosis and HIV, is that Hepatitis C is only contagious through blood, not other body fluids. You cannot contract Hepatitis C simply through sputum or someone spitting when they're talking or any of those kinds of things. It really has to be blood contact; blood-on-blood contact. So, we exercise universal precautions in all of our institutions. Whenever there is any blood spill, an inmate is injured, a staff member is injured, everyone knows we have the plastic gloves all around. Everyone is taught the universal precautions that are to be utilized to make sure you don't come in contact, skin to blood. So, it is serious because of the numbers. It's serious because it is deadly, but it's not as contagious as some of the other things like TB and HIV. Mr. Rogers. What's your policy regarding screening and treatment for Hepatitis C? Ms. Hawk. Inmates coming into us who present histories. Most Hepatitis C is contracted through needles, injection, drug injection. So, if an inmate has a history of drug injections, a history of intravenous drug use, then we do test many of those. We don't test everybody coming in. We don't even test random percentages as we do with HIV. We test those that have a history or those that demonstrate any kinds of symptoms of Hepatitis C are tested to determine whether they have the disease. Mr. Rogers. Well, I appreciate very much all of your testimony this morning, both your prepared remarks and your responses to the question. As I've said at the outset, I'm not reminding you of anything because you know, that you're dealing with some of the toughest problems this country has to offer. You're doing it, in my judgment, very well. I have a great respect for all of these three agencies that are here this morning. We know we're throwing at you, new laws and new crimes, Federal crimes, that you're having to administer and clean up after. We appreciate that especially in view of the new dynamics that are impacting all of you; the gangs, the drugs, the new types of violence. We want you to know that we're here to help you do your job because when you do your job well, it helps our constituents. So, keep in touch. If you see a problem, feel free to let us know. Ms. Hawk. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Madam Director, again, if you will convey to the family of Scott Williams our sincere and deep regrets. Ms. Hawk. I will. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rogers. We're adjourned. [Pages 1204 - 1217--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Bilchik, Shay.................................................... 897 Bosley, D.B...................................................... 1 Boswell, E.J..................................................... 647 Brann, J.E....................................................... 897 Bromwich, J.R.................................................... 495 Colgate, S.R..............................................199, 495, 577 Conaboy, R.P..................................................... 1125 Constantine, T.A................................................. 699 Curtis, A.A....................................................199, 577 DiBattiste, Carol................................................ 699 Donnelly, Tony................................................... 1 Duff, J.C........................................................ 1 Freeh, L.J.....................................................577, 647 Gonzalez, Eduardo................................................ 1125 Hantman, A.M..................................................... 29 Hawk, K.M........................................................ 1125 Heyburn, Judge J.G., II.......................................... 47 Houk, W.B........................................................ 577 Kennedy, Hon. A.M................................................ 1 Lorson, Frank.................................................... 1 Mecham, L.R...................................................... 47 Meissner, Doris...............................................199, 1011 Moscato, Anthony................................................. 1011 Pregnall, W.S., III.............................................. 29 Reno, Hon. Janet................................................. 199 Robinson, Laurie................................................. 897 Roper, M.J.....................................................199, 577 Ryan, Mary....................................................... 1011 Souter, Hon. D.H................................................. 1 Warren, M.L...................................................... 699 Wilcox, P.C., Jr................................................. 647 Young, Judge W.G................................................. 47 Zobel, Judge R.W................................................. 47 I N D E X ---------- The Supreme Court of the United States: Page Additional Police Positions.................................. 11 Caseload..................................................... 13 Civil Caseload............................................... 19 Dividing the Ninth Circuit................................... 23 Federalism................................................... 21 Habeas Corpus Reform......................................... 16 In Forma Pauperis Cases...................................... 17 Judicial Salaries............................................ 13 Mandatory Sentencing......................................... 21 Opening Remarks.............................................. 1 Police Radio System.......................................... 12 Questions Submitted by Honorable Forbes...................... 26 Schematic Design............................................. 13 Statement of Justice Kennedy................................. 2 Televising Court Proceedings.................................17, 24 Architect of the Capitol......................................... 29 Biography and Statement of Alan M. Hantman, AIA.............. 31 Building Improvements Study.................................. 30 Building Improvements Study, Further Discussion.............. 44 Capital Reinvestment Issues.................................. 42 Closing Comments............................................. 45 Five Year Capital Budget..................................... 43 Opening Statement............................................ 29 Security Improvements........................................ 45 Witnesses.................................................... 29 The Federal Judiciary and the Administrative Office.............. 47 Administrative Office of the United States Courts: Administrative Office Needs.............................. 133 Administrative Office Staffing........................... 182 Federal Judicial Center and Administrative Office........ 49 Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham.............. 134 Request for the Administrative Office.................... 112 The AO's Teleconferencing Program........................ 164 Biographies: John G. Heyburn II....................................... 65 William G. Young......................................... 