[House Hearing, 105 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999 ======================================================================== HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND 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, Mike Ringler, and Cordia Strom, Subcommittee Staff ________ PART 6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Page Attorney General................................................. 1 Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................. 295 Drug Enforcement Programs........................................ 387 State and Local Law Enforcement.................................. 507 Immigration and Naturalization Service........................... 585 Prisons and Related Issues....................................... 691 ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 49-212 WASHINGTON : 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California HENRY BONILLA, Texas NITA M. LOWEY, New York JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOSE E. SERRANO, New York DAN MILLER, Florida ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JAY DICKEY, Arkansas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts MIKE PARKER, Mississippi ED PASTOR, Arizona RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York CHET EDWARDS, Texas GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama 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 1999 ---------- Thursday, February 26, 1998. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITNESS ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO Introduction Mr. Rogers. The committee will come to order. This morning we would like to welcome Attorney General Janet Reno to appear before the Committee on behalf of the Department of Justice's 1999 budget request. You are seeking $18.3 billion from this Committee for the Department, which represents an increase of $800 million, or 4.5 percent, over fiscal year 1998. This subcommittee and I personally continue to be among the strongest supporters of the Department of Justice and its law enforcement agencies. We have provided increases totaling over $5 billion since 1995, 42 percent, to give Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies the tools they critically need to fight crime at a time when we are also trying to balance the budget. I am pleased to see that some of this investment is paying off. Serious crime fell 3 percent last year and has dropped for the fifth consecutive year. But our work is far from done; we still have serious crime problems that paint a dark cloud over that success. We have fallen critically behind in the drug war over the last 5 years. While some applaud that drug use by eighth graders is leveling off, cocaine use by eighth graders is still 57 percent higher than 5 years ago. Marijuana use by this group is 175 percent higher than 1992. Drug abuse crime among juveniles is rising to unprecedented levels. Madam Attorney General, we can't wait 10 years for these changes to happen, as the Administration has set out to do. We need aggressive and creative initiatives to turn this around. We are doing our part by providing the resources in unprecedented amounts, and we need your leadership if we are going to win that war. While we still will continue to support law enforcement, we will also hold you accountable. There are still some serious mismanagement problems that need to be addressed if the taxpayers are going to get the most out of their investment in the Department of Justice. We can no longer continue to provide resources to the Immigration and Naturalization Service without fundamental change in its structure. It can't handle its responsibilities. I have waited 15 years to say that on this subcommittee, and I have finally, sadly concluded that INS has got to go. It has botched its mission over the past years; it can't continue. Your challenges for managing the largest law enforcement agency in the country are great and come at a time when the Department finds itself simultaneously conducting a number of investigations of Administration officials and at the same time defending the Administration's position in court. That is a hot seat, but I have to say that it has been created. We will be watching closely how the Department walks that very fine line. Madam Attorney General, as always, this committee will continue to work with you to ensure that law enforcement has what it needs to fight crime. We appreciate your being here today. We will insert your written testimony in the record, and we are willing to hear your statement at this time. attorney general reno's opening statement Attorney General Reno. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mollohan, and members of the subcommittee. I am very happy to be back with you once again to present the budget request for the Department of Justice. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you, to consult with you, to consider the issues that you have raised, Mr. Chairman, and to work together with you and the subcommittee as we address them together. For fiscal year 1999, including fees, we are requesting $20.9 billion, an $877 million, or 4.4 percent, increase in funding over last year. Since I became Attorney General in 1993, funding for the Justice Department has increased more than 87 percent, due in large part to the efforts of this subcommittee, and we are very appreciative not just of the funding, but of the thoughtfulness that you have devoted to the very issues that we face in the Department. I believe our investment is paying off, as you have indicated, Mr. Chairman. Over the past several years we have witnessed a decrease in violent crime, and juvenile crime appears to be on the decline. We are continuing our fight against drug trafficking and abuse, and I think we have seen successes as indicated by the reduction in violent drug organizations that have spread violence across this land. We have added Border Patrol agents in record numbers and we have seen results as those agents have gone into place along the California border; and we are spreading this effort throughout the entire Southwest border. We have removed criminal aliens at a record pace. We are continuing a concerted effort to combat computer crime, and have taken critical steps to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorist attack. Yes, I think we have had some successes, but I couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more to be done. The budget I present to you today does just that. It builds on past successes and helps to prepare us for the law enforcement challenges of the 21st century. cops program One of our top tasks is to do everything in our power to see that crime continues to fall. At the cornerstone of this effort is our commitment to place 100,000 community police officers on the streets of America by the year 2000. The budget before you seeks $1.4 billion for the community oriented policing services, or COPS program, to fund an estimated 16,000 officers in fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to 99,000 funded officers one full year before our pledge to fund 100,000. youth violence But, to sustain our success in fighting crime, we must also continue our efforts aimed specifically at youth violence. For the second year in a row, juvenile arrest rates for violent crime and homicides have fallen. While this is encouraging news, youth violence is still far too prevalent in far too many of our communities, and we need to increase our resources in the immediate future in significant proportion. So I think this is an area that requires our continued focus. Consistent with the Administration's Anti-gang and Youth Violence bill proposed last year, the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget seeks to focus additional resources on three youth violence grant programs and restructure current juvenile justice programs. Our request includes nearly $500 million in targeted program enhancement and restructuring aimed at preventing and fighting juvenile crime and youth violence. These initiatives include $100 million in grants to State and local prosecutors' offices to fight youth drug gang and violence problems through earlier intervention and the identification and rapid prosecution of these offenders; $50 million for innovative court programs to better handle and hold accountable young violent offenders within the justice system; and $95 million to fight truancy, school violence and strengthen anticrime after-school programs. prosecutors Our request also seeks to change the way that prosecutors across America serve their communities by providing $50 million to increase the number of local prosecutors interacting directly with police officers and community residents to identify and solve crime problems in their neighborhoods. Around the country--for example, in places like Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; and Indianapolis, Indiana--earlier efforts at community prosecution are being deployed, and this program appears to work. With this funding you will provide us with an opportunity to fund and test this very promising strategy. violence against women To combat violence against women, we are requesting $271 million, and following your lead, we have included targeted set-asides for civil legal assistance programs, research concerning violence against women and the United States Attorney's Domestic Violence Unit in the District of Columbia. cybercrime initiative Another central focus of our request and one of the greatest challenges of the next century is to address cybercrime before it can become an epidemic within the United States or around the world. Every day the United States relies more heavily upon its interconnected telecommunications and automated information systems for basic services, such as energy, banking and finance, transportation and defense. As such, we must be certain that they are safe and secure. For fiscal year 1999, the Department is seeking $64 million in increased funding to expand efforts to protect the Nation's critical infrastructures from cyber-attacks and to combat cybercrime. These additional resources will support 75 new FBI agents and 24 Assistant United States Attorneys to track down and prosecute cyber-criminals. The FBI will focus its new resources on the formation of six additional new computer investigation and threat assessment squads in cities around the country. Also included in the initiative is $10 million for the FBI's Computer Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center which is being restructured and renamed the National Infrastructure Protection Center. These funds will be used to expand operations, develop an early warning system, and conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments. For the Counterterrorism Fund, the cybercrime initiative includes $33.6 million for activities related to the protection of the Nation's critical infrastructures. Most of these funds will be needed for the National Infrastructure Protection Center, but some could be used to reimburse other agencies. drug initiative To continue the fight against drug trafficking and abuse, the budget before you seeks $167 million in increased resources in fiscal year 1999, allowing us to hire more drug enforcement agents and prosecutors and increase drug testing and intervention programs. This balanced investment will decrease drug use and help stem the violence it brings into our communities. Funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration will grow by 4.6 percent to $1.25 billion, with program enhancements totaling $64 million. Included within these additional resources are funds to support 100 more DEA agents, to attack methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse; 54 more agents for the Caribbean corridor strategy, and 95 more agents to intensify efforts against heroin traffickers. Our drug initiative will also support the hiring of 64 Assistant United States Attorneys and five Criminal Division attorneys to pursue and prosecute drug traffickers and to implement our national strategy against methamphetamines. We also want to help State and local agencies conduct vital drug testing and intervention programs and have included $94 million in additional grants to State and local agencies to implement comprehensive systems of drug testing, drug treatment, and graduated sanctions. immigration initiative For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, we are requesting $4.2 billion, or 10.2 percent more than last year, to strengthen and improve existing programs and to implement new measures that will guard against illegal immigration and promote legal entry into the United States. With the support and leadership of this Committee, the INS has nearly doubled the Border Patrol agent work force since 1993 and has introduced innovative deterrent and advanced technologies to address illegal immigration at all borders of the United States. For fiscal year 1999, the Department requests $272.5 million in increased funding for "force-multiplying" technologies and 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. Funding will also be dedicated to programs to detain and remove illegal aliens, including criminal aliens, to address the proliferation of alien smuggling by strategically placing INS personnel along major smuggling transportation corridors and to ensure the integrity of the naturalization process. Clearly, we have not resolved all of the problems that face this country in deterring illegal entry, nor have we completely resolved the problems to ensure adjudication and naturalization for legally admitted aliens eligible for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. I recognize the management issues that you raise, Mr. Chairman, and I continue to focus on these, and in the course of this hearing, will discuss with you steps that we have taken. But as we recognized in 1994 when we launched our comprehensive Southwest border strategy, the investment necessary would be multiyear and multifaceted. This budget request continues the measured, prudent growth required to allow a reengineered Immigration and Naturalization Service to cope with the challenges it will face in the 21st century. infrastructure needs The budget before you also seeks some new initiatives and program enhancements to address critical infrastructure needs fundamental to the effective enforcement of our Nation's laws. Rebuilding continues to be a personal focus of mine, and while we are making progress, our automation and communication capabilities are still outdated. As I have stated in earlier appearances before this Committee, without the proper tools to get the job done, current, let alone additional, attorneys, agents and inspectors will be less efficient and less effective in performing their duties. other issues For fiscal year 1999 we are asking for more than $20 billion because we face many challenges. We are seeking funding to launch a comprehensive national hate crimes initiative, reduce violent crime on Indian lands, address the burgeoning defensive civil litigation caseload and build additional capacity in the Federal Prison System. The budget I present to you today will help us address our ongoing challenges and prepare for new ones, and I look forward to working with you in this effort. [The information follows:] [Pages 5 - 208--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] calea Mr. Rogers. I thank you, Madam Attorney General, for that statement. We have a number of members that will be asking questions. I suggest at the outset here that we go on a 10-minute cycle per member so that all members will have a chance on a first round. Madam Attorney General, over 3 years ago on behalf of law enforcement and to ensure public safety, the Congress passed and the President signed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, CALEA, the method by which you would be able to continue court-ordered wiretaps and other surveillances with a new technology that is coming into play. Both you and Director Freeh have testified to this committee and others of the vital importance of that initiative, and of course, that goes without saying. We responded by providing funding and legislative provisions to establish a funding mechanism to pay for those switch changes, $500 million. We have also tried to move the process of defining law enforcement requirements by including legislative provisions that address disclosure of capability and capacity needs. We have convened meetings of industry and law enforcement to facilitate resolution of outstanding issues. We have required progress reports. Unfortunately, I think I can say now, with certainty, we are no closer today than we were 3 years ago in implementing this law, and time is running out. Can you tell us the current status of your efforts to resolve the outstanding issues with the telephone industry? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all that you have done in this effort. As you know, this is a technical and a very difficult issue, and we have undertaken it on behalf not just of Federal law enforcement, but of all law enforcement. We are essentially dealing with an issue that requires the development of significant new technology in order to maintain law enforcement's capacity to pursue electronic surveillance. This task turned out to be far more significant and difficult than we had originally anticipated, with many different technological as well as implementation issues that we have had to understand and address. We were probably somewhat remiss early on in our deliberations by taking too strict an interpretation of the law and its requirements. However, when it became apparent that this program was not progressing as it should, Director Freeh and I both felt that it was important to reach out to the industry, and the industry reached out to us. We needed to set aside the arguments, the verbal arguments that had started as people tried to address these hard issues. I had the opportunity to begin initially a meeting with the Vice Chairman of Bell Atlantic. He indicated a willingness to engage leaders in the industry to participate in discussions. We agreed to assign senior personnel to this effort, and we have had considerable discussion as we have tried to move this process forward. After the initial discussions that were necessary to clarify just what the issues were, we began in earnest in October to itemize the industry's very specific concerns, and through negotiation in the past 5 months, we have put forth compromised positions in each of the following areas to address their concerns: First, with respect to capacity, we have developed application language within the final notice of capacity which allows the telecommunications carriers and manufacturers to determine the impact on the switching systems. The Department undertook an extensive legal review of the law enforcement requirements under section 103 of the act and provided the industry its legal opinion relative to the requirements that law enforcement needed that were not part of the industry's proposed technical solution. The results of this review provided greater flexibility as to how industry would meet the law enforcement requirements and also provided for a phased implementation to reduce the impact on the carriers. We also eliminated the most difficult requirement to perform, which also would have been very expensive. In addressing industry's concerns about the October 1998 compliance date, a proposal was submitted to industry that would allow flexibility and enforcement. We provided industry an approach that would waive our ability to take enforcement action against them if they had in good faith developed and implemented on schedule a technical solution that met law enforcement needs. We approached our negotiations with the goal of providing maximum coverage to the industry realizing, though, that we are limited to a reimbursement of $500 million, but with the goal, wherever possible, to provide the broadest possible coverage by reimbursement to the industry. Our goal was to approach development of the software solution on an across-the-board basis. What this means is that we were still willing to purchase a manufacturer's software solution for all of its currently deployed switches if they were available pre-January 1, 1995. This would provide greater coverage and assist those carriers who deployed equipment after the January 1, 1995, cutoff date. Although there has been quite a bit of effort, both on behalf of industry as well as government, it now appears, based on discussions as recent as Wednesday, February 25th, that we may be at an impasse. Let me explain to you what I understand to be the industry's proposal. Simply said, the industry's proposal is that all equipment, services and facilities installed or deployed as of October 1998 would be deemed in compliance forever with section 103 of CALEA, unless the government agrees to pay to modify or to upgrade it. Only if the government accepted this cost reimbursement scenario will industry incorporate the full technical functionality required by law enforcement under section 103 into the industry's technical standard and build a technical solution to meet law enforcement's requirements. The condition that we provide reimbursement now for a greater period of time, extending the date from January 1 of 1995 to October 1 of 1998, will significantly increase the costs that the government would have to reimburse the telecommunications industry. It is our expectation that the cost would exceed the $500 million that has been authorized. Given the fact that we cannot exceed the amount provided for reimbursement authorized by Congress, I believe that we will be at an impasse. It is my expectation that if this impasse cannot be resolved shortly, we will have to file a petition before the FCC on behalf of all law enforcement stating that the proposed industry technical solution is deficient and will not meet the fundamental evidentiary legal law enforcement requirements necessary for successful prosecution of cases. If this becomes necessary, we willfile our petition by March 13 of 1998. Unfortunately, if we are pressed to take this step, we will avail ourselves of all lawful mechanisms available. I hope that this process can be avoided. Mr. Rogers. Well, so you're saying that by Friday the 13th of March, if you and the industry have not been able to work out successfully what the standards, the technical capacities and requirements are to be, and the other issues--that is, the dates and the compliance issues--that unless those are worked out amicably by March the 13th, you plan to file your petition with the FCC to have it decided by the FCC? Attorney General Reno. That is correct, sir. At the same time, I will make myself personally available on any occasion to address the issues with leaders of the industry, because we have had, up until now, a very frank and very thoughtful and positive discussion. Mr. Rogers. Well, I have been a party to some of those discussions and, in fact, have tried to play midwife to a deal, but it is becoming frustrating and it looks to me like perhaps it is at an impasse and will have to be decided by the FCC and/ or by the courts. And I just want to reiterate again here today that I have told you and all of the Justice Department and the industry that $500 million is it; and we expect to see this matter resolved before we appropriate any more funding. As you have stated, the value of having the ability to electronically surveil in criminal cases is absolutely vital, particularly in organized crime, and particularly in the drug fight, and I will not stand by and see that capacity wane away. So I expect you to live up to that commitment. If it can't be resolved peacefully by Friday the 13th, I expect to see the FCC waiting at their door with bated breath for your petition. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I personally asked that the date be checked to make sure we could do it. Mr. Rogers. I will buy your cab fare down there to file the papers. Now, looking back over the last 3 years, I have to say that the FBI contributed to this impasse. I am an FBI supporter, but I have to say that they contributed to their own problems here. What do you think about that? Attorney General Reno. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I think that we were perhaps a little too rigid in the beginning as we tried to address the FBI's requirements, but I think with Director Freeh's leadership in joining with the Department, we have been able to work through those issues--through the technical issues, through the legal issues--and I think it basically comes down to cost now. Mr. Rogers. Well, the FBI contributed to the problem, did they not, by just simply refusing to move on this thing for better than 2 years? Attorney General Reno. I think there is something to be said for that, but I think that with the effort that we have undertaken and with what Director Freeh has done, we have gotten substantially beyond that. Mr. Rogers. Now, you have asked $100 million for CALEA in your 1999 request. Given the impact if it does develop and you end up petitioning the FCC for a ruling, is it likely that you will need that $100 million in 1999? Attorney General Reno. As you know, I am hopeful that our petition can be reviewed on an expedited basis by the FCC. Our CALEA reimbursement account is a no-year account, and the funding deposited in that account is available regardless of the fiscal year. I am concerned that once we resolve these issues, given the fact that I believe the industry has already done a significant amount of work in that area, that their request for reimbursement may actually exceed the revenue stream available. If the 1999 request is not approved, then I would urge you to provide that requested funding. Mr. Rogers. Well, we will wait and see. Let me ask you briefly now, when do we--when can we expect that the Department's capability to electronically surveil will become limited unless changes are made? How long do we have? Attorney General Reno. I think we are there. Mr. Rogers. You think we are there now? Attorney General Reno. Yes. Mr. Rogers. How long do you anticipate that the FCC might take on a ruling? Attorney General Reno. My hope is that they would move very expeditiously with respect to the issue. I think the issue has been framed by the constructive discussions that we have had. Mr. Rogers. And the minimum time that they can move, I understand, is six months; is that correct? Attorney General Reno. I am told by Mr. Colgate that that is correct. Mr. Rogers. Now, even after the FCC rules and they decide what the standards are for the new equipment, only then can the companies and the manufacturers begin to design and build the equipment that has to be installed; is that correct? Attorney General Reno. That is correct. But I think that they have done some considerable work on that. Mr. Rogers. Do we know how long it might take for that process to take place before the equipment can be installed? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Colgate indicates--and I always welcome him; as you know, he is a person I rely a great deal on. Mr. Rogers. As do we. He is a valuable asset to you and to us all. Attorney General Reno. He indicates that as long as 18 months, but it would depend on different circumstances and depend on the carrier. Mr. Rogers. Well, even at best then, before the new equipment could be installed and operating to allow the Department to continue electronic surveillance, we are looking at at least six months' FCC time, assuming they rule the first minute they can; and then another year to 18 months thereafter to design and build the equipment to be installed. So we are looking at upwards of 2 years-plus, are we not, before the matter could conceivably be resolved? Attorney General Reno. It looks like that. Mr. Rogers. Is there any way to shorten that time, without an amicable settlement on the matter? Attorney General Reno. As Mr. Colgate points out and as I mentioned earlier, there are some manufacturers that have done some considerable work, so for some it may be shorter in time. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Well, my time has expired for the moment. I have other questions, and I will return. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that we will pursue this with all possibledispatch, and I will give personal attention to it; and we will do everything we can to get an expedited resolution of this matter before the FCC. I would appeal to everybody concerned, though, that what is at stake here is America's law enforcement interests, not just of the Federal Government, but of State and local. What is at stake here is this Nation's interest, and I think the industry--and I know a number in the industry have reflected concern for these issues. I would hope that we could come to the table and get this resolved quickly in America's interest. Mr. Rogers. Well, not only hope; it is going to happen. I am going to make it happen or you won't get any money. I don't know how more bluntly I can put it. You have dragged your feet for 3 years. There are a lot of people at fault here. I am not just blaming the Department. I think the industry has dragged their feet. I think it is a plague on both houses. But the only house that I have any pull with, if that is what it is, is the government's part; and I am not going to let the government sit here and not do its part to resolve this absolutely vital, critical, national interest, security matter. So I am going to be checking with you every 15 minutes the rest of this year. Attorney General Reno. I will be waiting for your phone call. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam Attorney General. We appreciate your being here this morning, and we appreciate your good work at Justice. You have a tough job, and you do it well. The Department of Justice has enjoyed unprecedented increases in the last few years. Since fiscal year 1995, I note that the Department's budget has increased by 42 percent. Such a dramatic infusion of resources results in significant management issues and challenges. I want to take this opportunity, Madam Attorney General, to compliment you on how you have handled these additional funds and the new challenges that you have undertaken. I believe that we are seeing an era of unprecedented cooperation among our law enforcement agencies, and I know that this subcommittee, in particular, wants that to continue and to continue strongly. I note that the Department, under your leadership, has had a number of accomplishments over the last year. For example, in the area of illicit drugs, the Department has pursued a number of programs which lowered the demand for drugs, reduced the supply and availability of illicit drugs, and dealt with the devastating impact that drugs have on our communities and on our families. This has been accomplished through programs like DARE, the Southwest Border Initiative, the COPS program, which I think is proving to be particularly successful, and many Justice Department grant programs. I also wish to compliment the work of the organized crime drug enforcement task forces. In the area of counterterrorism, we all applaud the efforts of the Department and its work with other agencies in bringing back to the United States the terrorists associated with the mortar attack on the U.S. embassy in Jakarta and the murder and wounding of CIA employees in Virginia. These are all major, difficult accomplishments. Lastly, in the growing area of cybercrime, we note that the FBI has made a number of arrests of computer hackers who jeopardize the integrity of telephone companies, credit reporting agencies, our armed forces, the World Bank, and on and on. As mentioned in your statement, you are requesting a 4.4 percent increase in the Department's budget for fiscal year 1999, and I join the Chairman in looking forward to reviewing that request carefully. Madam Attorney General, as you know, the FBI has spent considerable time and funds developing a premier fingerprint identification system known as IAFIS. I want to compliment you and Director Freeh on putting in place a very strong management team to bring IAFIS on line. It has not been an easy task. You have adjusted to the challenges, and to the setbacks. I am impressed by the way you have accomplished this task, and with the quality of the system that you are bringing on line, and its potential for serving our law enforcement community. ident/iafis integration Similarly, the INS is in the process of developing its own separate fingerprint system known as IDENT. INS and the FBI are under your jurisdiction. I am concerned that the IDENT procurement activity in INS is not being carefully examined and that millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted developing INS' own automated fingerprint system when the FBI already has an automated fingerprint identification system. Not only does the FBI have one, they have an integrated IAFIS. If we were to build on IAFIS, you would have an integrated system, a system that is developed with a superior technology to IDENT. You would have a system that could be adapted to other customers' needs at a relatively low cost. You would have a system with the immediate advantage of interface compatibility on a universal scale, not only with INS, not only with law enforcement, but with the whole world. In summary, I am concerned, Madam Attorney General, that you are spending millions of dollars developing an inferior system based on similar matching technologies, when you have in hand this superior, less costly solution that is adaptable to many purposes. While millions of scarce dollars are at stake here, I am concerned that the Justice Department has not been serious in addressing this issue, has not been rigorous in overcoming parochial agency interests and has not had a competent, independent overview. I am also concerned that the Department has not established the appropriate process, or at least one appropriate process, to address this concern. It certainly has not established an integrated product and process development, which is a common procurement system. This concern has been expressed repeatedly by the Committee, and we have asked that this matter be investigated for several years now. Madam Attorney General, could you start out your answers by giving the Committee a status report on your overview of this concern? Attorney General Reno. Yes, because I think this is one of the great challenges that any manager faces in this day and time, how we use the extraordinary resources and the extraordinary benefits that technology can provide us in the wisest way possible without duplication and redundancy, without fragmentation. It is an extraordinary challenge, because I think one ofthe great issues that we face in government, and in the private sector as well, is where do we find the people with the expertise that understand both the government processes and the processes of technology. And this is something that I have focused on, and I appreciate your concern on this issue. To briefly summarize the issue, the FBI wants all apprehended illegal border crossers to be ten-printed, believing that some illegal aliens have committed crimes in the United States or may commit future crimes, which is clearly correct. The rolled set of ten prints would be used for searching latent fingerprints at crime scenes and for helping State and local authorities who request fingerprints. This would cause several problems, including significant disruption of operations at the border because of the time it would take to ten-print large volumes of apprehended aliens who are not guilty of serious crimes. Those who are suspected of serious crimes or who have exceeded the local threshold for repeat crossers where it is determined by the United States Attorney in that district are already ten-printed. I would just put a caveat on that, because we are also reviewing other issues with respect to IDENT to make sure that in terms of training, in terms of usage and the like, that there has been or will be appropriate follow-through. While there are some similarities between IDENT and IAFIS, there appear to be differences in the system which serve to meet the INS's and FBI's respective, unique operational requirements. We are reviewing the issues now to determine whether the systems are complementary and where they are redundant. I would like to report our findings to you by June 1st to assure you that DOJ has taken the steps necessary to avoid duplication without jeopardizing operational requirements. As part of the review, I have tasked the FBI and INS through Steve Colgate, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, with several items. First, INS and FBI will report on the feasibilities of conducting a ten-print pilot at one or more appropriate sites. If successful, the pilot will demonstrate the extent of the operational burden which INS would bear by taking ten-prints for all aliens apprehended. Secondly, the FBI has been tasked with developing an assessment of benefits which would accrue by INS's adoption of a procedure which takes ten prints from illegal border crossers who are held only briefly before their voluntary return. Simultaneously, INS will report on the cost attendant to 10- digit printing for all INS arrests and describe the operational burden that ten-printing brings. In addition, the FBI will visit INS Southwest border sites to observe firsthand the operational requirements incumbent on the Border Patrol and inspections as INS processes apprehend aliens through the IDENT system. This will help clarify the similarities and dissimilarities of the two systems and highlight the areas where improvements may be made. The FBI will provide a cost estimate for furnishing a dedicated database and 10-print system for INS use. If such a course of action is feasible, response times from the FBI's IAFIS could be reduced to a level that meets INS operational requirements. Alternatively, the FBI will provide an outline of the capability of the CJIS-wide area network, reporting whether there is sufficient bandwidth to support INS in the transmittal of 10-prints. INS and the FBI will collaborate on a report of cost, feasibility, and the components' willingness to adopt procedures by which the FBI, upon receipt of 10 prints from State and local authorities, seals off and transmits to INS the two matched fingerprints against IDENT. This would satisfy the FBI's concerns that State and local authorities be able to match against an INS database of illegal entrants. I would like also to point out again something that I had mentioned. Our IG has also looked at issues with respect to IDENT, and we will be--I will be asking Mr. Colgate to form a working group to analyze the report and to see what needs to be done in terms of remedies and processes to achieve the ultimate best use of this automation. Mr. Mollohan. I am not going to be able to get through these series of questions during my time, so I am going to ask you a couple of general questions here, and then I will get back to it in a second round, if I might. With regard to your goal, when you look at this whole issue of being able to establish a system or systems whereby you can identify criminals, is not the first thing that comes to your mind integration? That is the first word in the IAFIS system. Don't you want the ability to have universality? Don't you want to be able to incorporate all of these identification systems or link all of these identification systems in a seamless way so that you have one repository or one controlling entity or clearinghouse entity which would be used by local, State, and eventually, international law enforcement? It seems to me that adhering to that principle of integration would be tremendous leadership on the part of the Department, and in the long term, would help develop a system that would incorporate a principle of universality. When you think about establishing this very important system, what importance do you give to integration and universality? Attorney General Reno. A very great deal of importance. Mr. Mollohan. I would think. Attorney General Reno. What we have got to try to do is to make sure that we have the system integrated, that we avoid redundancy and duplication or fragmentation; and whether it be in the check of State and local law enforcement records, we also have got to focus on the unique problems that someone faces in, for example---- Mr. Mollohan. Okay. INS, for example, has its own unique problems? Attorney General Reno [continuing]. INS. And I think through this process that Mr. Colgate will oversee that we will be able to address these issues. We have been through other issues with the IAFIS itself. We are now beginning to see great results from the system that can immediately match prints and identify perpetrators; and I think through this process and through the report that you will receive on June 1st that we will do everything we can to ensure integration, to ensure the systems working together, while at the same time meeting specific needs without costly duplication. Mr. Mollohan. Well, in the meantime, you are going to be spending an awful lot of money on the continued development of this IDENT system. Attorney General Reno. What I am asking Mr. Colgate to do is to make sure we don't spend money unnecessarily until we have the right answers. Mr. Mollohan. So what does that mean? Attorney General Reno. That means, I don't want to waste money between now and June 1st. Mr. Mollohan. Well, I don't want to either, but operationally what does that mean? Does that mean that you are stopping the expenditures of money in regard to the IDENT development at this time until this report comes out? Attorney General Reno. What I am asking Mr. Colgate to do is to see what can be done to avoid the expenditure of any money that would not contribute to a long-term solution and the maximum integration possible, consistent with the mission of the different agencies involved. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I imagine my time is up, and I don't want to start a line without being able to finish it, Madam Attorney General. Thank you for your answers to my questions. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Taylor. independent counsel Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, Madam Attorney General, you recently appointed an Independent Counsel to probe the activities of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt regarding the rejection of an application by an Indian tribe for a casino permit. Can you tell us what the scope of that investigation will entail? And I understand it is quite limited, but could you give me some information about that? Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to provide you with the exact language, so that it is accurate and I do not misquote it. I do not have it with me. Mr. Taylor. How would you interpret that? Is it limited or broader, the investigation? Attorney General Reno. I would not interpret it, other than to refer you to the precise language so that you might interpret it for yourself. Mr. Taylor. Well, the public has to live with that year after year in this administration. Independent Counsel The request for appointment of an independent counsel involving Interior Secretary Babbitt was limited to the issue of whether Secretary Babbitt testified falsely before Congress in a manner that warrants criminal prosecution. The order appointing the Independent Counsel charged the counsel to investigate whether Secretary Babbitt may have violated federal criminal law, including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1001, in connection with sworn testimony on October 30, 1997, before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and to determine whether prosecution is warranted. The order conveyed to the Independent Counsel the jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Secretary Babbitt committed a violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, by making false statement during the course of congressional testimony concerning a decision by the Department of the Interior to deny an application by three Indian tribes to take land into trust in Hudson, Wisconsin, for an off- reservation gambling casino, or conspiring with others to do so. Jurisdiction and authority was also conveyed to the Independent Counsel to investigatge the decision itself, any violation of 28 U.S.C. 1826, any obstruction of the due administration of justice, any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal law, any related allegations and evidence of any violation of federal criminal law by any individual or organization as necessary to resolve this matter including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided and abetted any of the subject federal offenses. Within this scope--the investigation on the decision itself and the testimony given on October 30, 1997--the Independent Counsel has prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prosecute all matters and individuals whose acts may be related, inclusive of authority to investigate federal crimes that may arise, including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses. immigration investigation Now, how about the immigration investigation? Perhaps we can look into that. Do you remember at last year's hearing that the committee asked a number of questions regarding the naturalization of a number of immigrants prior to the 1996 presidential election, and reports were later released confirming that a number of naturalizations were made to immigrants with criminal records. Can you give us a report or some indication of the investigation and the correction of those mistakes, and an idea of what has been spent or going to be spent to correct those mistakes? ins accomplishments Attorney General Reno. As you are aware, we established a new Office of Naturalization Operations in June of 1997. The first task that this new office undertook was the development of naturalization quality procedures known as our NQP program. With the development of this process, INS undertook an extensive training effort, training personnel from all of its naturalization field offices in simple and easy to understand procedures. These new procedures were reviewed by KPMG to ensure that they met the quality control and integrity requirements necessary, which they did. After the training was complete, we had KPMG go out to the field to ensure that the information was properly disseminated and available to the field, which it was. To ensure that the procedures were being followed and that the past process failures had been corrected, we had KPMG perform an audit of cases in offices performing 85 percent of the naturalization workload. You will recall that KPMG issued its report in December of last year. It is my view that INS has moved in a period of months from having a failing report card to a solid A-minus. The NQP process has demonstrated that INS can effectively deploy a naturalization process that works and meets the integrity requirements that we should expect. integration of fingerprint processing system The next major effort that we have undertaken is the establishment of an effective and secure fingerprinting process system. As you will recall, the integrity of the fingerprint process system was the major systemic problem within the prior naturalization process. INS has undertaken a massive effort to establish a network of nationwide application support centers. These centers allow INS to supervise the selection of fingerprints while maintaining quality control and providing adequate coverage to the applicants. This effort consists of four tiers: First, 75 application support centers established within storefront operations across the country; these centers take the majority of fingerprints for INS benefits. Fifty-one INS district sub-offices established one- and two-person fingerprint operations in small offices where there isn't a support center within 100 miles. Thirty-nine law enforcement agencies will provide additional coverage in areas where either an INS sub-office or support center is over 100 miles away. Forty-four mobile routes were established with over 84 service points to serve clients in remote locations. We believe that by the end of March we will be functioning at full capacity and we can provide a detailed listing by type of center to you for the record. Building on this success, I have asked the director of the naturalization office to expand these reforms and lessons learned to other INS benefits programs. long-range improvement plan for naturalization Finally, we have received the long-range improvement plan for naturalization from Cooper and Lybrand, and with the significant funding you provided in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act, we can begin implementing the long-range improvements for this entire process. I want to thank the committee for its support in this effort. Mr. Taylor. Madam Attorney General, perhaps I misstated. I appreciate the efforts that have been made toward the future, and hopefully, in future relations nothing this shameful will happen again. immigration investigation But it was my understanding, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to go back and look at what has happened in the past, go back and investigate those felons that may have been declared citizens without benefit of proper scrutiny; and that costs money and also has to have a plan. That is why I wondered what has been done in that area and what might be the cost for this Congress and the taxpayer. Attorney General Reno. As part of the effort to ensure that past naturalization cases were adjudicated correctly, the Department engaged KPMG Peat Marwick to oversee and validate several INS reviews of cases of persons who were naturalized between August of 1995 and September of 1996. In particular, two reviews sought to identify cases where citizenship was granted despite potentially disqualifying criminal histories or exclusion proceedings. A third review was conducted on a random sample of cases in order to determine the extent to which other internal processing problems existed in the naturalization program during that period. Between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996, INS naturalized 1,049,867 