65A Leonidas Ralph Mecham.................................... 145 Rya W. Zobel............................................. 125A Budget Presentation in Obligations........................... 146 Budget Summary............................................... 66 Administrative Office of the United States Courts........ 112 Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services............................................... 98 Federal Judicial Center.................................. 115 Payments to Judicial Trust Funds......................... 118 Summary Tables........................................... 80 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit............ 94 U.S. Court of International Trade........................ 96 U.S. Sentencing Commission............................... 120 Violent Crime Trust Fund................................. 122 Carryover Funds: Carryover Estimate....................................... 168 Sources of Carryover Funds............................... 147 Chairman's Opening Statement................................. 47 Courthouses: Courthouse Construction and Renovation................... 155 Courtroom Sharing........................................ 165 Need for Judgeships and Court Facilities................. 151 Court Security: Need for Court Security Increase......................... 169 Reimbursements for Shared Security....................... 171 D.C. Courts Funding.......................................... 187 Defense Costs: Death Penalty Defense Costs.............................. 161 Impact of Major Death Penalty Cases...................... 168 Dual Responsibilities of the Judiciary....................... 48 Federal Judicial Center: Connections Newsletter................................... 173 Federal Judicial Center and Administrative Office........ 49 FJC Improvements......................................... 171 FJC Teleconferences...................................... 163 FJC's Use of Technology.................................. 160 Prepared Statement of Judge Rya W. Zobel................. 123 Request of the FJC....................................... 115 Five-Year Courthouse Plan 1998-2002.......................... 157 Government Performance and Results Act....................... 189 Impact of Appropriations Cuts................................ 148 Implementation of Efficiencies............................... 150 Judgeships: Impact of Judgeship Vacancies............................ 153 Need for Judgeships and Court Facilities................. 151 Justification for the Judiciary's Requested Increase......... 147 Optimal Utilization of Judicial Resources.................... 149 Prepared Statement of Judge Glenn L. Archer.................. 126 Prepared Statement of Judge Gregory W. Carman................ 131 Prepared Statement of Judge John G. Heyburn II............... 50 Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham.................. 134 Prepared Statement of Judge Rya W. Zobel..................... 123 Questions Submitted by Congressman Forbes.................... 196 Space to be Delivered in FY 1998-Prospectus.................. 167 Teleconferencing: FJC Teleconferences...................................... 163 The AO's Teleconferencing Program........................ 164 Verbal Statement of Judge John G. Heyburn II................. 47 Attorney General................................................. 199 Abortion: Clinic Violence.......................................... 472 Costs.................................................... 473 Asset Forfeiture Fund........................................ 493 Biography, Attorney General Janet Reno....................... 223 Border Patrol Increases...................................... 394 Brady Handgun Act............................................ 451 Budget: Request.................................................. 205, 423............................................... Summary.................................................. 224 Bureau of Prisons, Budget Request............................ 212 Campaign Financing...............................200, 203, 429, 445 Citizenship USA: Actions Taken............................................ 412, 444............................................... Applicants, Increase in.................................. 412 Approvals, Erroneous..................................... 443 Cost..................................................... 443 Criminal Records Check..................425, 427, 432, 433, 436 Election, Relationship to................................ 435 Fingerprint Check.......................432, 433, 435, 439, 440 Inspector General Report................................. 396 Pressure to Accelerate................................... 413 Problems..........................................200, 394, 412 Reprogramming Notifications............................413, 417 Revocations............................................439, 443 Timing, Program Development.............................. 416 Vice President's Office................................413, 414 Voter Registration.....................................434, 438 Congressional Deception..........................394, 395, 396, 409 Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS): Budget Request.........................................210, 424 Evaluation............................................... 486 Law Enforcement Scholarship Program...................... 474 Police Officers Hired.................................... 486 Rural Officers........................................... 489 State and Local Funding of Officers....................474, 489 Status of................................................ 453 Community Prosecution Program................................ 478 Counterterrorism Fund........................................ 216 District of Columbia: Operation Ceasefire...................................... 476 Police Department......................................476, 479 Relationship with........................................ 476 Drug Certification........................................... 487 Drug Courts................................................215, 424 Drug Enforcement Administration: Budget Request.........................................214, 220 Methamphetamine.......................................... 490 Drug Trafficking............................................. 214 Federal Bureau of Investigation: Budget Request.........................................214, 220 Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Backlogs.......... 452 Laboratory Investigation................................. 481 Food Stamp Cases............................................. 494 Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Backlogs.............. 452 Government Performance and Results Act....................... 455 Immigration and Naturalization Service: Budget Request.........................................218, 219 Citizenship USA........................................411, 416 Congressional Deception.................394, 395, 396, 409, 410 Cooperation, Inspector General.........................402, 404 Disciplinary Action....................................398, 401 Employee Misconduct..........................394, 395, 396, 482 Field Management......................................... 422 General Accounting Office Report..................395, 417, 436 Growth............................................201, 396, 420 Hiring.................................................413, 420 I-19 Checkpoint.......................................... 442 Management Improvements.................410, 419, 421, 424, 481 Operation Gatekeeper..................................... 410 Problems, General......................................200, 394 San Clemente Checkpoint.................................. 441 State and Local Assistance............................... 431 Independent Counsel........................................204, 429 Inspector General: Citizenship USA........................................444, 449 FBI Laboratory.........................................445, 481 Growth, Need for.......................................411, 474 INS, Failure to Cooperate................................ 402 Employee Misconduct...............................396, 409, 410 San Clemente............................................. 442 Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, Budget Request.................................................... 215 Investigations: Campaign Financing................................204, 429, 445 Citizenship USA.......................................... 411 Congressional Deception.................394, 395, 396, 409, 410 FBI Laboratory.........................................445, 481 Operation Gatekeeper..................................... 410 San Clemente Checkpoint.................................. 442 Various.................................................. 445 Legal Divisions, Resources................................... 220 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants.........................446, 490 Management Initiatives...........................206, 413, 420, 423 Mexico Certification.......................................448, 487 National Instant Check System................................ 451 Naturalization: Actions Taken, Corrective.........................412, 444, 482 Applicants, Increase in.................................. 412 Approvals, Erroneous...................................434, 443 Citizenship USA.......................................... 411 Cost..................................................... 443 Criminal Records Check..................425, 427, 432, 433, 436 Election, Relationship to................................ 435 Fingerprint Check.......................432, 433, 435, 439, 440 Inspector General Report................................. 396 Pressure to Accelerate.................................413, 486 Problems..........................................200, 394, 412 Reprogramming Notifications............................413, 417 Revocations............................................439, 443 Timing, Program Development.............................. 416 Vice President's Office................................413, 414 Voter Registration................................434, 438, 486 Operation Ceasefire.......................................... 476 Operation Gatekeeper......................................... 410 Overseas Operations........................................461, 472 Prosecutors Grant Program.................................... 447 Questions for the Record..................................... 455 Statement: Formal, Janet Reno....................................... 205 Opening: Mr. Mollohan......................................... 201 Ms. Reno............................................. 203 Mr. Rogers........................................... 199 Telephone Service Merger Analysis............................ 479 Travel, Foreign and Domestic................................. 460 Victim Assistance............................................ 211 Violent Crime: Abortion Clinic.......................................... 472 Budget Request........................................... 208 Gangs..................................................208, 475 Violence Against Women................................... 211 Violent Offender and Truth in Sentencing Grants.......... 212 Youth Violence...................................208, 424, 447, 475 Justice Inspector General........................................ 495 Audits: COPS Grants.............................................. 569 Methodology.............................................. 575 Automation Initiatives................................498, 543, 553 Biography, Inspector General, Michael R. Bromwich............ 534 Budget Request.............................................499, 570 Citizenship USA..................................496, 546, 556, 572 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Assessment of the Program................................ 499 Audits of COPS Grants.................................... 569 Criminal Records Checks...................................... 546 Case Files Reviewed...................................... 550 IDENTS, Distribution..................................... 548 Naturalized Persons, Distribution........................ 549 Disciplinary Actions.......................................537, 541 Federal Bureau of Investigation: Information Leaks........................................ 562 Investigation, Crime Laboratory........................498, 574 Laboratory, Report....................................... 561 Management Issues........................................ 563 Responsibilities, Scope of Oversight..................... 563 Green Cards.................................................. 559 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)........................................... 573 Immigration and Naturalization Service: Automation........................................498, 543, 553 Border Patrol: Agents............................................... 572 Operation Gatekeeper................................. 565 San Clemente Checkpoint............................497, 568 Citizenship USA..............................496, 546, 556, 572 Control, Out of.......................................... 551 Criminal Records Checks.................................. 546 Disciplinary Actions...................................537, 541 ENFORCE.................................................. 544 IDENT.................................................... 544 IIRIRA................................................... 573 Investigation, Obstruction of............................ 538 Naturalization Program: Green Cards.......................................... 559 Review, Postponement of Planned...................... 555 Performance............................................558, 559 Program Review........................................... 535 Recommendations, Procedures.............................. 538 San Clemente Checkpoint.................................. 497 Status of Investigations: Miami..............................................496, 536 Citizenship USA...................................... 496 Operation Gatekeeper................................. 