individuals. INS, with the aid of the FBI, attempted to determine the number of these persons that had FBI records. Based on what we know today, 767,366 persons have been identified as having no FBI criminal history records; 76,678 persons have been identified as having FBI records, which include INS administrative actions, misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions. 124,711 persons have not had definitive criminal history checks conducted because their fingerprint cards were rejected by the FBI because their poor quality rendered them unclassifiable. Of 61,366 persons for whom it cannot be determined whether or not FBI record checks were ever conducted; 19,746 were elders and minors for whom INS policy does not require FBI record checks. The FBI produced 76,382 rap sheets for the individuals identified as having FBI records; 32,929 individuals were arrested only for administrative violations, 26,196 individuals were arrested for 1 or more misdemeanors, but no felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude, and 17,257 individuals were arrested for one or more felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude. INS assembled a naturalization review team consisting of adjudicators to review the files in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Charleston, South Carolina, and independently determine whether the applicants were eligible to be naturalized based on statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria. KPMG provided quality control and validation during the entire review process. The Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review also assisted in this process by providing an independent validation of the NRT decision. A total of 16,858 case files were reviewed; 369 case files could not be located for the review, 10,535 cases were proper. The NRT adjudicators found that the statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria were met. The 369 were presumptively ineligible; the NRT adjudicators found that the statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria were presumptively not met. 5,954 cases require further action; the adjudicators found that they could not validate that statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria were met based on the information contained in the case files. Of the 6,323 cases that were presumptively ineligible or require further attention, 5,634 reveal a failure to reveal an arrest. All 6,323 cases were referred to the INS revocation team for possible revocation. The review was conducted--the deportation exclusion case review was conducted to identify individuals who were naturalized while they were subject to deportation proceedings or pending an order of deportation or exclusion. The period under review was August of 1995 to September of 1996. KPMG compared the INS database of individuals naturalized during the subject period with an EOIR database containing records of deportation or exclusion actions; a total of 716 individuals were listed on both. A total of 600 of the 716 cases were reviewed. INS could not locate 33 files, and 83 others were not reviewed because the files were found to contain no evidence that the affected individuals had ever been subject to deportation or exclusion proceedings, or had been naturalized. The latter findings are being pursued to identify possible data systems or file documentation problems. Thirty-eight cases, or six percent of all cases reviewed, revealed evidence of improper naturalization; of these, 23 cases involved deportation and 15 cases involved exclusion. Five hundred sixty-two cases showed no evidence indicating an improper naturalization. The 38 cases were referred to the INS revocation team for possible revocation. We then did a sample case review. This effort did a sampling approach to perform a review of the universe of cases naturalized between August of 1995 and September of 1996. Mr. Taylor. Madam, could I dare take my time now to give an aside? Could I ask one simple question? Has a single person been decitizenized based on this atrocious situation nearly 2 years ago? Attorney General Reno. The final administrative action on naturalization revocation shows that of the total cases, 31 cases have been finalized, six affirmed a grant of naturalization, 19 terminated administrative--terminate administrative proceedings and referred to the United States Attorney--terminated administrative proceedings. For revocation of naturalization, the appeal time expired without appeal on six; and I think that would be indicated that of the final actions, six have been revoked because they did not appeal. Mr. Taylor. Do we know where they are? Attorney General Reno. What they are? Mr. Taylor. Where they are. Were they deported or are they wandering around? Attorney General Reno. I would have to check and let you know, sir. [The information follows:] [Page 224--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Quickly, do I understand that of the 6,000 revocation cases that have been developed so far out of this disaster, Citizenship USA--out of the 6,000 possible, you have only denaturalized six? Attorney General Reno. The total cases reviewed to date are 2,100---- Mr. Rogers. Just answer my question. Out of 6,000 possible cases, you have only denaturalized six. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect? Attorney General Reno. That is what I understand, yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. The answer is yes? Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Mr. Skaggs. encryption policy Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, Mr. Dixon and I both serve on the Intelligence Committee and were siezed last fall by the issue of encryption policy in this country, and I think confounded by the lack of agreement among different elements of the executive branch as to exactly how we should proceed. My request is that you use your good offices to help reconcile and consolidate a single Administration policy in this area so that we might have the benefit of one voice coming from the executive branch as to what we in Congress should do. Attorney General Reno. I think we have made very substantial progress, and I think there will be one voice. Mr. Skaggs. Do you know when it will be expressed? Attorney General Reno. Hopefully, shortly. Mr. Skaggs. Before the Vernal Equinox? Attorney General Reno. I forget when the Vernal Equinox is. antitrust division increase for fy1999 Mr. Skaggs. A few weeks away. Well, good. On a statistical or accounting matter, the numbers for the Antitrust Division have an enormous increase in the tables I was just looking at for this year. I assume that that is just a function of different accounting for fees and arrangements of numbers. It doesn't reflect a huge increase in FTE in the Antitrust Division; is that correct? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Colgate indicates that that is correct, but with your permission, I will let him address that. Mr. Skaggs. If that is correct, we will let it go at that since I don't have much time. cops program As I recall, the first set of hires in the COPS program will be exhausting the grant period shortly, and I am just wondering if we are starting to get any data as to the extent to which local law enforcement authorities are in fact interested in and able to have continued employment? Attorney General Reno. They are--the word I am getting back is that they are very anxious to continue the employment. Cities are looking for monies, because when the COPS program was established, it was clear; and the clear terms of the COPS program was that it was designed to provide a transition to community policing to give departments an opportunity to transfer the system from just patrol-oriented policing to community policing in the truest sense, and that cities would be expected to sustain the hires after the grants expired. We are in the process of looking at this to determine just what we can get in terms of hard data, and we will be happy to share with you just what the cities and towns and counties are telling us. Mr. Skaggs. Well, I think the subcommittee would appreciate whatever data, hard or soft, with appropriate footnotes you are able to provide for the record on this, since there was a good deal of concern about whether we were setting ourselves up for a temporary improvement, but an unsustainable one, given fiscal pressures on local departments. [The information follows:] [Page 227--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Attorney General Reno. The word that we are getting back from the reaction of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, when I visit with them, and the National Sheriffs Association, is that there will be a lasting impact on the part of these police officers, that it has helped change the whole orientation of policing so that it involves the community, the processes through technical assistance for these new hires, and enhanced an officer's ability and knowledge and skill in relating to the community and involving the community in developing the answers to the problems, and identifying priorities and identifying problems. drugs initiative Mr. Skaggs. I was encouraged to see that in the initiative regarding drugs, somewhat more than half of the total new amount requested would be going toward treatment and discouraging use, I guess. The term escapes me at the moment, which certainly is consistent with the advice I have received time and time again from law enforcement in the field, who say, as much as we would love to have additional monies for law enforcement interdiction, whatever it may be, we see the real tracks in the effort against drugs on the treatment and prevention side. So I am glad to see the ratios as they are. But it really raises the question, I think, of whether, as we continue year-by-year to struggle with this issue, the Department has undertaken or could undertake a kind of zero- based review of national drug policy. I know there is a Drug Czar, butyou are aware of where the action is in many respects. Perhaps the Department could start from scratch and see whether our overall strategies really constitute a coherent and effective whole, or whether some major shifting of priorities might get us further down the road to the goal that we are trying to reach. Attorney General Reno. We are constantly reviewing what we are doing to make sure that it makes sense and that we are on the right track. There has clearly been a shift towards providing additional treatment and prevention initiatives that we think can work. With the effort of this committee last year, for example, we have embarked on the development of a very sound juvenile justice prevention program in terms of preventing the use of drugs, and we would be happy to share that with you. But there is also a recognition, as you point out, on the part of police officers, and General McCaffrey is one of the great proponents of additional treatment, that it makes no sense to prosecute and convict somebody for the use of drugs, knowing that they have a drug problem, and send them to jail or put them on probation without providing sound treatment. [The information follows:] [Page 229--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Obviously, one of the big initiatives in this area has been the development of drug courts, and they have spread as people have come to understand that the combination of the criminal justice system, with appropriate treatment programs, can have a real impact by using a carrot-and-stick approach on nonviolent first offenders or others. For the person who is in the prison, who has had a drug problem, and somebody has said, well, how can they get drugs in prison, in the Federal Bureau of Prisons we have taken significant steps to avoid that. But the problem that caused this situation in the first place is still there, and unless it is addressed while in prison, they are going back to the streets with the chance of recurring all over again. One of the big dollar arguments that I hear about drug treatment is that we have no place to treat them. In the criminal justice system, for those people in prison, we have a place to treat them and we can make it effective, so it makes awfully good sense, both from the prevention and the treatment and intervention point of view. At the same time, we are constantly reviewing our drug strategy. For example, when I first came into office, the focus was on Colombia and then, as the pattern shifted, we shifted to the Southwest border with Mexico. As we put pressure on the Southwest border, it starts to shift to the Caribbean. So we have looked at it more from the point of view of the ``southern frontier,'' constantly trying to be prepared to move ahead of the game as pressures produce shifts in one direction or the other. Those are just examples, Congressman. Mr. Skaggs. I appreciate that. I think, in addition, it doesn't make any sense--the example that you gave, it also doesn't make any sense to be spending several hundred thousand dollars on the typical arrest, prosecution and incarceration of someone with a drug problem, when earlier intervention and prevention would have done us some good. the independent counsel act One final question, and then we are all going to race to vote. The Independent Counsel Act is going to be coming up for reauthorization in a little while. From a good management and justice point of view, would you encourage the Congress to introduce some budget control and accountability in the future? Attorney General Reno. I have tried to avoid commenting on what the law should be with respect to that, and I had written Senator Hatch saying that there should be some provision. Everybody in public service should be operating under a budget and some budget controls, and I think it would be appropriate. Mr. Skaggs. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, we have a vote on the floor. It will be just a few minutes and we shall return. Attorney General Reno. I have plenty of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. You get a deserved rest. [Recess.] Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come back to order, and the gentleman from Iowa is recognized. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam Attorney General. It is a real pleasure for me to have you here, and I just want to tell you I continue to have the highest personal regard for you, and the job that you do. And I think, unfortunately, you are put in a very awkward position because of some of the conduct in the Administration, but no one should ever question your integrity or what you do. It is very much appreciated, and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. I would like to echo the concerns that Mr. Taylor had as far as the granting of citizenship to convicted felons, and I think it really undermines the value of U.S. citizenship. I think it is one of the darkest hours as far as what this government can do in relationship to the most prized possession we have here as U.S. citizens, and I continue to have grave concerns about that. I would also like to personally thank you for coming last fall and visiting the people from my district, taking your time for that little event we had. It was most appreciated, and I want to publicly thank you. cops program In last year's appropriations bill, I had some language in that to create a new initiative in the COPS program to help local law enforcement fight the problem with massproduction trafficking in the tri-state area--in Iowa, South Dakota and Nebraska. The local law enforcement and Sioux City police who are going to coordinate this effort are still awaiting direction from the COPS office here in Washington. We are almost halfway through the year, and the COPS office has yet to assign someone to draft the program's criteria, and obviously, we are unable to implement the program. And just to give you an idea of the gravity of the situation, you know, Iowa has about 1 percent of the Nation's population, and I think last year we had 9 percent of the meth arrests. It is a huge problem for us, and we need to move on this very quickly to have a coordinated effort throughout the region. Would you be able to tell me what is causing the delay as far as the criteria in Sioux City and when we can expect to be able to move forward? Attorney General Reno. COPS is working now with DEA and the other agencies that are involved in this effort to make sure that the grant is useful and effective and not just duplicative of existing training efforts. The area that you point out is really extraordinarily important. I have had a chance to talk with officers from that area and understand just what the whole problem of methamphetamine has done there. This is a problem that is very important for us. What I would like to do is continue to keep you advised. I will let you know as soon as they come up with what they think could be effective criteria. I will ask them for a time deadline and see if I can't get back to you and to the chief and to make sure that we do it right. One of the concerns that I have, I want to make sure that we use it as wisely as possible, because I think a grant like this can be very, very useful and quite innovative in its impact. So I would like to follow up with you on that. Mr. Latham. Obviously, my concern is, there hasn't even been an assignment or a person responsible to even begin the process yet, and that is quite frustrating, because we do have a situation where the tri-state area has worked very closely together and really tried to work on a coordinated basis; and from my understanding, there isn't even anybody trying to initiate what was in the law last year. Attorney General Reno. Somebody is about it, and I will find out who, because somebody is talking with DEA and with the other agencies to see just what is being done on training. Let me find out specifics for you, call you back. If we don't have somebody that is assigned to it, I will get that corrected. Mr. Latham. Okay. Very good. I would appreciate that very much. [The information follows:] [Page 233--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] assets forfeiture authority On a different subject, under the farm bill in 1996, the FAIR Act, the Inspector General at USDA was given augmented forfeiture authority, and it is my understanding that the IG has negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the Justice Department regarding this matter of forfeiture. It is also my understanding that the Justice Department has been dragging its heels and has yet to sign the memorandum of understanding. Why is this the case, and when is the Justice Department expected to act on this critical issue? There is about $11 million, that is sitting in Justice apparently, that should be over in the USDA. Attorney General Reno. I had occasion just recently to speak to the combined group of Inspectors General, and the issue of asset forfeiture was raised; and with respect to the particular matter that you talk about, it was presented as if it is a fait accompli--why don't you sign it? I was told that proposals had been made and we were trying to work through them. As you know, this Congress has expressed concerns, as others have, about the appropriate use and standards for asset forfeiture. I asked when I heard, well, if it hasn't been worked through, then let's get, I think his name is Mr. Viadero in and let's get it worked out. So I will follow that one up as well. Mr. Latham. I also serve on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and we had the IG in there and he obviously expressed real concerns about this, and wanted to get moving, and to get it resolved. They would like to have the $11 million, and they say it is sitting over in Justice; and if you could look into that, I would appreciate it. [The information follows:] [Page 235--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] With that, again, I appreciate the chance to have you here, and I am not going to get into, like last year, whether we have laws on the books as far as campaign contributions on government property or those things. But thank you. Attorney General Reno. Let me just point out something to you and to the Chairman. The Chairman, I think, knows this from our extensive conversations, but nothing upsets me more, makes me feel worse, than to see something like the naturalization process gone awry. My father came to this country when he was 12 years old with his parents from Denmark, and that process is sacred to me. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Madam Attorney General, I join in a bipartisan tribute to your personal integrity. I know that it is very difficult when there are some who think that you are doing too much and are too aggressive; there are others who think that you are not aggressive enough, and that suggests to me that you are probably handling it just right. community relations service I would like to ask you about two small agencies within your department and get your evaluation of them. The first is the Community Relations Service. I notice that you have requested a $1.2 million increase. It is an organization, I think, that has worked very effectively, at least in California, and I would like to receive your assessment of it. Attorney General Reno. My assessment is derived from direct observation as the State attorney in Miami for 15 years during some very turbulent times. The Community Relations Service was one of the most effective agencies at reducing conflict, easing tensions, bringing people together, and doing it in not a big, programmatic sort of way; but every time you turned around, when there was a crisis, the representatives of the CRS would be there, not talking a lot, but moving quietly, working carefully with people, doing it in a hands-on, direct sort of way that was very refreshing for government from Washington. As State attorney I had a chance to see them in action any number of times. Now, for the last 5 years, even with their budget significantly reduced, I have watched them in action, and again, chiefs of police, community advocates, others across the country are telling me what I see firsthand. They are doing an extraordinary job with small resources at easing tension and bringing people together, and preventing problems from escalating into major disturbances. I think for more than 30 years attorneys general of both parties have supported the Community Relations Service, and daily, as we watch them in action, I support it 100 percent. I think it has been one of the most effective agencies that I have seen. inspector general Mr. Dixon. The second agency is the Inspector General. As you are probably aware, I have had some direct contact with the Inspector General from time to time over the past 2 or 3 months, and in the course of conversation, I--and with correspondence, he had asked for a modest increase in his allotment. I think it was $5 million. As a matter of fact, he has been very aggressive in the Citizenship USA investigation and the prisons investigation. I understand thoroughly that there is only so much money, but can you evaluate his job and whether you think an adjustment in his allocation is appropriate? Attorney General Reno. I think he has done an excellent job, and I feel very comfortable, and I think I have the best working relationship with an Inspector General you could have. He can be arm's length, but he is constructive and positive when he takes the results of his investigations and puts them to work. Last year we asked for an increase and he received an increase of about 10 percent of the base, and what I would like to do is see how that works out, and what we need--what we need in terms of ongoing investigations and address it for the future. legal services corporation Mr. Dixon. Yesterday we had the Legal Services Corporation before us, and the Chairman and I engaged in some conversation with the Chairman of the Board and the President about what they intended to do with the increase in funding that they were requesting. They indicated that 70 percent of that increase would go for domestic violence programs. The Chairman pointed out that in the 1997 budget for your department we had provided a substantial amount of money. I was really not clear as to what their response was, but in general I thought it was that they could not look forward in 1997 to much of that money. And so, is there some impediment to them receiving money? Can you tell me how much they have received, if any, and what your view of that situation is? Attorney General Reno. May I consult with Mr. Colgate? Mr. Dixon. Certainly. I realize that this wasn't your forethought. Attorney General Reno. I think it is 1998 that you're referring to, rather than fiscal year 1997. Mr. Dixon. You are correct. Attorney General Reno. Chairman Rogers, as I recall, made sure that $12 million was provided to augment civil legal assistance in this whole area. Our budget request this year would continue this program. The Violence Against Women Office is in the process of developing the grant solicitation for this year. It has held meetings with the Legal Services Corporation, and I hope that this grant will be available very shortly. I will ask that we check the time for you, so that you will know precisely. Mr. Dixon. Does the staff know exactly how much money was in that category last year? Attorney General Reno. $12 million, I believe. Mr. Rogers. It was $12 million that was earmarked just for legal aid, but there was $271 million in Violence Against Women appropriations, which is an unprecedented number, a good portion of which could be used for that purpose, in fact. Mr. Dixon. Well, that is the reason I raised it, Mr. Chairman. On the one hand, the Chairman feels that probably more than $12 million could go toward that. And Madam Attorney General, as I hear you, you are thinking that they are only eligible for $12 million, or they would only receive $12 million. So I would just like to---- Attorney General Reno. Well, let me clarify for you. I think what the Chairman is indicating, under the grants to theStates, the act provides for grants to all of the States based on the criteria. They have got to develop a plan. Part of that plan and part of that grant can be used for legal aid in this context, and there is no prohibition from the Federal point of view. There might be some different priority established by a State, but that is available; and I think what the Chairman is trying to do is to jump start it, if you will, and get people to understand how beneficial civil legal assistance can be in these situations. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Mr. Rogers. Please do. If the gentleman will yield, the Attorney General is correct. We substantially increased the Violence Against Women Act funding last year. In fact, I think we provided several millions of dollars more than the Administration requested even, but I am chagrined that the money is not being spent. Whether it is because people don't know it is available on the State and local levels, or what, I don't yet know, but the money is there and it is lying there waiting. A good portion of that money could be used by Legal Services grantees, because I think 60 percent of the work that they do is representing abused women and children, and this money would be able to augment what is already available for Legal Services grantees. Attorney General Reno. But again the money is out in terms of the grants to the States and, Mr. Chairman, it may well be being used by the States for reasons other than Legal Services. We will get you a report on that. What is of concern, though, is that for the $12 million specifically designated, we want to make sure we get that out as fast as possible. Mr. Dixon. If I understand you, Madam Attorney General, the $12 million is earmarked for them, and then they are eligible under State programs to receive additional monies if the States so desire? Attorney General Reno. That is correct. [Page 239--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] 2000 census Mr. Dixon. That is kind of a fair summary. And last, I know that you are aware that there is a difference of opinion in Congress as to how we proceed to take the year 2000 census, and I noticed in the budget request, in the Civil Rights Division, you have requested $383,000; and not to create any confusion, I wonder if you would tell us what that money would be used for. Attorney General Reno. That fiscal year 1999 program increase request for the Civil Rights Division has nothing to do with the likely litigation the Commerce Department might become involved in regarding the census. That is a totally separate issue. The Civil Division would handle that; no additional monies are being asked for for handling that litigation. The Civil Rights monies are focused on the litigation that has developed from Shaw v. Reno, and with the census, leaving aside how it is done, with the census coming up, State and local, as well as Federal districts, are being addressed anew and in a prospective fashion, so that we have seen an increase in cases; and we expect more and want to be prepared to handle it. Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Regula. indian country Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, I want to ask a few questions on the Indian country law enforcement initiative. As I understand it, there is to be additional funding for this, and the White House presently has under review how would be the better way to ensure that these law enforcement programs are done with the best possible assistance and training. In your opinion, would the Department of Justice or the Bureau of Indian Affairs be in a better position to administer and oversee the significant increase in law enforcement resources being proposed for Indian country law enforcement? Attorney General Reno. In this instance, the President has recognized the dual responsibility when he directed both the Secretary of Interior and myself to address it, because I don't think anybody disputes that there is a critical concern about law enforcement in Indian country. We agree that at this point neither department could address the issue alone; we are working together. We are asking for funds for three reasons in the Department of Justice. We already have an existing grant structure. We have considerable expertise in the types of programs that are necessary in Indian country, such as corrections and juvenile justice, and there are serious needs to be addressed now. I think the DOJ grants will jump-start the necessary improvements, and we have the structure and the law enforcement expertise necessary to do it. So at this point I think as the budget request reflects, we can best address it. Mr. Regula. So you think the Justice Department really needs to take the lead on this expansion and a more intensive effort in law enforcement in Indian country? Attorney General Reno. I think to jump-start it and to get it on its way, and then I think we have to ultimately resolve it. Mr. Regula. I am concerned also that this program relies heavily on the COPS grant program, and as you know, that is a 3-year cycle. What happens when that funding ends? Are there some plans? You need continuity, obviously. Attorney General Reno. I think, again, from what I have seen--and I first addressed this issue in May of 1994 at a listening conference in Albuquerque; and again and againtribal leaders from all over the country stood up and told me what needed to be done in terms of law enforcement, and I have heard it ever since. This is an effort on the part of the Administration to try to use what is available and the expertise in the Department of Justice to get it jump-started and on its way and to develop a sound framework for law enforcement; and then ultimately, I think it would have to be funded by the BIA or whoever is responsible for managing Indian country programs. Mr. Regula. So you see your role as getting it moving and then eventually BIA taking over? Attorney General Reno. Or whoever is responsible. Mr. Regula. Right. It envisions 15 more prisons. How do you see this being handled, the building, operations and maintenance of these prisons? Would it be BIA or would it be Bureau of Prisons? Attorney General Reno. I think we would have to look at that and how it is organized, and how the tribes organize it as well. When we are talking about prisons, we are talking about detention facilities, too, and correctional facilities. In terms of a major prison for violent offenders, I think that the regular prison system would be more appropriate. What we are trying to design is to recognize that they are not jailed, they are not detention facilities that are tribally oriented, and so we are going to have to work with tribes. And this is just a suggestion, because we are trying to work through these issues. For example, the Sioux Nation involves a number of tribes, and they might work together to develop the detention facility for a certain area. Mr. Regula. So you see the BIA dealing with the lesser criminal types, and if it is more of a severe hard-core, if you will, then that would be probably best done through the Bureau of Prisons? Attorney General Reno. That is what I envision. industrial espionage Mr. Regula. Industrial espionage, I think this is going to be a growing problem because of the competitiveness that exists in the world today and the availability of sophisticated communications programs. We have had that happen in an instance in my own area, and--my question is, what resources would the Department be currently providing for investigation and prosecution of the theft of technology and intellectual property? A: Are you involved; and B: Does the Department envision increases to combat this type of industrial espionage in the fiscal year 1999 budget? Attorney General Reno. The FBI does not, I have discovered, track resources for economic espionage, and I am going to be talking with Director Freeh about this, because he is one of the major proponents of initiatives in this area for just the reasons that you discuss; and I agree with him completely. I think this reflects the fact that we are building now a capacity, and I think we will need to look at this and see how we can properly identify the resources. The number of FBI investigations is classified, but I think recent press coverage indicates some of the initiatives that are being taken. With respect to increases, there are none. But at this point, I am satisfied, based on what Director Freeh has told me to date and looking at the resources that are available in the FBI, that we can address this current caseload adequately, just looking at the classified---- Mr. Regula. So you are saying you are very sensitive to the problem and the growing magnitude of it; am I correct? Attorney General Reno. That is correct. And again just for, if you will, accounting purposes, it has just never been broken out of white collar crime, and it will vary from white collar crime to infrastructure protection. I mean, we have to look at all of the resources that can focus on this as well. false claims act Mr. Regula. My last question or issue is the use of the False Claims Act to investigate medicare billing practices by hospitals. It has come to my attention that they make errors. There are 200,000 Medicare claims, 200,000 daily, 72 million every year, and it is an enormous paperwork burden on hospitals, and they do make some mistakes. It seems to me there ought to be a de minimis threshold in terms of enforcing the False Claims Act, and I think what we have is a concern in our area is that sometimes this is used to gain elaborate settlements from hospitals, which are really unfair, because the billing practice was an honest mistake, and yet enforcement people say, pay up or else. Attorney General Reno. I am very--I know a little bit about this issue, because I spoke recently with the American Hospital Association---- Mr. Regula. Okay. Attorney General Reno [continuing]. And I explained to them that I don't want to be after anybody for an honest billing mistake. The statute says, and I think it is a good standard, that if there is a reckless disregard of the truth or indifference-- there has got to be that recklessness to it. And I think we should pursue those situations. What I told them is, if anybody is pursuing an honest billing mistake, we have a process in the Department for making sure that people are heard and that we take steps to avert problems like that. I pledged to them open and continuous dialogue with the Association, and I want to do everything I can to make sure that people understand we are not after the honest billing error; but if somebody has all of the facts there, and they just turn a blind eye, I want no part of that. This is very important to me, because I think health care fraud is one of the major issues that we face, and people have got to have confidence in the process. So if you have any specifics, I would welcome the opportunity to follow up on them. Mr. Regula. Well, I think you are clearly saying you are sensitive to the problem. Attorney General Reno. I would like to be just more than sensitive to the problem. The Chairman would say, she sometimes says she is sensitive to the problem, and then what does she do about it? Mr. Regula. But you are trying to make sure that it is not unfairly enforced? Attorney General Reno. The important thing for me is to get the word out. If you think it is being unfairly enforced, let us know. If you get stonewalled by a U.S. Attorney, let me know, so that we can follow up and address the problem, sit down with the industry and look at it. They may say, look, it looks to you like it is a reckless disregard, but here are accounting procedures that confuse the issue. There may be explanations. We have to have an open dialogue so that it can be considered. Mr. Regula. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Madam Attorney General, it is approachingthe noon hour. I have a number of matters I need to take up with you, and I will try to do it as briefly as we can. Is that agreeable? Attorney General Reno. I am here for as long as you want me, Mr. Chairman. immigration investigation Mr. Rogers. Well, I want you here as long as we can keep you, but I want to get you out of here at a reasonable hour. I want to quickly, if we can, as quickly as we can do this, discuss with you the Citizenship USA and INS. You and I share, I think, along with a lot of other people, the conviction that we need to be sure that the granting of U.S. citizenship, the most valuable thing this country can give someone, is protected as much as can be possible. Now, the Citizenship USA in 1996 was an absolute--``disaster'' is not the word for it. Attorney General Reno. ``Catastrophe.'' Mr. Rogers. ``Catastrophe.'' And I hate to go back and stir in the barnyard about this, but we have to, because there are a number of problems that are still on board resulting from that. The audit that KPMG Peat Marwick did drew the following conclusions: INS did not have enough information to determine whether they were naturalizing people with criminal histories to bar their citizenship. They did not even review whether certain statutory requirements for naturalization were met in these cases, including permanent residency in the U.S. for 5 years; passage of history, civics, English tests and the like. Their procedures were inconsistent regarding other naturalization criteria pending deportation orders or proceedings and, quote, ``good moral character requirements.'' In April of 1997 a second audit report by that agency found that INS was not following its new naturalization quality procedures, which the Attorney General and the director of the agency put in place; they still wouldn't do it, concluding that it was probable that criminals were continuing to be naturalized. Twenty-three out of 24 INS field offices were not in compliance with the procedures after we hammered you and you hammered them. At that point, you then took over the naturalization program and you installed Bob Bratt, a career official, as the head of naturalization operations. A followup report in December of 1997, they had made significant improvements in internal controls, but still four out of 24 failed a review of field offices. Three weeks ago, KPMG issued its findings on a sample of case reviews that it conducted to determine the extent to which naturalization applications were correctly processed during the Citizenship USA period. They found, Madam Attorney General, the auditors found that 90.8 percent of the cases they sampled contained at least 1 error, most prevalent of which was the lack of evidence that a fingerprint card was sent to the FBI, nine out of ten. That is an adequate sample to project the processing errors for the total of 1.05 million cases. It can be assumed that 920,733 cases had insufficient documentation to support a naturalization decision under the law and under procedures of the Department. They also found that 38,845 cases can be projected to have been, quote, ``presumptively ineligible to receive naturalization''; that is, they did not fulfill their residency requirement, didn't pass the tests they have to pass, had criminal records, didn't have good moral character, what have you. That doesn't even factor in the fraudulent testing that was later found just a few weeks ago. It is abysmal. As you know, I have been on this subcommittee 15 years as a member of the Minority, as Ranking Minority member and now as Chairman. I have wrestled with INS and the problems they have had, as have the Justice Department and tons of other people for all of these years. I have come to the conclusion that with all of these things that keep piling on top of themselves and the money we throw at this agency--we have absolutely flooded them with money and personnel to no avail; it just seems to get worse and worse as time goes on. I am convinced now that the agency is unmanageable, which I tend to believe, because I think the missions of the INS are contradictory. On the one hand, they are supposed to grant privileges and rights to immigrants, and on the other hand, they are supposed to punish immigrants. I don't see how they can--anyone can administer that kind of a conflicting mission. Either it is unmanageable or we have never had anybody who can manage that agency, and I doubt that there ever can be. Consequently, I have concluded that we must do something drastic. And I know the Attorney General is concerned about this and has been ever since she has been the Attorney General, and rightfully so, as has all of the Department. We will probably differ on how we look at a remedy to the INS problem, but I, after 15 years, have concluded that it is unsalvageable, that we may as well start afresh. I have looked over the Barbara Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform report in some detail. I have conferred with several Members here who have expertise in this field, and I have concluded that the Barbara Jordan Commission is 99 percent on track. It is not a perfect answer, but it seems to me that it is the best that we have. Let me ask you what you think about the Barbara Jordan Commission findings? And I know you are due us a report in April on how you think we should reorganize INS, but could I ask you what you think about the Barbara Jordan findings? Attorney General Reno. I have reviewed the report, and I have met with representatives from the Commission. I have talked to people, talked to people at INS, talked to people who--such as you and other Members of Congress, trying to keep an open mind, because the one thing I did when I came to Washington was promise myself I didn't want to worry about turf. If there was a part of the Justice Department that could be more effective someplace else, so be it. If there was something that we should do, we would do it, but we wouldn't do it because we wanted somebody else's turf. So I started looking at it and went into it with an open mind. I have concluded--because the questions I asked of people were, how would the other agencies do it better? And basically, Mr. Chairman, I come down to the conclusion--and you have just given me some hope, because I think I have been here almost 5 years and I sometimes think, well, I haven't seen enough changes, but if you tell me that for the 10 years before I got here there was a big problem, then I will tell you that I sure inherited a big problem. I inherited an agency that didn't have either the personnel or the management infrastructure to do the job, an agency that didn't have the automation and the technology. I saw an agency grow tremendously. I watched it face a peso crisis that it had no control over. I watched it become responsible for a new law and implementing a new law. And in many instances, it has done a remarkable job. In other situations--and I have shared my feelings about this situation with you--there is more to do. But my--the Administration, through the Domestic Policy Council, has brought the agencies that are affected together and basically concluded that it doesn't solve any problem to split something up. The problem is to fix it, and we are in the process of trying to fix it and trying to present to you a thoughtful report. Wait just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Hear me out just a little bit, please, sir. One of the things that has impressed me, you have--I mean, from almost the first time I came to talk to you, you talked about the need for accountability and for responsibility, and it has been very frustrating to me to see a situation coming from Washington out to a regional office down to a district commander to a Border Patrol chief, with the Border Patrol chief up here in Washington. What we are trying to do as we focus on this is to remember your words and create something that has a direct line of authority in enforcement. As you point out, there are two roles here; there is enforcement and there is service, and a direct line of authority and accountability in the service function, but with the recognition that there are tie-ins to the two-- that the two, in terms of information exchange and the like, could benefit from a well-constructed system of automation, and that is one of our challenges. We, as you know, retained Booz Allen, we are looking at it and trying to explore all the aspects of it, but I look forward to presenting you a report and to discussing with you something that--you were one of the first people to point out to me the need for accountability in the two lines of responsibility of this service. Mr. Rogers. Well, you have had 6 years. Attorney General Reno. Five. Mr. Rogers. Five. Attorney General Reno. I am not going to be here for ten, so let's just see how we work this one out. Mr. Rogers. Well, you have had 5 years to wrestle with this thing--I mean--and you have wrestled. Attorney General Reno. You didn't do it in 10 years before, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I didn't have Attorneys General who were as dedicated to cleaning up INS as you are. But the problem certainly existed before you got here; I am not blaming you for the problem. I think we can begin to assign some degree of responsibility, now that you have been here 5 years, for getting it cleaned up; and let me just cite you some facts and figures. We have thrown money at the agency since 1995. As I have sat in this chair, the INS budget has grown by 84 percent. We have given them $1.7 billion more than they had before. We have provided increases to INS of over $500 million each year in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Most of the positive changes that have occurred there, in fact, over the last 4 years, are largely a product of its growth in resources, not a result of any better management. So they can't say that they don't have the money. Regardless of those funding increases, we have seen no evidence that they can handle the responsibilities. There are still 5 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S.