496 Systems, Other........................................... 544 Technology Upgrades...................................... 544 Investigations Division: FBI Crime Laboratory..................................... 498 Immigration and Naturalization Service................... 496 Oversite................................................. 573 Recommendations.......................................... 538 Management Issues............................................ 563 Miami-INS Investigation...................................... 536 Misconduct, Allegations of.................................572, 575 Naturalization Program.....................................555, 559 Operation Gatekeeper.......................................496, 565 Performance, INS...........................................558, 559 Questions for the Record..................................... 568 San Clemente Checkpoint....................................497, 568 Statement: Formal................................................... 501 Opening.................................................. 495 Technology: ENFORCE.................................................. 544 IDENT.................................................... 544 Immigration and Naturalization Service................... 544 Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................. 577 Abortion Clinic Bombings..................................... 635 Atlanta Bombing Investigation................................ 585 Allegations, Investigation of................................ 615 Anti-Drug Activities......................................... 642 Applicant Checks............................................. 609 Biography, Louis J. Freeh.................................... 603 Budget Request............................................... 588 Counterterrorism......................................... 621 Digital Telephony and Tactical Operations, Status........ 622 CALEA, Implementation Plan................................... 636 Citizenship Applicants, Increased............................ 605 Citizenship USA, INS......................................... 604 Computer Crimes.............................................. 633 Counterterrorism Funding..................................... 621 Criminal Records Checks...............................608, 609, 613 Applicant................................................ 609 Citizenship, Response Times for INS Checks............... 608 Citizens Without Full Record Checks, Number.............. 608 D.C. Metropolitan Police Force............................... 616 Equipment: Technical................................................ 622 Files......................................................584, 641 Fingerprints: Authenticity............................................. 615 Checks................................................... 604 Fingerprinting........................................... 614 Processing........................................606, 614, 615 Warning.................................................. 605 Freedom of Information Act.................................600, 628 Fundraising Investigation.................................... 611 Headquarters: Special Agents, Reduction................................ 620 Hiring: Craig Livingstone.................................... 614 Counterterrorism Programs........................................ 647 Department of State: Antiterrorism Assistance Program......................... 693 Appropriations........................................... 687 Biographies: Boswell, Eric J...................................... 697 Wilcox, Philip C., Jr................................ 684 Border Security--Passports/Visa Fraud.................... 691 Border Security Program.................................. 694 Building Security Certification.......................... 694 Coordinated Interagency Process........................679, 695 Counterterrorism: General.............................................. 685 Programs............................................. 688 Rewards Program...................................... 692 U.S. Foreign Policy.................................. 683 Crisis Response, Exercises............................... 680 Current Threat........................................... 677 Defense/State MOU........................................ 694 Enforcing the Rule of Law................................ 680 Identifying State Sponsors Of Terrorism.................. 681 Interagency Cooperation and Coordination................. 694 International Consultations, Role of The G-7/P8 Fundraising............................................ 681 Physical Security........................................ 689 Policies, Basic.......................................... 679 Protection............................................... 690 Other Investigations..................................... 691 Other State Counterterrorism Activities.................. 681 Overseas: Operations........................................... 688 Security Advisory Council............................ 692 Security Policy Board................................ 694 Research and Development................................. 682 Security: Domestic Facilities.................................. 690 Resources Allocation For Overseas Missions........... 687 Technical............................................ 689 Statement: Boswell, Eric J...................................... 685 Wilcox, Jr., Philip C................................ 677 Working Together at Embassies/Consulates................. 695 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Acknowledgments.......................................... 649 Biography, FBI Director, Louis J. Freeh.................. 676 Budget Request........................................... 673 Chairman's Opening Remarks............................... 647 Conclusion............................................... 674 Counterterrorism: Initiative 1996...................................... 669 Initiative 1997...................................... 670 Resources............................................ 667 Supplemental 1995.................................... 668 Current Threat........................................... 677 Deterring Terrorism...................................... 664 Domestic Terrorism Threat................................ 655 FBI Roles and Responsibilities........................... 662 Formalized Extremist Groups.............................. 653 International Radical Fundamentalists.................... 654 International Terrorist Threats.......................... 652 Militia Groups........................................... 657 Policy On Terrorism...................................... 650 Puerto Rican Terrorist Groups............................ 659 Revolutionary and Insurgent Groups....................... 655 Right-Wing Extremist Groups.............................. 656 Special Events Management................................ 667 Special Interest Terrorist Groups........................ 660 State-Sponsored Terrorism................................ 652 Statement, Freeh, Louis J................................ 648 Terrorism, Responding to................................. 664 Terrorist Threats, Nature of............................. 651 Vulnerabilities, Reducing................................ 662 Weapons of Mass Destruction.............................. 666 Drug Enforcement Programs........................................ 699 Criminal Division: Activities............................................... 792 Bottlenecks.............................................. 820 Biography, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mary Lee Warren................................................. 805 Budget Request: Antidrug............................................. 800 Non-Drug............................................. 803 Cooperation, Agencies.................................... 779 Drug Control: Strategy...........................................777, 780 Federal Capital Cases.................................... 796 Geographic Targeting Order............................... 794 Initiatives: Southwest Border..................................... 793 International Coordination Efforts....................... 798 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.............. 799 Methamphetamine, Strategy................................ 794 National Drug Control Strategy.........................777, 780 OCDETF, Restructure...................................... 778 Southwest Border Initiatives............................. 793 Statement, Warren, Mary Lee: Formal............................................... 780 Opening.............................................. 777 Drug Enforcement Administration: ADP Funding.............................................. 895 Agents: Attorneys, Requested................................. 853 Investigative Workyears, FY 92-96.................... 867 Mexico............................................... 809 ARCOS Reports............................................ 870 Biography, DEA Director, Thomas A. Constantine........... 723 Budget Request....................................720, 834, 835 Colombian/Mexico Situation............................... 828 Cooperation, Agencies.................................... 826 Corruption............................................... 822 Deaths, Drug Overdose.................................... 701 Diversion Control Fee Account..........................870, 890 Drugs: Case Initiations, by Category........................ 868 Emerging Problems.................................... 714 Intelligence, Sharing................................ 852 Laboratories......................................... 814 Mexico..............................806, 812, 816, 819, 822 Prevention, LE Programs.............................. 811 Problems, Domestic................................... 820 Strategy, Law Enforcement............................ 808 Supply............................................... 851 Youth Using........................................825, 827 Drug Investigations: Agent FTE, FBI....................................... 869 Category............................................. 854 Drug Matters Filed and Terminated........................ 854 Drug Prevention, Concentration, Lack of.................. 821 Extradition.............................................. 830 Federal Register......................................... 881 Fenfluramine, De-Schedule................................ 843 Gangs.................................................... 701 Global Drug Trafficking.................................. 718 Heroin: Resurgence........................................... 701 Smuggling............................................ 703 History of Drug Enforcement Costs, 1992 through 1998..... 845 ICDE: Program.............................................. 856 Structure............................................ 858 Southwest Border Initiative Cases.................... 859 Intelligence, International.............................. 836 Marijuana, Use........................................... 839 Methamphetamine........................................714, 860 Designer Drugs, Explosion............................ 818 Resurgence........................................... 701 Strategy............................................. 848 Mexico..................................806, 812, 816, 819, 822 Mobile Enforcement Teams...............................702, 893 National Methamphetamine Strategy........................ 848 Office of Diversion Control, Cost FY 94-97............... 875 Organized Crime: Federal Response..................................... 716 International........................................ 706 Surrogates........................................... 712 Technology Use....................................... 703 OCDETF: Investigations, Initiated............................ 865 Resource Tracking, FY 92-97.......................... 866 Task Forces.......................................... 846 Sentences, Mandatory Minimum............................. 827 Southwest Border Initiative............................702, 848 Statement, Thomas A. Constantine: Formal............................................... 705 Opening.............................................. 699 Trafficking: Investigation and Prosecution........................ 846 Major................................................ 702 Mexico............................................... 709 Violent Drugs........................................ 713 War On Drugs............................................. 832 United States Attorneys (USA): Agents/Attorneys, Requested.............................. 853 Biography, Director, USA, Carol DiBattiste............... 775 Budget Request........................................... 727 Child Support Recovery Act............................... 747 Cooperation, Partnership................................. 724 Counterterrorism......................................... 729 Court Appearances, Police Overtime....................... 872 District of Columbia: Crime Rate, Reduction................................ 873 Police Officers, Unable To Testify................... 871 Drug Matters Filed and Terminated........................ 855 Fingerprinting........................................... 873 Freedom of Information Act............................... 769 Judicial System, Bottlenecks............................. 820 Litigation, Civil Defense................................ 738 National Advocacy Center, Activation..................... 762 Narcotics..............................................731, 815 Organized Crime.......................................... 736 Southwest Border Initiative.............................. 742 Statement, Carol DiBattiste: Formal............................................... 726 Opening.............................................. 724 Superior Court, District of Columbia..................... 749 Victims and Witnesses.................................... 733 State and Local Law Enforcement Programs......................... 897 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).................. 936 Biography, Director COPS, Joseph E. Brann................ 952 COPS Program..........................................937, 1007 Funding, Counseling for Local Jurisdictions.............. 962 Funding, 1997 Carry-Over................................. 953 Funding Issues, Local.................................... 957 Grants, Prior Year....................................... 957 International Association of Chiefs of Police..........939, 941 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program................ 961 Matching Funds, Local.................................... 954 New Cops, Number......................................953, 1007 New Cops, Localities Retention of........................ 959 New Grants, Impact of Local Funding Requirements......... 955 Police Corps Program..................................... 985 Positions, Retention..................................... 965 Prevention Programs...................................... 964 Communities, Graduating.............................. 965 Iowa, Evaluation..................................... 964 Technology and Equipment, Funding........................ 957 Questions for the Record..............................985, 1007 Statement, Joseph E. Brann, Director: Formal............................................... 943 Opening.............................................. 936 Witnesses, Introduction of............................... 897 Office of Justice Programs................................... 897 Association of Missing & Exploited Children's Organizations (AMECO).................................. 1003 Biography: Bilchik, Shay........................................ 915 Robinson, Laurie..................................... 935 Boot Camps: Cost Savings......................................... 1010 Evaluation of........................................ 1008 State Results........................................ 1009 Budget Request, FY 1998.................................. 909 Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJS): National Sexual Offender Registry.................... 913 Byrne Discretionary Grant Program........................ 999 Communication............................................ 907 Communities, Empowering.................................. 902 Coordination, Collaboration and........................903, 904 Correction Facilities Grants: Byrne Discretionary Grant Program.................... 999 Drug Testing for State Prisoners..................... 990 Drugs: Administration's Message............................. 978 Drug Courts.......................................... 976 Drug-Related Programs................................ 910 Drug Use............................................. 977 Drug Use and Juveniles............................... 967 Juvenile Drug Abuse Strategy......................... 973 Legalization......................................... 976 Marijuana Use, Ages 12 to 17......................... 971 Media Outreach....................................... 980 Statistics........................................... 977 Testing............................................990, 993 Trends in Youthful Drug Use.......................... 969 Drug Testing: Federal Arrestees.................................... 993 State Prisoners...................................... 990 Initiatives: Juvenile Crime and Drug Use: Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth...... 979 Bryne Discretionary Grants........................... 999 Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention: Boot Camps........................................... 1008 Children-at-Risk Program...........................979, 994 Grants.............................................994, 996 Juvenile Crime Prevention Program.................... 994 Juvenile Justice Programs............................ 996 Law Related Education Program........................ 1006 Missing & Exploited Children Programs.1000, 1001, 1004, 1005 National Alzheimer Patient Alert Program............. 1001 Office of............................................ 1008 Training & Technical Assistance, Title IV............ 1002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program..............961, 984 Application Processing/Grants Management System...... 984 Block Grant Funds, Flexibility....................... 984 University of Maryland Report........................ 982 Maryland Report on Crime Program.......................982, 989 Media and Drugs: Juvenile Drug Abuse Strategy......................... 973 Public Information Campaigns............................. 980 Missing & Exploited Children Program.................1000, 1001 Community-Based Approaches........................... 1004 Criminal Parental Kidnaping Training................. 1005 International Child Abduction Attorney Network....... 1004 International Parental Abductions, Issues............ 1004 National Center...................................... 1001 Parent Resources Support Network..................... 1005 National Alzheimer Patient Alert Program................. 1001 National Crime Information Center (NCIC)................. 1003 National Sexual Offender Registry........................ 913 National Institute of Justice: Drug Use Forecasting................................. 913 Understanding Violence Against Women Report.......... 913 National Missing Children Data Archive................... 1003 NISMART II............................................... 1003 Positions, Retention..................................... 965 Prevention Programs...................................... 964 Communities, Graduating.............................. 965 Iowa, Evaluation..................................... 964 Training & Technical Assistance, Title IV................ 1002 Questions for the Record................................. 984 Byrne Discretionary Grant Program.................... 999 Criminal Parental Kidnaping Training................. 1005 Drug Testing for Federal Arrestees................... 993 Drug Testing for State Prisoners..................... 990 Juvenile Crime Prevention Program.................... 994 Law Related Education Program........................ 1006 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program............ 984 Maryland Report on Crime Programs.................... 989 Missing Children's Programs..........1000, 1001, 1003, 1004 National Alzheimer Patient Alert Program............. 1001 National Crime Information Center.................... 1003 NISMART II........................................... 1003 Parent Resources Support Network..................... 1005 Training & Technical Assistance, Title IV............ 1002 Violence Against Women Grants........................ 998 Research and Evaluation.................................. 905 Statement, Laurie Robinson, AAG: Formal............................................... 900 Opening.............................................. 898 Statement, Shay Bilchik, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Formal............................................... 918 Opening.............................................. 916 Formula Grants Program................................... 912 Violence Against Women Act: Violence Against Women Grants........................ 998 Witnesses, Introduction of............................... 897 Immigration Issues............................................... 1011 Department of State: Accomplishments......................................1060, 1064 Biography, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Mary A. Ryan.................................. 1075 Border Crossing Cards................................1061, 1069 Border Security......................................1060, 1063 Customer Service......................................... 1071 FBI Information, Access to...........................1071, 1089 Fee Repeal, 245(i)....................................... 1115 Status................................................... 622 IAFIS.................................................... 624 Information Sharing, FBI and INS......................... 640 Initiatives: International Law Enforcement........................ 596 La Costa Nostra...................................... 598 Southwest Border..................................... 599 Technology Crimes.................................... 595 Telecommunications Carrier Compliance..............593, 635 International Law Enforcement............................ 596 Investigations: Allegations of Criminal Conduct...................... 615 Fundraising.......................................... 611 Olympics Bombing, Atlanta..........................585, 626 TWA Flight 800.....................................616, 643 Whitehurst.........................................619, 639 Laboratory..............................583, 589, 619, 621, 639 La Costa Nostra.......................................... 598 Legal Attache Offices.................................... 636 Livingston, Hiring....................................... 614 Misconduct............................................... 638 National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Status 629 Naturalization Programs, INS: Citizenship Applicants, Advising FBI................. 605 Citizenship USA...................................... 604 Criminal Records Checks.......................608, 609, 613 Fingerprint Checks.................................604, 615 NCIC 2000................................................ 624 Olympic Bombing.......................................... 626 Opening Remarks: Chairman Livingston.................................. 579 Chairman Rogers...................................... 577 Mr. Mollohan......................................... 581 Personnel, Hiring Status................................. 622 Professional Responsibility, Office of................... 610 Southwest Border......................................... 599 Special Agents, Reduction at Headquarters................ 620 Statement: Formal............................................... 587 Opening.............................................. 582 Technology Crimes......................................595, 633 Telecommunications Carrier Compliance.................... 593 Terrorism................................................ 623 TWA Flight 800........................................... 616 Whitehurst Investigation................................. 619 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.................................................... 1061 Immigration and Naturalization Service, Cooperation with. 1061, 1068 Machine Readable Visas...............................1060, 1063 Passport Issuances...................................1062, 1071 Retention Rates Overseas................................. 1098 Statement: Formal............................................... 1063 Opening.............................................. 1060 Visas: Non-Immigrant....................................1061, 1071 Machine Readable..................................... 1063 Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): Achievements.........................................1051, 1054 Adjudication Programs, Status of......................... 1054 Biography, EOIR Director Anthony C. Moscato.............. 1059 Budget Request, EOIR.................................1051, 1057 Deportation Orders Outstanding........................... 1112 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Impact of.....................................1051, 1055 Port Court............................................... 1111 Removal Orders, Criminal Aliens.......................... 1113 Statement: Formal............................................... 1053 Opening.............................................. 1051 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS): Achievements, INS: Assistance to States................................. 1026 Border Control....................................... 1017 Olympics, Support to.............................1028, 1083 Removal of Illegal Aliens............................ 1020 Services............................................. 1025 Technology Improvements..........................1023, 1081 Worksite Enforcement................................. 1021 Automation Systems...................................1083, 1084 Biography, INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner.............. 1049 Border: Control.............................................. 1017 IAFIS Interface..................................1084, 1087 INDENT/ENFORCE.............................1023, 1038, 1083 Initiative........................................... 1037 Border Patrol Agents: Attrition Rates...................................... 1097 Number Requested.................................1082, 1094 Budget Request.......................................1033, 1081 Citizenship USA: Actions Taken, Corrective............1031, 1077, 1079, 1101 Applicants, Numbers of............................... 1076 Audit, KPMG Peat Marwick...................1031, 1077, 1079 Cost, INS Providing Fingerprint Service.............. 1103 Deportation Orders, Subject to...................1079, 1112 Designated Fingerprint Services..................1100, 1102 Erroneous Grants of.................................. 1077 FBI, Discussions with................................ 1096 Fingerprint Verification.............1077, 1079, 1099, 1101 Locating Felons...................................... 1096 Managers, Accountability of.......................... 1080 Program..........................................1030, 1076 Quality Assurance Program............................ 1077 Revocation........................................... 1097 Services and Benefits................................ 1045 Criminal Alien, Removal of: Achievements......................................... 1020 Budget Request....................................... 1039 Employee Misconduct...................................... 1029 Exit Control Strategy.................................... 1114 Fee Repeal, 245(i)....................................... 12115 General Accounting Office Report.....................1015, 1100 Hiring: Border Patrol........................................ 1195 Plan................................................. 1191 IDENT System: Accomplishments...................................... 1023 Inspector General Report............................. 1083 Illegal Aliens, Removal of: Achievements......................................... 1020 Deportation Orders Outstanding....................... 1112 Detention Program................................1110, 1114 Numbers Removed...................................... 1109 Port Court........................................... 1110 Infrastructure...........................1023, 1081, 1083, 1094 Initiatives: Automation........................................... 1083 Border Control....................................... 1037 Professionalism...................................... 1034 INSPASS..............................................1024, 1083 Inspectors............................................... 1095 Inspector General Report.............................1083, 1100 Interior Deterrence...................................... 1043 Investigators............................................ 1106 Law Enforcement Support Center........................... 1120 Management Accountability................................ 1105 Management Reforms.............................1012, 1077, 1104 Miami Visit.............................................. 1029 National Academy for Public Administration Report........ 1013 Naturalization: Citizenship USA..................................1012, 1030 Reports, Monthly..................................... 1118 Services and Benefits................................ 1045 Nogales Interstate 19 Checkpoint......................... 1095 Operation Gatekeeper.................................1020, 1032 Operation Mountain Passes................................ 1123 Questions for the Record................................. 1118 Personnel Increases..................................1081, 1095 Personnel Selection...................................... 1106 Position, Authorized v. Funded........................... 1107 Reorganization.......................................1013, 1104 Southwest Border Committee Visit.....................1012, 1089 State Department, Cooperation with...................1024, 1084 Statement: Formal............................................... 1014 Opening.............................................. 1012 Status, German De La Roche............................... 1118 Technology: Achievements...............................1023, 1081, 1083 DataShare........................................1024, 1084 Personnel Needs, Balance with........................ 1094 Voter Registration...................................1089, 1091 Worker Preference Program................................ 1121 Worksite Enforcement and Verification: Achievements......................................... 1021 Budget Request....................................... 1043 Positions, Funded.................................... 1108 Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Sentencing Commission..................................................... 1125 Bureau of Prisons (BOP)...................................... 1148 Biography, BOP Director, Kathleen M. Hawk................ 1161 Budget Request........................................... 1151 Death of Officer Williams................................ 1177 Death Penalty............................................ 1193 District of Columbia: Death Penalty........................................ 1193 Lorton Operating Costs...........................1180, 1183 Memorandum of Understanding......................1182, 1194 Sentenced Felons...............1179, 1187, 1190, 1195, 1199 Takeover of D.C. Prison System....................... 1207 Facilities, Maintaining.................................. 1159 Funding, DC Sentenced Felons............................. 1195 Gangs.................................................... 1189 Health Care Initiatives..............................1158, 1209 Infectious Diseases...................................... 1202 Inmate Populations: Growth/Projections................................... 1154 Overcrowding, Reduction of........................... 1157 Location of DC Sentenced Felons.......................... 1199 Lorton: Construction and Operating Costs..................... 1183 Memorandum of Understanding.......................... 1182 Operating Costs...................................... 1180 Sentenced Felons...........................1179, 1187, 1190 Memorandum of Understanding..........................1182, 1194 Privatization............................................ 1157 Programs, Prison......................................... 1184 Sentenced Felons...................1179, 1187, 1190, 1195, 1199 Sentencing Guidelines, Federal: Impact, Applying District of Columbia................ 1191 Impact, Sentencing Commission........................ 1192 Statement, Kathleen Hawk: Formal............................................... 1150 Opening.............................................. 1148 Summary.................................................. 1160 Takeover of D.C. Prison System........................... 1207 Violence and Overcrowding................................ 1178 U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)................................. 1174 Assets Forfeiture Program................................ 1210 Audit Initiatives........................................ 1172 Biography, USMS Director, Eduardo Gonzalez............... 1176 Chief Information Officer................................ 1172 Cooperation, Interagency................................. 1173 Court Security Program................................... 1216 D.C. Prisoner System Takeover Impacts.................... 1207 Forfeited Assets, Internal Control....................... 1210 Joint Automated Booking Station.......................... 1173 Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System......... 1175 Statement, Eduardo Gonzalez: Formal............................................... 1166 Opening.............................................. 1163 Video Teleconferencing................................... 1164 U.S. Sentencing Commission................................... 1125 Agenda................................................... 1140 Biography, Judge Richard P. Conaboy...................... 1147 Budget History........................................... 1132 Budget Request: Public Service Announcements......................... 1204 Employment, On-Board..................................... 1204 Federal Sentencing Reform................................ 1134 Guideline Simplification................................. 1205 Introduction............................................. 1130 Justification............................................ 1134 Questions for the Record................................. 1204 Responsibilities......................................... 1136 Resources Requested...................................... 1133 Statement, Richard P. Conaboy: Formal............................................... 1130 Opening.............................................. 1126 Witness List............................................. 1147