--the same peak level we saw 3 years ago, 2 years ago--growing at the same rate each year, regardless of the number of resources we throw at them, regardless of the number of Border Patrol and better technology we throw at the agency. We can't be assured that the border is any more under control now than it was 4 years ago, despite the fact that we have added 2,700 more Border Patrol agents--an increase of 60 percent, and no improvement. Then we have Citizenship USA, corrupting America's naturalization process, giving away American citizenship for whatever reason, giving it away in a corrupt way. Mission overload, lack of management oversight, even you admit that you had to take over the agency, and you did, rightfully so; Steve Colgate taking over management of the naturalization process, installing Bob Bratt to fix problems resulting from that. But for that, I think you would still be floundering, trying to make the changes to the naturalization process that got us in the fix before. Little, if any, accountability. And I cite you the deception of a congressional task force, itself, during a visit to Miami during that Citizenship USA program, that were purposefully misled by agency employees with very little punishment meted out by the agency. I could go on. I mean, there are, as you know, dozens of examples that we could rehash here about the failure of that agency. Of all of the agencies that we appropriate on this subcommittee in three major departments of the government, plus most of the independent agencies, plus the international organizations that we appropriate for--U.N., OAS, and so on, hundreds of those--of all of the agencies that we have to deal with, including the dozens in the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce, no agency that we deal with is as inept and unmanaged and out of control and not carrying out their responsibility, valuable though it is, as is INS. I do not intend to let that continue on my watch. Now, you and the White House and the Administration can do what you want, but I am going to try to get the Congress to make a drastic change, admitting that INS cannot do the job and following the lead of the Barbara Jordan Commission, which spent 2 years with experts focusing just on this question in an unbiased, unfettered way. No one attempted to influence their opinion. I don't agree with the philosophy of a good number of those Commission members, but I do agree that they focused intently and that they came up with a sensible recommendation. Out here on the border of our country we have eight or ten agencies. The Department of Labor is out there checking for violations of illegal aliens coming to work. The Department of Justice, of course, is there, the Border Patrol, INS, to protect us against illegals getting in the country. The DEA is there protecting against drugs. The FBI is there protecting against criminals. The Department of Agriculture is there to look after, that we are not getting improper agricultural products in. One can look under the hood, but they can't look in the back seat. One can look in the trunk, but not under the hood. One can look in the car, but not over the top of the trailer or whatever. It is absolutely ridiculous. Not only are we wasting money, we are wasting the time of the people trying to come and go in a legitimate fashion. There should be one border agency, in my opinion. I would like to see it under the Department of Justice, where it should be, and that is what I intend to see. But there should be one agency with one person who can look under thehood, in the trunk and under the car and on the roof and everything else without having to call in somebody else from afar. I think it is absolutely ludicrous, it is silly, it is funny, it is tragic. Because it is not working, drug importations are on the increase out of Mexico. Illegal aliens continue to flood the country and live here. We are not deporting people who have been improperly naturalized. It is in a mess, and the people know it is in a mess, and they want something done. We have given you 5-plus years. You have not done it. You have tried. And I am saying to you, I don't think anybody could have done it. I am not blaming you for that. I think it is an impossible job for one agency to do. So I would hope that you would consider that as you consider your recommendations, knowing that on the Hill there is deep sentiment about getting something done, whatever it takes. Attorney General Reno. I know how strongly you feel, and I feel just as strongly. This has probably taken as much of my time as anything else. Mr. Rogers. I know it has. Attorney General Reno. You know that I care a great deal about it. But I have also watched an agency face tremendous challenges. Not just the peso crisis, but I watched an agency come to grips with the fact that right as it was facing so many other challenges--Colombian transportation chains from other parts of the country to come through Mexico; and the Border Patrol that does an extraordinary job for this Nation, Mr. Chairman, day in and day out, faced new responsibilities. As they put the pressure on the border and at the ports of entry, alien smugglers, who were mean, vicious thugs, started smuggling people as well as drugs, and they faced that; and they faced more danger than they have faced in previous years because of these pressures, because of their successes. When we came into office, there was nothing--I remember being down on the border in August of 1993 in San Diego. There was no organization, there was nothing. I watched an agency get organized with Operation Gatekeeper and make that California border become a different place. I watched fences being strategically placed. But I have also been down the lengths of that border from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, and I know how long and lonely it is. And it is not something that can be done overnight, but I have watched success in El Paso, and we have to do more. There is so much that we must do along the border, not just with respect to additional resources in those areas that have not yet had their share of resources allocated, but in the sense of the Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute cases that local prosecutors are throwing up their hands at because the situation is difficult. I listened to you, and I haven't taken over INS. Doris Meissner does one great job under the most difficult circumstances, one good thing even with me and with you and working with us. Mr. Rogers. I admit that. Attorney General Reno. I don't know whether you have had the chance to meet her new deputy commissioner, but I think we should all come talk to you, not to persuade you, but you have new leadership on board, fresh leadership. You have some great, strong people there and you have a cadre of people that have been working hard, day in and day out. You and I may not agree on what ultimately should be done, but I think we both agree on the basic principle that there needs to be accountability. And I wrote something out in long hand the other day. Accountability that is based on listening to people in the field who are involved in the direct problem day in and day out, developing policy and process in Washington that takes into account what people in the field think, disseminating the policy and the process to the field in ways that they can easily understand, following it up with compliance procedures to make sure it is happening. If it is not working, finding out what and how. It takes a long change, but you have fresh new leadership in there, these are people that Doris picked. I think you will be impressed with them, and I think we should talk and work together. You may decide you want to try to split it up. I think we should keep it together, because the two pieces are too important together, and they share too many common issues. But I think we can clearly address the problem that you have focused on for so long, which are the direct lines of authority and accountability in enforcement and direct lines of responsibility and accountability in service. Mr. Rogers. Well, of course, I will be happy to visit with you any time about this or anything else. But you have a lot of convincing to do---- Attorney General Reno. I know, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. On that one. Well, let me change subjects quickly here and try to cover a couple more things. independent counsel funding Independent Counsel funding. Now, in 1998 you estimate you will spend $13.9 million and use 130 FBI and U.S. Attorneys and Criminal Division staff for the campaign finance investigation. In addition, Justice has investigated allegations of criminal activity by Administration officials in the following cases, some of which have Independent Counsel appointments now: of course, Independent Counsel Starr on Whitewater, Travelgate--I will use the popular acronyms--Filegate, and perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case; Independent Counsel Smaltz on Agriculture Secretary Espy; Independent Counsel Barrett on Housing Secretary Cisneros; and Independent Counsel Pierson on Commerce Secretary Ron Brown; Independent Counsel on Interior Secretary Babbitt, investigation of the President's role in the Indian casino case, investigation of Vice President Gore and former Energy Secretary O'Leary, investigation of Labor Secretary Herman, investigation of Magaziner on the Health Care Task Force. Why haven't you requested increased resources to handle that increase and workload? That is a substantial increase. Attorney General Reno. For Mr. Starr, Mr. Smaltz, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Pierson, and the other instances in which we have sought Independent Counsel, there is a separate appropriation that is not part of the Justice Department appropriation that I control, and they draw directly from that. With respect to the other matters, we address this as we do all investigations and build with what we have; and then as we identify needs, we fill those needs, and if at any point we need to address additional resources, we shall do so. Mr. Rogers. Well, I was really addressing the expenditures before it got to Independent Counsel status. You had to do your preliminary investigations. Those expenses are bound to be piling up. Are you diverting monies from other accounts, I guess is what I am trying to get at, or are you--will you be seeking a reprogramming for that purpose? Attorney General Reno. At this point, I don't envision the need for a reprogramming. Most of those matters that you refer to, any preliminary investigation was done some time ago. Mr. Rogers. All right. So you have sufficient resources? Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I keep asking when I meet with them on a regular basis is, do you have enough resources? And if they tell me they don't, then I make sure they do. CAMPAIGN FINANCE TASK FORCE Mr. Rogers. Now, with respect to the work of the Campaign Finance Task Force, and in particular, the decision to not seek an Independent Counsel to investigate the fund-raising activities of the President and the Vice President, what assurances can you give us that the standards used in that decision will be applied equally to all activities under review and without regard to any party affiliation? Attorney General Reno. Without regard to what? Mr. Rogers. Any party affiliation. Attorney General Reno. Well, I am not quite sure what you mean, because I wouldn't have--I can't think of a covered person in terms of the party affiliation. Mr. Rogers. That is a good point. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Cohen, Secretary Cohen, he is not subject to any investigation. Mr. Rogers. Now, have you or the Department received any communications from anyone, including the White House, suggesting or encouraging that you focus on the activities of any one group or party? Attorney General Reno. No, sir. WAR ON DRUGS Mr. Rogers. Now, let me ask you quickly on the war on drugs, since 1992, total drug war funding in the Department of Justice has increased from $11.9 billion to $15.9 billion, 33 percent increase. I am sorry, in Justice alone--that is the overall war--in Justice alone, the funding has increased over 74 percent; and we have had bipartisan support, as you know, on the Hill, especially on this subcommittee, for that purpose, but we have lost some ground. I understand that the National Drug Control Strategy will include specific performance goals, and I am asking, what specific outcomes will you be looking for to measure your success in the drug war during the next 2 years? Attorney General Reno. Pursuant to Congress' direction, the Department of Justice is preparing the--its drug control strategy, which is due, as I recall, March 30th, and we are addressing those issues specifically in that proposal--I mean, that strategy that is due and it should be there to you on time. With respect to the National Drug Control Strategy issued by the office of ONDCP, I would refer you to page 23 of that report, because I think that states the overall key of both performance measures. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Maybe you could do this for the record. What I am going to be looking for is what you expect. Attorney General Reno. And what I would like to--we are in the process of preparing that and addressing that, and I would like to present that to you as part of the overall strategy that we are required to present March 30. Mr. Rogers. That will be fine. drug treatment for prisoners Now, you request a new initiative, $85 million, which puzzles me. You are asking for the money for drug treatment of prisoners, drug treatment for prisoners; and also you propose to allow the States to use any or all of their State prison grant funds that we gave them for prison construction, you want that money freed up for drug treatment of prisoners. Help me out here. I am puzzled why you would want to do that? Attorney General Reno. I will tell you why. For 15 years I was directly responsible for prosecuting thousands of people that committed a crime because they had a drug habit or committed a crime to get cash to sustain their drug habit, and I watched these people go into probation and not get treatment that was worth anything. I watched them go to prison and come out and start using again because nobody addressed the ultimate problem that caused the drug abuse in the first place. And I used to think, why do we do this? I would then go to the State legislature and hear somebody asking for money to build a treatment facility, and I thought why do we have to build a treatment facility when the people who are most causing us the drug problems are those who are in prison or those who are on probation? Why do not we develop something that is sensible that addresses the problem while we have got them where we want them? One of the initiatives was the drug court aimed at nonviolent first offenders who wouldn't go to prison but kept a hammer on them and made sure that there were treatment programs that worked. That program had tremendous success, and Congress has approved it and it has spread across the country. But then I looked at the prisoners and somebody said, ``Why would you treat prisoners? How can they get the drugs in the first place?'' I do not think they are getting drugs in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, but I can never be too sure of things like that. So I keep checking on it. But I think we have a good control. And I see what happens in the Federal Bureau of Prisons in terms of recidivism rates for people who get the treatment and go out with the chance of success. In many instances, that is not happening in the State court system. They do not get the treatment in prison, they do not get after-care or follow-up and we watch them go right back in the system. I am suggesting that this is a great way to interrupt the merry-go-round that has existed in the criminal justice system for too long. Because when I first became a prosecutor in 1978, people didn't believe that treatment worked. I suspect every American now knows somebody who has benefitted from treatment. It can work and it can make a difference, and I think it is a great investment. ELIMINATION OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT Mr. Rogers. Once again, this year your budget request eliminates the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, which, as you said, this Subcommittee put in place a few years ago as a counterweight to the COPS program. And that puts this Subcommittee in the position of having to find monies for that program from some other programs for which we have jurisdiction in order to support that much needed program. It invites us to scrap your budget request because it is a large item. I would also point out that the Congress has been fair about supporting the COPS program for the last 2 years even though the Administration continues to eliminate the block grant program, which was a congressional initiative. Did your budget request to OMB include funding for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant? Attorney General Reno. Yes, it did. Mr. Rogers. So the OMB knocked it out. Why? Attorney General Reno. I think there is a feeling when you look at the use of funds, for last year alone, 53 percent went to the purchase of equipment, 12 percent went to overtime, 13 percent went to hiring officers; and I think there is a feeling that local law enforcement should not rely, and our Federal system, on continuing revenue sharing, if you will, for local law enforcement. It is inconsistent with principles of federalism. And the Federal Government, in partnership with State and local law enforcement, should be in the process of looking at a balanced criminal justice system and providing monies that will be a spur, that will be an incentive, to developing comprehensive programs, such as community policing across the country, but that we should retain a balance between the State and Federal systems. JUVENILE CRIME BLOCK GRANT Mr. Rogers. Now, your request also eliminates a new $250 million block grant program provided by the Congress in fiscal '98, monies aimed at juvenile crime. Those monies can be used by States for juvenile prosecutors, juvenile courts, juvenile detention facilities, even some juvenile prevention programs. Your budget request proposes to replace that block grant with $200 million in discretionary grant programs for the same people. What evidence do we have that the block grant program won't meet the need? Attorney General Reno. What we are trying to do there is again look at a balanced system. I recognize local law enforcement would like to spend the money or local government would like to spend the money the way it wants to. But I think there has got to be some understanding of the whole of the justice system. There is a tendency for corrections and policing, as we have seen to date, to get the great bulk of it. Courts and prosecutors and prevention programs are often left out. To make the system work, I think you have got to do it in a balanced way, you have got to ensure that there are correctional facilities that provide sanctions that fit the delinquent act and let the kid know that the law means what it says. But you need courts who have the time, who have the resources to begin to devise something that can let the kid know what he is talking about. And I have seen too many courts with calendars as long as your arm who do not have the time to fashion the disposition that can give that kid a chance of success. This would give the courts the opportunity to design programs to do that. And then I see us add police and the prosecutors across the country say, you have given the police more money but you haven't done anything for us and they are bringing in more cases. And then I hear from the police chiefs and the sheriffs themselves who say, we are never going to work our way out of it just in the criminal justice system; we have got to do more in terms of prevention, in terms of prevention of drug use, prevention programs that can make a difference, and so that tends to provide a balanced approach on the part of the Federal Government to this effort. Mr. Rogers. Well, I think we just differ on the philosophy. We think that the block grant monies which goes to the States to allow them to spend it as they see fit as opposed to your concept of doing the grants here by bureaucrats in Washington, we think ours is the best way. We think that the local boards, the local prosecutors, the local State governments and local governments know best what their needs are; and, therefore, we are willing to trust them with this money to spend for this broad purpose. But I do not think we are going to agree on---- Attorney General Reno. One thing I would, if that is the way it goes, I would really like to address a concern. My understanding, and I am still not quite sure of how it all works, but a small community that qualifies with the violent crime rate based on its size may only get about $10,000 and that $10,000 just isn't as well spent as if you took the 50 communities in the same general area and used the monies more wisely. If we could somehow or another give communities, if we could address this issue if that is the way it goes, I think it could be helpful and I would offer to do that. Mr. Rogers. Well, we will have a chance to talk about that before the time comes. Mr. Mollohan, do you have any questions? Mr. Mollohan. I have a few, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. FALSE CLAIMS ACT Madam Attorney General, I understand that in your speech before the American Hospital Association you said your door is open to hear the concerns of health care providers. You said that you are dedicated to working together with hospitals in every way possible to make sure that the law is not abused. You further stated that it is not the policy of the Department of Justice to punish honest billing mistakes, nor do we prosecute doctors or hospitals for mere negligence. Under the False Claims Act, such honest mistakes of simple negligence do not attach to a ``false claim.'' I couldn't agree with you more. That sounds perfectly reasonable and sensible. There are a number of concerns about use of the False Claims Act which have been expressed by other Members of Congress, such as Congressman Edwards of Texas. There is a lot of consternation in some parts of the country, including Texas, about the way this is being implemented. I understand that some believe that the Department of Justice plans to target what has been represented to me a large number of hospitals. Four thousand seven hundred hospitals is the number before me. Could you give some additional reassurance alongthe lines that you gave in your recent remarks. I can't imagine this being a Department of Justice policy. But reassure us of your policy. I also heard you talk about the course of redress cases in which people felt they were experiencing this kind of targeting. Attorney General Reno. What I have asked is that the staff of the Justice Department, and it is being coordinated--this effort is being coordinated from the deputy's office, make sure that we contact each Congressman or Congresswoman who has expressed concern so that we can follow up on their concerns and if they have some specifics let us he know. I also asked that we develop a liaison with the American Hospital Association to make sure that again we have an avenue so that if it cannot be worked out through the U.S. Attorney's Office, if there continues to be misunderstanding or a claimed misunderstanding or error, that we review it. And I have gotten good feedback from the American Hospital Association, and I think we will be able to address it. But I am dedicated to trying to do so. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. calea The Chairman talked with you about CALEA. We have received a number of concerns from industry about the way the FBI has played out their role in this process. I am not going to ask you to respond here at the hearing to these concerns, so you do not have to think about that. But what I would like to do is just read them into the record and allow you to respond to them for the record. First of all, industry has expressed the concern that the FBI has failed to issue its capacity notice so industry can properly size and develop CALEA complaint technology. Secondly, the FBI has delayed the issuance of industry standards by demanding that it include capabilities outside the scope of CALEA. The FBI can address standards at the FCC but has failed or refused to do that. Three, the FBI has improperly shifted cost to industry through its cost reimbursement regulations. Four, the FBI has tried to turn implementation of CALEA into government procurement through the cooperative agreement process. Five, that it has threatened enforcement actions against industry unless it develops and deploys the features the FBI specifies in the punch list. Six, the FBI has attempted to direct the choice of a particular technology through its cost reimbursement authority. And seven, that it has failed to develop an appropriate implementation plan for the expenditure of the $500 million. If you would respond to those for the record, I'd appreciate it. [The information follows:] [Pages 255 - 259--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to respond for the record of what I have indicated. I would just like to summarize, and we will make it a clear part of the record. But I have had some really good meetings with industry, and I think that it is positive. I think it is on its way or was on its way. And I just want to do everything--I mean, I have looked at everything. We have addressed issues. We have, I think both the industry and the FBI have moved to accord. And we are going to be preparing it and file something by March 13th. Again, I think it is in every American's interest that this gets worked out, and I look forward to trying to do that. But we are going to file by March 13th if we do not. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. iafis and ident system Madam Attorney General, you embrace the principles of integration and universality as fundamental to IAFIS systems. I would submit that in regard to the first opportunity that there is, acknowledging that you have to develop the IAFIS and the IDENT systems, the achievement of those goals have fallen short. These two separate systems have not achieved integration or universality or gone down the path toward universality, and there will be consequences for that. And the first consequence that occurs to me and is particularly of interest to this subcommittee, is that these areexpensive developments. The IAFIS system has a price tag on it, in rough numbers, of $640 million. And the price tag on the IDENT system, as I understand it, approaches $189 million. Not every one of those dollars is for development. A lot of it is for procurement. A lot of it is for things that are outside the development area. But, nevertheless, they are very expensive. Once you develop two diverging systems, then the cost of procuring equipment does lead you in this divergent direction. In order to bring them back together, you have got to consider all of those integration factors. It is not only a software issue, it is also a hardware issue as well as an operational question. All of these issues costs money and should be incorporated into this $189 million IDENT system development. So if down the road you want to integrate these systems, at some point you are going to have to fix all the problems that are being created by the divergent development of the systems. They are fundamentally philosophically different. One is a 10- print standard system, the other is a 2-print system. I think that has very serious consequences. Have you considered all the ramifications of the costs involved with developing two divergent systems? I am concerned about the hidden costs that may be forthcoming when we get down the road and find that these two systems do not talk to each other, and that one doesn't even fulfill a function. What will be the additional cost that is going to be incurred in order to bring them back in concert? Attorney General Reno. What I have requested Mr. Colgate to do is to consider the cost question, the integration question, if money can be prevented from being wasted, take steps to do that; if it is a matter of constructing or adding to one to make sure that it is compatible with the needs of the other, how we do it in the most cost effective manner possible. I do not have all the answers, and I am not technologically sophisticated enough to describe it in detail. But I think the process that we have in place for review of this can address those issues. And what I would ask Mr. Colgate to do is to report to you on a regular basis in advance of June 1st as to the developments and to make sure that we have the benefit of your thoughts. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I am not going to let you off the hook with that. Attorney General Reno. I am not asking you to let me off. I am asking you to hold me accountable and keep my feet to the fire. Mr. Mollohan. The second real consequence is that in processing the systems that are being developed, a 2-print system for INS and a 10-print system for the rest of the world, there will be a lot of crimes that fall through the cracks--a lot of criminals who are caught in the net. Let me go through a bit. I am not going to be so presumptuous as to lead you, but if you might let me. Attorney General Reno. Go ahead. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Say we have an illegal alien that is apprehended for the first time at the border. The INS goes in and does a 2-print fingerprint--a fingerprint using two index fingers. After that the person is sent back south across the border. They got caught the first night and got printed. Say this is a bad person who likes to commit crimes, and the second night this person gets across the border and commits a serious crime leaving 8 fingerprints at the crime scene. However, none of those fingerprints include the forefingers. Say they then go back across the border undetected with whatever they stole. Then the next night they sneak back across the border and they get caught again. INS checks their two fingerprints, their index fingers, and there is no way to pick up that this was the same hand but not the same fingers that were involved in the crime the night before. So the person is sent back. They have committed a crime in the United States, there is no way of cross-checking, and they are sent back across the Border. The next night they come in undetected again and commit another crime, leaving behind the same 8 fingerprints, but again not the two index fingers such that their prints are nowhere in the system. They get back across the border. The next night they are caught again. INS checks the fingerprints the same time. They can do that 13 times. I understand that scenario can play out for 13 times, Madam Attorney General, and never be picked up in the system. If you had a 10-fingerprint system and it were in the IAFIS system or if it were in a subset, an INS subset system, then they would immediately be picked up as a criminal. Does that concern resonate with you? Attorney General Reno. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. We are making progress. Good answer to a good leading question. In Los Angeles in May of 1990, 11 percent of the released prisoners were deportable. In June of 1995, 16 percent of the released prisoners, 2,416 out of14,446, were illegal deportable aliens, 16 percent of the people released. That is 29,000 who were caught in some way were, put into prison, and then released. But it is a very large number of people that were caught. Just imagine the thousands if you extrapolate. That in some reasonable conservative way suggests that there are thousands of people who are illegal aliens coming across the border in the same manner and imagine how many of them are not being picked up because these systems aren't adequate and they do not speak to each other. Why then does the INS want to procure four of its own independent subsystems, for fingerprint matching instead of a single system which can perform on multiple databases? And that is really an issue. Attorney General Reno. That is the issue. And I have asked Mr. Colgate to review it. One of the things I have asked Mr. Colgate, if INS says that it would disrupt operations at the border to have to do 10 prints, I have been on the border enough to know they bring in one and two and they could easily do 10 prints, that there might be a situation that develops where the chief, the person in charge that night, waives it for a specific reason. And we identify the person as much as possible. I mean, there are so many things that can be done. One of the things that I have learned a long time ago, particularly with these issues and particularly with automation, is it does not serve me well to rush into it. I want to make sure that we look at it carefully, that we report back to you, and that we give you our best judgment. I would agree with you, but I want to make sure that I have heard and I have looked at the situation and that we make the best judgment possible. Mr. Mollohan. My response to that is such a that concern by INS doesn't resonate, for a number of reasons. We all have to work hard and we all have to be more efficient, and that is just the way it is. ins agents Secondly, this Chairman, with his leadership and support, has put incredible amounts of money toward increases in the number of INS agents. And it would seem that this, being core to good law enforcement, would be a priority and that some of these additional aliens could be assigned and this task could be performed. Mr. Chairman, just one final thought. Attorney General Reno. Let me just point out to you, I do not know whether you have ever been out to that border. I have been up to the mango groves in Florida, and I thought it was the biggest border to have to worry about. But that is a long, lonely border. I tend to agree with you. But let us not jump to conclusions. We will keep you posted. The Chairman is going to call me every 15 minutes about CALEA, and you can call me the other 15 minutes about this. But we will try to keep you both posted so you won't have to call. Mr. Mollohan. I will let the Chairman ask you this as an aside when he calls you. But I am not jumping to conclusions. We have been raising this issue for 3 years in this hearing and it has not been addressed. ncic 2000 initiative One final thought here. You are processing an NCIC 2000 initiative and you are working the kinks out of it and you are trying to make it work. The whole premise of that, or one of the most important premises here, is to achieve a networking of a system that is integrated and is on the way to becoming universal. NCIC 2000 is your initiative for State and local government. INS is not setting a very good example to achieve that end by developing a completely different system. It is completely different, with the only similarity being the word ``fingerprint.'' As I have looked at this and tried to be fair about it, there are no compelling reasons for developing 2 separate systems. The fact that it takes a little more time to do 10- roll fingerprints, seems to be the real argument. It is just as easy to establish a subset in the IAFIS system. If you put that same INS fingerprint subset in a smaller subset, you can search them quicker on a 10-fingerprint system than you can a 2- fingerprint system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I think the gentleman has made his point very well. I can only hope the staff was listening. I certainly hope so. Attorney General Reno, we thank you very much for your testimony today. We apologize for taking you through the lunch hour here. And we will not do that again. I apologize, too, for the size of this room. I do not like this hearing room. It is too big. Attorney General Reno. I am used to this room, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. I know you are. But it is too big for our purposes. I would like to get closer to you. Up here it makes you feel too much like a controlling legal authority, and I do not want to do that. Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, may I just say something? I found this hearing to be probably one of the best that I have participated in these 5 years. I think it reflects the wonderful balance, the checks and balances, the thoughtful bipartisanship that should go into so many of these issues of law enforcement and the like. And it has been a good three hours for me. Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. I agree, I think it has been one the most useful hearings that we have held with you, or with anyone else for that matter. In closing, let me say I do not know of any Attorney General in our history who has been faced with more tedious, technical, ethical even, quandaries than you have, and they do not seem to be easing up. I mean, there is just an inordinate number of tough decisions that you are having to make. So we wish you personally well. And we know that you will make the right decision on all the things that you are trying to do because you bring them to heart here. We will work with you on the matters we have discussed. This will not be the end of the conversation. Your staff and our staff will keep in touch. Mr. Mollohan. I second that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. And we want to help you with your job. Thank you. Attorney General Reno. Thank you. [Pages 264 - 294--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday, March 5, 1998. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WITNESS LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR Congressman Rogers' Opening Statement Mr. Rogers. The committee will come to order. Mr. Director, I apologize for being late. At one of the other subcommittees we had the Commandant of the Coast Guard and we were talking behind closed doors on drug interdiction, which is, of course, your interest, as well. This morning, we would like to welcome the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, on behalf of the budget request for Fiscal Year 1999. You are seeking $3.014 billion for the FBI, which represents an increase of $40 million, or 1.4 percent over 1998. We have tried to respond to your resource needs so that the United States is better protected, better prepared to respond and better informed on the threat of terrorism, violent crime and other violations of Federal criminal law. The FBI's mission is to perform these responsibilities in a manner that is responsive to the needs of the public and faithful to the Constitution of the United States. In 1999, law enforcement all over the country will have new tools to fight crime as we will finally witness our large investments in IAFIS and NCIC 2000 come to completion, investments in a new crime laboratory, DNA identification systems, command and control centers, and training, which will allow for a better response to the crime problems that the nation faces. But the FBI has been on a bumpy road the last few years and the agency's image has suffered in the wake of a variety of controversies. You have declared that the agency is in great shape despite these problems, and you say the Bureau is willing to acknowledge its mistakes and reform itself. Only your management and the actions by the Bureau from this point on will convince us that the troubles of the past are over. As we attempt to keep the budget in balance, the FBI will be given no exception to having to justify every dime that it needs and to demonstrate to us that the resources will make a difference. Hopefully, this hearing will provide you the opportunity to do that today. We appreciate your being with us today and we will insert your written testimony in the record and you are invited to proceed with an opening statement. FBI Director's Opening Statement Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Let me extend my thanks to the Committee and the Congress for its support of the FBI mission which is a public safety, counterintelligence mission; and we particularly appreciate the counterterrorism resources that you have given us which we believe have been put to immediate good use, both by this agency and the State and local agencies, who have benefited from those resources. We also are greatly appreciative of the infrastructure and technology enhancements that you have provided. You have cited many of them in your opening statement. These are, indeed, the bricks and mortar as well as the fiber, physical and optic, so to speak, which will allow the FBI to function into the 21st century as a competent agency able to perform missions in changing environments. challenges facing the fbi The FBI will celebrate its 90th anniversary later this year and the changes in the agency, not just from 1908 but even from 1975, when I was a young Special Agent in New York, have been phenomenal. We face many of the same threats in a somewhat different context. We also face many new threats of which this Committee is acutely aware and which your resources and support have enabled us to address. Just very, very briefly, with respect to espionage and intelligence activities, although the Cold War is over and we have a world of one superpower, we still experience, to a high degree, a counterintelligence mission necessity here in the United States. The espionage with which we are dealing is both traditional and also new. We know that there are 23 countries, for instance, who use their clandestine intelligence services in the United States to acquire and steal not blueprints of F-15s, but biotechnical information and trade secrets. And the Congress has responded to that new threat not only with substantive legislation but also with some of the forensic tools as well as the infrastructure necessary to deal with those. But we continue to experience both the traditional as well as the new form of those particular threats. With respect to terrorism, both internationally and domestically, the number of incidents remains fairly constant. The threat is even greater in some degree, as experienced several weeks ago by the threat in Las Vegas. The country, at one single time was dealing with both the threat of weapons of mass destruction from a foreign power and, also, the threat, which turned out to be benign, of someone using a biological agent to create devastation within the United States. Part of the 1997 and 1998 counterterrorism funding which you have provided for us was, in my view, essential in the preparedness--the coordination between those agencies in Las Vegas, the new Hazardous Materials Response Unit of our laboratory, the coordination which was preestablished with the Department of Defense--which allowed a timely and safe response to what would have been a most dangerous situation had that agent been, in fact, a live agent. We had approximately 100 of those type cases last year. Most of them turned out to be non-credible, but unfortunately in that particular realm only one of these threats needs to be real to have a devastating impact, potentially and the loss of many, many lives. We are taking advantage of the funding you have providedin the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici domestic preparedness program which, as you know, not only prepares and equips this agency to deal with those threats, but the Department has been able in 1998, and has asked in 1999, for continued funding to train the State and local first responders. These are the police officers, the rescue squads, and the fire departments who would have the burden of responding to these threats immediately. And that has been very productive and I think that is a wise investment for the country. We are dealing both with traditional criminal enterprises, both drug enterprises and organized crime enterprises. We have new players in some of these areas, particularly in the Russian and Asian criminal enterprise areas. We continue to work very hard with respect to the technology issues which challenge law enforcement. Both the ability of this agency and your State and local departments around the country to conduct court authorized wiretaps to deal with the new threats of encryption which, as you know, pose brand new and very difficult threats to the enforcement of Federal search warrants as well as electronic surveillance orders. Aldrich Ames, Ramzi Yousef and drug dealers in California are regularly using and beginning to proliferate encrypted channels of communication both in stored data and communicated data to commit their crimes and we are working very hard with the industry to try to meet those challenges. The 1999 budget, of course, is the first budget submitted in compliance with the Results Act and we have worked very hard in the integration of the strategic planning and budget process to prepare for that. 1999 budget overview A brief overview of the 1999 budget. As you noted, Mr. Chairman, we ask for $3 billion approximately in direct budget authority. This will buy both permanent and reimbursable positions, fund 26,000-plus FBI Agents and support personnel, including 11,677 agents, which will be more FBI agents than we have had in complement in our history. We have asked in the 1999 budget for enhancements in four primary areas. One is the counterterrorism and cyber crime area, which I will talk about very briefly; information sharing, which is the technology component of everything that we do. We have asked for enhancement of Indian Country law enforcement where we have not been able to do, in my view, an adequate job given the problems and the sky-rocketing violent crime rate, particularly the homicide rate in Indian Country. We have a number of other items which I will detail very briefly. It represents a $94 million direct budget authority enhancement and 340 direct and reimbursable positions, as you noted. We have also, additionally, in the amounts proposed for the Department's General Administration programs, asked for $213.6 million which would support new and continuing FBI and Departmental-wide initiatives regarding counterterrorism, cyber crime, narrowband radio communications, the ability not just of the FBI, but the State and local police, fire and rescue units to speak to each other effectively and immediately, and also continued funding of the CALEA project which you, Mr. Chairman, have been personally very active and, in my view, critical in moving that solution to a final resolution. counterterrorism and cybercrime With respect to the counterterrorism and cyber crime enhancement area, again, these are new crimes, new threats, and new places where the FBI has to be able to work. Last week in New York, as you know, a defendant named Levin was sentenced to 36 months for a crime which he committed using a laptop computer in St. Petersburg, Russia, in a scheme to steal $10 million out of Citibank accounts without leaving his living room or his laptop computer. Those types of crimes, have risen phenomenally. In the 1998 fiscal year to date, approximately 458 computer-related cyber crime investigations, which is four times the amount in 1996. The increased funding that we will present to you, in terms of the request, will give us basically two capacities. One is a field-based computer competent capacity. We now have approximately six computer squads, as we call them, set up in various divisions, New York, Washington, and San Francisco. The requested funding would give us the facility to institute six more computer squads. These squads are very different from what we have traditionally had in our field offices. Most of our work traditionally has been programmatic. As an example, we have a bank robbery squad, and a fugitive squad. These types of squads are charged with two responsibilities. One is to investigate cyber crimes, intrusion cases, and sabotage cases. Second, they are also a facility for the other agents in the office to use their forensic abilities. The agents go out on a search warrant now and instead of seizing a box of records, as I would do back in 1975, they seize hard drives and disks. We need to have the forensic capability to know what we are looking for and then to understand and to report it back to the court. So, the field ability here will be very critical, in performing these functions. I think I can predict with some safety that within the next five to 10 years every division in the FBI will have to have some forensic computer capability, not only to deal with the number of crimes that are proliferating, but the difficulty of examining evidence and acquiring evidence. There was a report yesterday in USA Today with respect to an industry-based survey which shows cyber crime rising last year by about 22 percent. And I think that is indicative of where this is going. In many ways, the use of computers and modems by criminals, by terrorists, and by spies is very akin to what happened in the 1930s when the automobile and the telephone began to become tools of criminals as well as law-abiding citizens. The Federal Government's law enforcement response had to deal with the automobile moving interstate and communications moving every which way. In many ways, that is an analogy for what is happening today with computers, modems and telecommunications. We are not just a global economy but a global criminal environment where pedophiles as well as terrorists or bank robbers can easily move and attack. We need to be prepared to meet such threats. So, this is a request which we think will be very important to enhance our ability to protect the people and carry out our mission. The other part of that proposal goes to a centralized headquarters-based enterprise called a National Infrastructure Protection Center which we ask for funding for the FBI but also for the Department of Justice. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you have given the Attorney General the responsibility of putting together recommendations in that report that report. This particular center will have 40 representatives from different Federal agencies as well as the private sector. And it will be the Government's central responsibility to deal with both cyber crime as well as threats to the information structure and to other networks which both government and industry depend upon. information sharing With respect to the Information Sharing Initiative, one of the key infrastructure issues for the FBI in all of our programs is our ability to acquire, analyze, disseminate, as well as communicate the information that we have. We have some very solid data base capabilities, for instance, in the Organized Crime Information System (OCIS) with which you are familiar, and in many of the other criminal as well as foreign counterintelligence and counterterrorism systems. The problem is that these are stove-pipe operations. They are all in their own field of expertise and they serve up the information that they acquire. However, the ability to integrate those data bases, the ability to analyze on an enterprise basis, beyond a particular individual or company in one program, is a necessity of great importance. And as I travel around the Bureau visiting all our offices, the number one issue that is raised by both our agents and support staff is the ability to be investigators in the information age, to have the technology and the infrastructure which will allow us to analyze and quickly and competently disseminate and be aware of the information that we have. So, we ask your support for that initiative. INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT With respect to the Indian Country law enforcement initiative, although homicides have declined about 20 percent around the country, they have risen about 87 percent in Indian Country. We have asked for an enhancement in that area to allow the FBI to deal with the crime situation in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the other Federal and State agencies who work there. We have asked in that initiative both for agents and for crime victim/witness counselors who are a very important part of dealing with those crimes, particularly the violent crimes involving children. HATE CRIMES With respect to hate crimes and civil rights enforcement, we have asked for some additional funding to put together a civil rights analytical capability at headquarters to see if we can deal with some of the trends and changes in that program area to be more effective. As we have seen recently, the cases that we were responsible for in Los Angeles in the corrections situation, the recent charges in New York in a police civil rights case, the hate crimes in terms of numbers are increasing--11,000 last year--and we would like to get some analytical capability to be able to anticipate and channel some of our training resources, particularly as we train with State and local authorities to deal with the hate crimes issue, particularly the color of law type of crimes. FBI ACADEMY IMPROVEMENTS We have asked for some additional improvements for the FBI Academy to complete the revamping and reconstruction of the firearms ranges, which until last year's budget had really not been enhanced since the 1960s, and to give us some ability to update our master plan which, as you know, will now incorporate in Quantico both the new FBI laboratory, and the new DEA training center. We need an update, we believe, on the master plan to be able to forecast the use of all those facilities and the additional requirements on administration and support that they will require. CALEA With respect to telecommunications carrier compliance, we request $100 million to provide payments to the telecommunications industry for costs incurred in modifying equipment and facilities to comply with CALEA. And, Mr. Chairman, I know you are very familiar with that issue. There is approximately $102 million which has not been spent in the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. And we believe that the final impasse with the industry, with respect to the final requirements, will be broken. As it is broken, obviously, we will need some of the additional funding to begin the reimbursement process and we ask for that continued support in 1999. NARROWBAND RADIO With respect to the last item that I would highlight, the narrowband radio communications issue, as you know, the FBI operates the largest civilian land-based mobile radio system in the country. And we are required, as are all the other Federal agencies, particularly the law enforcement agencies, to migrate by 2005 from 25 to 12.5 kilohertz technology. That will require some very significant expenditures. We cannot enhance or retool the current equipment. That equipment has to be replaced. And we want to replace it in a manner which makes it more interoperable not just with other Federal agencies but with our State and local counterparts, both police, fire, and rescue. And we have proposed, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, a request for $64.1 million which would be for the Department's narrowband radio communication fund. This would begin a five-year effort to plan, design and implement a new nationwide communications system and one which will be necessary for us to carry out our responsibilities. Again, those are the highlights of the 1999 budget. Let me just, once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for the support that you have shown the FBI and certainly in all of the budgets, as I have been here since 1993, in addressing the critical areas, particularly counterterrorism and infrastructure. [The statement of Director Freeh follows:] [Pages 302 - 323--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. I thank you, Mr. Director, for your statement and before we proceed further, on behalf of all of our members, let me congratulate you and your wife on the new addition to your family a few weeks ago. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, three weeks ago, thank you very much. Mr. Rogers. Your sixth? Mr. Freeh. Number six. Mr. Rogers. Son? Mr. Freeh. Six sons. Mr. Rogers. No daughters, six boys? Mr. Freeh. Six boys. Mr. Taylor. After seven, then it changes. [Laughter.] Mr. Freeh. I will be aware of that. Mr. Rogers. Congratulations to you. Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much. Mr. Rogers. I am going to yield to the full Chairman, Mr. Livingston, who is here with us. MISUSE OF FBI FILES Mr. Livingston. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Welcome, Mr. Director and congratulations on your child. Mr. Freeh. Thank you, sir. Mr. Livingston. We wish you well and look forward to seeing you next year when Mr. Taylor can congratulate you on your seventh. [Laughter.] Mr. Director, we appreciate the job you are doing. You have a tough job and I think you know that this Subcommittee, this Committee in general, has been supportive of your efforts to combat the criminal element and to combat terrorism and we wish you well in that endeavor. And the prosecutor in me, as one who has dealt with the FBI, is proud of the FBI. I want to say that at the outset. Last time we talked I did elaborate on a number of my concerns and I am not going to repeat those. That is totally unnecessary. And I have to say that my concerns have been largely relieved in the last year. But one issue does continue to concern me and only because it continues to arise in the papers involving some of the same people, time and time again. And I think that the problem is not one that you can do much about but only that I ask you to be aware of. And there will be others that will testify before this Subcommittee and other subcommittees in the coming days which I intend to pursue this with, but I will lay it before you for your consideration. We went through that episode known as ``Filegate'' in which the FBI files were sent over to the White House, my words, for the purposes of political perusal by a fellow by the name of Craig Livingstone, with an ``e'', and his friends. And we still do not know who hired him. But the fact is that Chuck Colson went to jail for unauthorized use of one FBI file. In this case we have somewhere between 400 and 1,000 files. To this day, I think that the public has not acquired the listing of all the people whose files were perused by those, and again in my words, political hacks. And we know that the--in fact, I have talked to representatives of the press and they have acquired the listing of all of the people from alphabetically listing of A through G, and they have not gotten any more. They do not know who the files are. And I think that is incumbent upon the White House and your agency to, at least, advise those people who are affected that their files were mishandled in such a way and that their rights may have been violated. And I think that the press really should be entitled to know who those people are. But that was then. That was a couple of years ago. And as you and I have spoken over the last year or two, the then FBI counsel, Howard Shapiro, was acting, at least, in concert with the distribution of those files and then he investigated the whole thing and wrote the only report that I know of that you were kind and good enough to give me, dated June 14, 1996. And I still wonder if we ought not to get an independent review other than one by Mr. Shapiro, under whose authority these files were apparently disseminated. But he is gone now and I am pleased about that. But then I look in the paper in the last couple of weeks and I see in the Washington Times of February 27th, the listing of people involved in what is described by, in a column by Dick Morris, in the Washington Hill newspaper, that--and this is Morris' words--``Bill Clinton now has Terry Linzer, Jack Paladino and a rag-tag band of private eyes acting as a secret police without public accountability.'' And when you look into what they are doing, they are basically looking into the backgrounds and lives of ostensible political enemies of this White House and this Administration and then you look in the article in the Washington Times at who has cooperated in this effort and you find that Howard Shapiro's name appears again. In fact, it is more than that. The group, Investigative Group International, known as IGI, first worked closely with the Clinton Campaign starting back in 1991 when they were hired to dig up dirt on Governor Cuomo and now working for the President to discredit Judge Starr according to the Washington Times and Dick Morris. The IGI received Federal dollars on a no-bid contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars by the State Department to train Haitian police and supervise the international police monitoring the democratic process in Haiti. The State Department claimed it awarded IGI the money without competitive bidding because it was urgent to get a top law man into Haiti. They also have received Federal campaign funds according to Dick Morris. The IGI is made up of--this is where we are really getting concerned. We have a collection of hard-ball players with ``A List'' connections to the White House, according to the Washington Times. First, Terry Linzer is an IGI founder and chairman. He served as Assistant Chief Counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee. He was criticized last year for co-authoring a proposal to dig up dirt on Senator Don Nickles and his wife in an effort to return Interior lands to the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indians, according to the Washington Times and he made a number of visits to the White House. Larry Potts, formerly of the FBI, of the investigation involving Mr. Weaver, is currently working for the IGI. He runs the IGI's New York office and he was forced out of the FBI because of his role in Ruby Ridge. Howard Shapiro, currently working as Terry Linzer's attorney, the head of IGI. And he resigned from the FBI after an internal probe found he exercised poor judgment in the FBI files scandal. He says there is no investigation going on about the private lives of the people at issue inthe Washington Times, but the Times article, of course, seems to refute that. Ricky Siden, who is now currently at the Justice Department and was a former IGI senior investigator who played key roles in efforts to derail Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. In fact, she was the one who, as a Senate investigator, found Anita Hill and helped to persuade her to lodge last-minute sexual harassment charges against, who is now, Justice Thomas. She later became and serves, as we speak I believe--oh, no, maybe she is no longer there--as Deputy White House Communications Director. She may still be there. I am not sure about that. That is according to the Washington Times. Steven Green, who is an IGI employee and former Deputy Director of the DEA, co-authored a controversial memo with Terry Linzer proposing to dig up dirt on Senator Nickles and his wife in an effort to return Interior Department lands to the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indians, the Washington Times. And Raymond Kelly, a former IGI president who is now Treasury Under Secretary. And Brooke Sherer, former IGI employee, who served as an aide to Hillary Clinton in the 1992 Campaign and at the election she was appointed Director of the White House Fellows Program. She is currently a senior advisor at the Department of Interior and is married to Secretary Strobe Talbot, the Deputy Secretary of State. Cody Sherer, Brooke Sherer's twin brother, came under fire for referring the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indians to Mr. Linzer and he claims to be a free-lance journalist with back channel connections to the White House. His other brother, Derrick, was named Ambassador to Finland in 1994. And Ann Luzatto, a former IGI employee, is now a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. Now, Dick Morris, who knows folks in the Administration far better than I do, characterizes this interrelationship of current Administration employees who go to IGI and former IGI employees who go back to the Administration as a potential--in his words--secret police. Mr. Director, I cannot stress strongly enough that this frightens me. The American people do not want their tax dollars paying for some secret organization at the behest of the President to investigate his political enemies. And I urge you and the FBI to do everything you can to make sure that if any of these people have violated the law that they are dealt with through the courts. If they are using taxpayer's dollars improperly, that that cease and desist and that if there is any relationship to the DEA, the National Security Council, to the FBI, to the CIA or to any other Federal organization that those ties be severed. We cannot afford this type of relationship and that is not criticism of the FBI. That is criticism of the White House and I intend to reiterate it in other hearings in the next few days. Thank you. fbi director on indpendent counsel staffing Mr. Freeh. May I respond briefly? Mr. Livingston. Please. Mr. Freeh. I take your comments and your concerns very, very seriously. Let me just make a couple of points. All of the Independent Counsels, including Judge Starr, are staffed, as you know by, FBI agents. In fact, that has been the tradition that every Independent Counsel who has been appointed has asked for FBI agents precisely because the FBI has the reputation and, I believe, the reality of conducting hard and impartial investigations. With respect to the former FBI agents or General Counsels, when they leave, obviously, we do not have any control over where they go. I know when I was Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York for 10 years, as you were in Louisiana, we saw a parade of our colleagues leave and suddenly appear in the well of the courtroom representing somebody who may have been investigated prior by the office. And that is an issue and a problem. I have taken some steps to try to deal with that both orally and in writing. I have communicated to all of our agents and particularly our managers that they are to be very alert to avoid any contacts or communications with any former employees, particularly in the area of the Special Counsel investigations. And I will endeavor to make sure that this is enforced. Also, with respect to the ``Filegate'' matter that you mentioned, there is an independent investigation going on. In fact, one of Judge Starr's court assignments is the whole FBI files issue. We have cooperated with him in that investigation. I do not know where he and his investigators are with respect to that. I expect he will make a full report when he finishes that and we have supported that 100 percent. Mr. Livingston. Thank you very much. fbi-ins fingerprint coordination Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Director. Now, let me quickly ask you some questions. We have a vote on the floor that we will have to recess briefly for in a few minutes. The Citizenship USA debacle, a catastrophe at INS, highlighted the problems in the INS/FBI coordination in processing of fingerprint background checks of alien applicants for citizenship. INS is establishing fingerprinting centers all over the country to take digital fingerprints and transmit them electronically to the FBI, at this Subcommittee's insistence, frankly. The Committee has provided funding for that equipment, the personnel and the general operations of those fingerprinting centers so that INS will no longer contract out fingerprinting to places like Pookie's Bar and Grill in L.A. to do the fingerprinting for them. And we have also provided you funding for automation of your fingerprint operations. Are those improvements that INS is making to their fingerprint process being coordinated with FBI? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, they are. In the four regional centers, and I believe, several dozen of their field offices, the capacity to electronically transmit the prints is either on-line or will be on-line in the next few months and I am very satisfied with that progress. We have also, as you know, substantially reduced the backlog, particularly the INS turn-around time. It is now down to 19 days with respect to the civil print checks. Mr. Rogers. Well, is the INS now submitting to you and getting from the FBI criminal checks before they grant citizenship? Mr. Freeh. Yes, they are, sir. Mr. Rogers. Are you training INS fingerprint personnel? Mr. Freeh. We are not only training them, we are going out to the field. In fact, we have a team going out to the Southwest border area, I believe next, week to not only study their protocols but to implement the necessary techniques toget fingerprints submissions electronically sent to us correctly. Mr. Rogers. So, are you now ready to receive electronic fingerprints? Mr. Freeh. Not from all their centers. But they told us that they will be on-line to do so over the next few months. We are doing it with some of their centers but not 100 percent. Mr. Rogers. When can you be 100 percent? Mr. Freeh. I have to ask the INS for their timetable, sir, it is really their schedule but I will get an answer for you. Mr. Rogers. What improvements in response time can we expect when this is installed? Mr. Freeh. I think they will be fairly dramatic. Between 1994 and 1997 the increase in INS submissions was about 240 percent, which was astronomical. With the new electronic submission, as well as the IAFIS maturity next year, we will be able to turn around all their criminal as well as civil inquiries, within 24 hours and Criminal inquiries of priority within two hours. And as I said, the delays have been cut down now to 19 days, I believe, for civil and 60 days for criminal. And that is a marked improvement from where we were a year ago. FBI Capability To Accept INS Electronic Fingerprint Submissions The FBI's Electronic Fingerprint Image Print Server (EFIPS) systems has been operational since June 1995. The current EFIPS capacity is 10,000 images per day. In July 1999, when the Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) becomes operational, the FBI will have the capacity to accept 62,500 fingerprint card images per day. The FBI presently receives approximately 1,200 images per day from law enforcement. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that it will submit approximately 11,230 fingerprint card images per day, or approximately 4,100,000 annually, once it achieves 100 percent electronic submission capacity. In the event INS electronic fingerprint card submissions reach the estimated daily average of 11,230 prior to the start-up of IAFIS, the FBI can upgrade the EFIPS system capacity. Assuming all hardware, software and cabling are installed at each Immigration and Naturalization Service site, the INS advised the FBI that it plans to submit approximately 8,000 images per day by October 1. calea Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to quickly try to cover CALEA. At the hearing last week, the Attorney General said that negotiations with industry on CALEA were at an impasse. She said she was going to attempt to break the impasse and if unsuccessful she would file a petition with the FCC next Friday with regard to the deficiency of the industry standard. Any progress since she testified last week? Mr. Freeh. We have scheduled Mr. Chairman, a meeting tomorrow between the Attorney General and about 15 of the CEOs of both the telecommunications companies, as well as the manufacturers, and I am confident that the Attorney General will break through this impasse. The impasse, basically is a dollars disagreement. We believe that the technology exists to fix the problems and industry has told us that they can fix those problems. It is a question of how much money the Government is able or willing to pay and what their economies will be when they produce this. The other point is that there is nothing in these requests, particularly the nine final items of disagreement, which in any way enlarges our capacities or the capabilities of all the law enforcement agencies in the country who use court orders. We are simply maintaining what we have. Mr. Rogers. Well, I just want to repeat two things. One is I expect if the matter is not dealt with agreeably, I expect that FCC filing to take place on Friday, the 13th. And number two, we have allocated $500 million, the Congress has authorized that, we have had it ready to pay, we are not going to pay any more. So, you and the phone companies will have to live with it. And I think both of you are at fault for being where we are. I think the FBI dragged their heels for two years on coming up with a specific standard that you expected the phone companies to adhere to in modifying their equipment to accommodate wire taps. And number two, the phone companies have dragged their feet, wanting more money and refusing to agree. Well, a plague on both your houses. As I told the phone companies recently, we expect this to be done. The public interest demands that you and the law enforcement agencies around the country be able in the proper cases to get a court order to wire tap to catch crooks and people who are bombing and committing national security violations. And I do not want any more quibbling by anybody. I do not know how much stronger to put these things. We are going to act. And if you people cannot get your act together, we will see about that and I will say the same thing and have said so to the phone companies. This is a matter of national security and we will not tolerate any further delays by the FBI, by the Department of Justice, by the Attorney General, by the White House or by the phone companies. This will be resolved. And if you cannot do it, we are going to ask the FCC to do it, and it they cannot do it, the Congress will do it for you. But the money is there, enough to do the job, but not a penny more and we expect it to be done forthwith. And if you cannot agree by the 13th of this month, next Friday, then I expect the Attorney General to follow through with her promise to turn this over to the FCC, let them resolve the standards question and the other questions they can legally resolve and let us proceed. Do you have any comments? Mr. Freeh. I 100 percent support that sentiment and that statement. Your leadership has been, as I said, critical. We have been at fault on our side. We think the phone companies and we can solve this problem, we can fix it. The money is there and it is enough in our view and we will work as hard as we can to get it solved. [The information follows:] Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) On March 27, 1998, the Department of Justice and the FBI filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission opposing the interim standard adopted by the telecommunications industry. The interim standard is considered deficient by the law enforcement community because law enforcement believes it fails to meet all the capability requirements mandated by CALEA and the underlying federal electronic surveillance statutes. It is hoped that the FCC will rule on the technical standard in an expedited manner. Mr. Rogers. We are going to take a brief recess to go vote on the flood and we shall return. So, relax. [Recess.] calea ``punch list'' Mr. Rogers. Are additional systems advancing into the new technologies? Are the additional requirements, which are above the industry standard, referred to as the punch list, are those that you are requesting within the scope of the law we passed, CALEA? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. They very clearly are. They have been not only in our view, but in the view of the lawyers at the Department of Justice who researched this issue specifically over the last year and have reported back to us and the industry. We believe they are clearly within the scope of CALEA. There was one item on the original punch list which the Department of Justice lawyers advised was probably not within the authority of either CALEA or the Title III statutes and we withdrew that. But as to the nine remaining ones at issue, we believe they are very clearly within the statute. Mr. Rogers. And how critical are those additional items to law enforcement? Mr. Freeh. They are absolutely critical. Just by way of an example, we are asking for the capability to conduct court- authorized surveillance on conference calling. For example, we may be enforcing a court order on a drug dealer using a conference call feature on his phone. The drug dealer calls two other accomplices and begins to speak to them on the conference. We are listening to the call pursuant to court order with an authority to monitor his telephone when the conference call feature allows him and one of the other speakers to break off into a separate conference. We do not have access to that separate conversation. That is one of the examples of clear necessity and certainly within the scope of our authority to intercept that individual talking about crimes. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, I would like to join the chairman in welcoming you to the hearing this morning. I also want to join the Chairman in congratulating you on the birth of your son. Mr. Freeh. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Six boys in a row. I do not know what you are doing with statistics here. Our last child was a girl. We have five and our last was a girl and that was a good thing. [Laughter.] Mr. Freeh. I am going to bring that up at home that the last one could be a girl. Mr. Mollohan. Yes. [Laughter.] Mr. Freeh. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Taylor said, maybe the odds change here. I want to congratulate you on doing what I consider to be a really excellent job managing a lot of change in an unstable world. You are up-sizing an organization and that is not always easy. It is a nice thing to have additional resources but it also presents a difficult management problem. I think you are doing an excellent job with that. I also want to compliment you on diversifying the capabilities of the agency in a way that allows you to meet the new threats that are presenting themselves in this country and otherwise. It is extremely important and I think you are doing a good job with that. Mr. Freeh. Thank you. fbi-iafis-ins ident duplication Mr. Mollohan. I also want to compliment you on procuring information systems. You do have one of the biggest ones in your IAFIS program. And while there have been some bumps along the way, I think that you have addressed those. You have brought in new management talent, brought in the private sector where needed and have really developed a premier identification system which is going to serve law enforcement and to put the FBI in a wheel-horse position in law enforcement not only in this country but around the world. So, I want to compliment you for that. At the same time, an agency within the Department of Justice, the INS, is developing its own identification system. I have looked at it and it appears that it has very similar requirements to IAFIS, although somewhat down-scaled. It is disconcerting to me that over the last three years this Committee has raised the issue of duplication between these two systems. The FBI has pursued the IAFIS contract, selected to the best proposal, and has built the best system. INS then came along with its own identification system. I would like very much for you to speak to the issue of two different identification systems being developed in the same Department of Justice. First of all, how does that affect law enforcement capability? Also, please discuss the differences between the two systems, the usefulness of the IDENT-2-Print system to crime fighting generally, and the technological problems in developing these two systems with regard to the issue of them being able to communicate effectively with each other. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. I know the Attorney General is reporting to the Committee, I think, in June on the efforts by Mr. Colgate, not just to review but to see what recommendations can be made to solve this issue. This is a significant issue. The 2-Print Ident system is not communicative to the 10- print IAFIS system. Now, the two agencies have somewhat different operational needs. The INS, for instance, tells us, and I take them at their word, they would have operational as well as resource difficulties. For instance, 10-printing all of the illegal aliens that they apprehend. Although we think that since many of those individuals could be responsible, either past or future, for criminal activities, it would be good to have that in the IAFIS system. Mr. Colgate has looked at this. We have some joint teams studying the matter. We would very much like to move to an interoperability and perhaps there needs to be some software written. I do not know the scope of the technological burden that would be required or the cost. That is what Mr. Colgate is apparently reviewing and going to report back to you. They utilize the Ident system in an operational environment which is a little bit different from what we do precisely because they are more concerned with the border entries. Mr. Mollohan. I hear that. It is an operational environment different than yours. How is it different and how is it different than any local law enforcement agency that is developing a sub-data base because it has repeat requirements, requirements to look at the same data base on a frequent basis? Why is that different? It is simply creating, is it not, a separate subfile which has a more limited number than the whole IAFIS data base. It has a far limited number, and why could you not service it as a sub-base of your overall data base? Mr. Freeh. That is exactly what we proposed. It would be akin to having the New York Police Department on a different IAFIS or Ident system and we need to bridge that. I am confident that that could be done and will be done. Mr. Mollohan. But your opinion with regard to this, if you want to express it before the Attorney General's report comes out? Mr. Freeh. I think the interoperability would be a premium. I think the identification of criminals, past, current and future really would be benefitted by exploiting the IAFIS capability. As you know, just with the first three builds of IAFIS, A, B, and C, we have about 500,000 prints in an IAFIS base. And we have made 82 cold hit identifications. That is an old case we take out of a file, as we took a 1992 bank robbery in New York where we had an unidentified print, on a wrapper which the bank robber used as a hoax bombing device. We put that into the IAFIS system and it knocked out the identification. That is a capability that you should have whether you are dealing with an illegal alien or an undetected bank robber. Mr. Mollohan. I would just hope that to the extent that you feel it is appropriate, that you would advocate strongly within the Department of Justice to create this commonality in our identification systems. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Obviously, it is good for the FBI but I think it is good for law enforcement around the country. Mr. Freeh. No, I agree. national instant check system Mr. Mollohan. I want to ask you a couple of questions about the Brady Act and the National Instant Check System. Director Freeh, can you tell the Committee that the National Instant Check System will be on-line and on time? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, I can. Based on, you know, my briefings and my review of it, we should get the full delivery capacity in August, actually of this year. I know it is required by November 30, 1998. SAIC, who is the contractor, has been developing the software in six different stages. And we should realize the full capability in August, a delivery of August 1998. It is within budget of $37.4 million. It will access all of the pertinent files, NCIC, and then, of course, when the NCIC 2000 comes on-line, it will benefit from additional sub-files. So, we are, at this point, very optimistic about it. Mr. Mollohan. There are some delicate privacy and other statutory requirement issues involved. How are you ensuring that they are being taken into consideration? Mr. Freeh. The advisory board that we use, the CJIS Advisory Policy Board, as well as the individuals who are responsible for the program management and the implementation, have constructed this system with a full recognition of the Privacy Act requirements. And it will be protected as the NCIC 2000 is similarly protected along the privacy lines with fail- safe mechanisms and passageways through which the information will be secured. It has worked very well in NCIC, so the technology is available to establish it with respect to NICS. [The information follows:] National Instant Check System (NICS) The NICS contractor, SAIC, is scheduled to deliver software release 3.0 in August 1998. This release provides full operational capability. After receipt of release 3.0, the FBI will perform system integration tests. Full NCIS operating capabilities will be available in November 1998. explosives research and development Mr. Mollohan. Okay. One more question, Mr. Director, before my time runs out. In the conference report for 1998, the Committee required--and let me just read this, ``That, in addition, the conferees note the importance and usefulness of the development of explosives detection technology in assisting law enforcement personnel in the detection of explosive materials before a bombing incident.'' I recognize that identification taggants come into play after the incident, and after the damage is done. Please discuss death, the usefulness of that as an investigative tool versus the usefulness of detection taggants as a preventive tool. And the Committee report went on to say that ``within the amount provided, the conferees expect the FBI to pursue research and development of explosives detection technology.'' That is a serious request by the Committee to look at that. I know that there are jurisdictional issues with BATF in association with this. But I think speaking through this report, this Committee feels that if we could develop a detection taggant capability--and there are some technologies out there that are moving pretty quickly in that direction-- that we would be far better ahead than the identification taggant solution or the approach of tagging explosives. Can you speak to that issue generally and also specifically what is the FBI doing to follow up with regard to this directive? Mr. Freeh. Yes. With respect to the followup, the FBI laboratory has identified several active research projects in that area. They are pursuing them, again, with the objective, as you note, for post-blast residue detection and forensic collection as opposed to prevention. And I can submit a much more detailed description of those projects. But we are pursuing them and hopefully they will be very beneficial to us. Mr. Mollohan. If you would, I would appreciate that. Thank you. One more, do you have a budget request in associated with looking at detection taggants? Explosives Detection Taggant Capability The 1998 Attorney General's Counterterrorism (CT) Fund includes $11.5 million for research and development (R&D) in the areas of engineering, communications, forensic sciences, and tactical disciplines. The FBI is seeking funding from the CT Fund to pursue R&D involving field portable explosives detection technology. The new technology will identify traces of explosive residue on suspect items during threat assessments, investigations, or in the examination of suspected packages. The technology can also be used to screen post-blast evidentiary items. R&D areas being considered include: Portal Monitoring for Explosives; Suspicious Package 3-D X-Ray Tomography; Detection of Post-Blast Explosive Residue on Surfaces; Improved Bomb Handling Robots; Vehicle Bomb Disablement System. Mr. Freeh. I do not believe there is a request directly specified to that. We do have an appropriation from last year with respect to, as you know, counterterrorism research and I will check to see whether, within that protocol, there will be any contemplated research into the areas. Funding for Explosives Detection Taggant Capability Funding to initiate explosives detection research and development is being sought from the Attorney General's Counterterrorism Fund. In 1998, Congress appropriated $11.5 million for research and development. There is no request for research and development funding in the 1999 Counterterrorism Fund. Mr. Mollohan. I would like to know if you have room within your current budget and your current Fiscal Year funding to pursue this as a research item? You would be a very big hero out there in the community if you were successful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome you here, Director Freeh and as the youngest of five boys and no sisters, I can tell you, we had a basketball team. And you are either looking at a team with one sub or you are well on your way to a football team. Mr. Freeh. That is great. Thank you. Mr. Latham. Congratulations. Mr. Freeh. Thank you. southwest border initiative Mr. Latham. Last year, Congress provided significant resources for the FBI's Southwest Border initiative to investigate major drug organizations and public corruption on the U.S./Mexico border. As you are well aware, my home State of Iowa has been just swamped with meth from the Mexican narcotic syndicates. It concerns me somewhat that in your opening remarks any reference to this initiative really was absent. Can you give us an update as to what is happening on the Southwest border? Mr. Freeh. Yes. Certainly with respect to the Southwest border resources, all of those resources have been implemented. The Drug Enforcement Administration, I think you are going to hear from them next week, has a special and separate appropriation request for 1999 with respect to methamphetamine enforcement particularly as it affects the non-border States because of the proliferation from Mexican labs as well as now the portable labs. We have worked and will work very closely with the DEA with respect to the national methamphetamine strategy. We have had several conferences sponsored by the DEA around the country, particularly with the State and local areas affected and I know when you hear from Administrator Constantine he will mention it in his opening statement. He is specifically asking for enhancement in that area. Mr. Latham. There is a report, I think, due this month. Do you know where that is as far as the initiative in the Southwest border? Mr. Freeh. I will find out. Let me just check my notes right here, if you will permit me. [Pause.] Mr. Freeh. I am told there is a Department of Justice drug strategy report due at the end of March and we are certainly collaborating in that along with the DEA. Mr. Latham. You are involved in that? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. mexico certification Mr. Latham. Okay. Also in regards to the narcotics production, trafficking situation in Mexico, I was curious, did you have any input in the Administration's decision to recertify Mexico? Mr. Freeh. No, I did not. Mr. Latham. If not, what is your opinion as far as recertification? Mr. Freeh. We have not---- Mr. Latham. That puts you in an awkward position, I am sure. Mr. Freeh. The certification is done way above my pay grade. Mr. Latham. Well, I would think you would be involved somehow. Mr. Freeh. We are involved to the extent that we have provided information with respect to our Southwest border operations, the trans-border task forces that we are trying to operate. The Drug Enforcement Administration has a dedicated role in the certification process. The FBI does not, and we were not consulted on it. Mr. Latham. Do you have an opinion on it? Are you seeing cooperation? Mr. Freeh. My view is that the cooperation is mixed. It depends on the particular case involved. And we have had successes. We brought Abrego back to the United States from Mexico to be tried and convicted. We have other instances where we have not been successful. It is really a mixed and very complicated situation. Mr. Latham. From my understanding the certification really says that there is full cooperation. You are saying that that may not be entirely the case or there is mixed results or? Mr. Freeh. We have seen mixed results on our part, yes, sir. coordination with the department of defense Mr. Latham. Okay. As you know, the Department of Defense is developing special National Guard response teams and I see in your opening statement talking about coordinating with States and local law enforcement. As far as the Department of Defense efforts, how much are you involved in coordinating with Department of Defense? Mr. Freeh. In the Southwest border area there is very close cooperation, not just between us and the Department of Defense but the DEA, and other civilian law enforcement agencies. We work very closely with the Coast Guard and they have become a integral part of the counter drug operations, particularly in the Dominican Republic, and San Juan area. Mr. Latham. How about in the area of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. We have worked very closely with the military under the Nunn-Domenici-Lugar funds. We are now actively training first responders, State and local officers. This is a Department of Defense-funded program but the FBI participates in terms of the actual training and the protocols. We work a number of exercises, table-top exercises, around the country with the military. The military is present in our Counterterrorism Center. They will be present in the National Infrastructure Protection Center. There is very, very close cooperation and we work with them on a routine basis now. outreach to the technology industry Mr. Latham. Okay. Relative to the Bureau's cyber crime efforts, in what way does the FBI work together with computer software and hardware industries, as well as other related technology-based corporations to combat the increasing threats to our national information infrastructure? Mr. Freeh. We have---- Mr. Latham. Also, is the FBI Year 2000 compatible? Mr. Freeh. They tell me we are. Mr. Latham. Okay. Mr. Freeh. With respect to the cooperation, we have a program and it is actually part of the CITAC program which this Committee has generously funded, where all of our divisions, all of our 56 field divisions are required and tasked to go out into the community identifying, first of all, the key infrastructure industries, banks, laboratories, energy, transportation, communications facilities. One example is in our Cleveland office, we call it Infraguard, where the FBI meets on a regular basis with the CEOs, as well as the individuals responsible for cyber security from all the major industries. They have protocols, training exercises and prepare to defend against an intrusion attack in order to harden some of the infrastructure. This is a process which is underway in all of the divisions. The National Infrastructure Protection Center, if it is funded--will have in our headquarters 40 other Government agencies, and private industry representatives. We work very closely with the software companies on a lot of the investigative as well as preventive areas. Mr. Latham. You know, if you are in compliance with the Year 2000 maybe you can go to the Internal Revenue Service and lend them a hand or something over there. But the Full Committee Chairman made a brief reference to it today and spoke in a lot more detail a year ago about this issue but with the emphasis last year that we put on talking about the FBI files, have you found out who hired Craig Livingstone yet? Mr. Freeh. No, but I think that is precisely because we have not investigated it. The Independent Counsel has done that. We have stood down from that case. We are not supposed to be investigating that. But I am confident that Judge Starr is going to get to the bottom of it. Mr. Latham. We still do not know, then, right? Mr. Freeh. I do not know, no, sir. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Skaggs. Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I will give you a respite from congratulations about your family situation. Mr. Freeh. Thank you. fbi laboratory Mr. Skaggs. How is the lab? Mr. Freeh. I think the lab is in very good shape. We have benefitted much from the Inspector General's recommendations, which have all been implemented. We have a new Assistant Director running the lab, who, as you may know, used to run Los Alamos National Laboratory. We have put into the laboratory, in addition to the recommendations of the Inspector General, new quality assurance procedures, new peer reviews. We are working with George Washington University with respect to part of the standardization process. We submitted our accreditation application in December. We arehoping that we will be accredited by the end of this year. We have, on our own, gone beyond the three sections that the Inspector General has looked at. We reviewed all the other sectors using the same protocol and outside experts to examine what is going on in those sections. We have done some merging. We are very confident that the cases that the FBI is responsible for, both the FBI cases as well as State and local cases, have not been jeopardized by the problems that we have had and we point to the Oklahoma case, the World Trade bombing case and many other cases where these issues have been raised and not found by the jury. Mr. Skaggs. And you have asked for, in your budget, the resources you need to continue whatever improvements are required there? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, and we also, as you know, have begun the construction of the new laboratory which, just by its physical plant, will improve the ability and the integrity of the evidence there. encryption technology Mr. Skaggs. I wanted to ask you a few questions about encryption issues and the Administration's policies, plural, on that. When the Attorney General was before us a few days ago, she stated that there would be produced an administration policy, singular, on encryption legislation shortly. I pressed her for greater specificity and she demurred on that. But I just wanted to invite your comment on the current state of play, the Bureau's equities in the development of an Administration policy, and how you sketch out what our objectives need to be. Mr. Freeh. Our objectives are consistent with what has been our position for several years now, that we want a robust encryption industry led by United States businesses to continue to dominate, not just this market but the international market. We are strong proponents of encryption. We use it ourselves. It is a necessity for law enforcement and counterintelligence. What we asked for, and what we think public safety requires, however, is some ability to use a recovery system when we are enforcing a court order or a search warrant to find conversations or evidence that would otherwise be denied to us by encryption without any recovery capability. So we have taken the position that a voluntary solution to this problem between the Government and the software and hardware industries is preferable. However, if they cannot agree or will not agree to it, then we believe that stronger legislation would be necessary and we are hoping that in the coming weeks, the Administration will lead a new initiative to work out a voluntary market-based solution to the problem. We are hopeful that that will work. If it does not work, we will go back to a much different position, speaking for the FBI. Mr. Skaggs. I think you are aware that today's Washington Post reported a decision by the administration not to seek domestic controls, which implies that the strategy is going to be entirely on the export side. Is that an accurate report? Were you appropriately involved in developing at least that piece of---- Mr. Freeh. Yes. We were directly involved. We were directly involved and then consulted and we support the initiative. Mr. Skaggs. As you are aware, the House Intelligence Committee, I think it is fair to say, established as much of a bulwark as any entity around here on behalf of the objectives that you identify as important. I expect we are going to want to revisit this again. Mr. Dixon also serves on that committee. I wanted to ask if you would be available to participate in a more informal discussion of these issues in that setting, rather than our usual one at a time sequence of witnesses. I think we really need to get all of the, especially the governmental stakeholders in this together at one time to help inform the committee. Mr. Freeh. Yes. I would be happy to do that and we very much appreciate the leadership and support of that committee, Chairman Solomon, many of the other people who have worked very hard to bring us to the point where we had some ability to negotiate effectively. Mr. Skaggs. Do you have, internal to the Bureau, the kind of expertise and resources in the encryption area that you need to meet your purposes? Mr. Freeh. Yes, we do, but we are relying and will continue to rely heavily, for instance, on the Department of Defense, on the NSA in particular, and even outside consultants. We have good, strong people on board. We do not want to relegate ourselves, however, to just internal resources. These are very complex and rapidly changing technology areas. Mr. Skaggs. Have you yet had a chance to review the legislation that was announced, I guess yesterday, by Senators McCain and Kerry? Mr. Freeh. No, sir. I am aware of it. I have not read it myself. Mr. Skaggs. I would appreciate it if we could have your views on that as soon as you are able. I also wanted to just ask you to tell us the story of the success, and how serendipitous or deliberate the success was, in dealing with the latest attack on DoD computers that resulted, relatively promptly, in some arrests. I was not sure, from reading the news accounts, how much of that was good luck and how much of it was good police work and what we can learn from that. Mr. Freeh. I think a lot of it was just very good police work. The Deputy Secretary, John Hamre, specifically noted that. There was a prearranged set of relationships, protocols, and technology which gave us the ability, particularly with Department of Defense assets, to quickly identify the source of that. I would be happy to go into that with you. I would request it be in a more informal session because some of the techniques involved are fairly sensitive. Mr. Skaggs. I understand that. I just wanted to get a flavor of what this demonstrated with regard to our enforcement capabilities and how much we should read into it in that regard versus, as I say, the good fortune that we had a cooperative Internet provider that helped you all out. Mr. Freeh. The other good fortune there was that the target was the Department of Defense. If it was a stock exchange or an energy company or something else, it might be more complicated, which is one of the reasons that the National Infrastructure Protection Center, which brings in private industry, would give us some enhanced capability. calea Mr. Skaggs. One final question, Mr. Chairman. This is on the CALEA side of things. I am told, and I do not know whether it is accurate, that one of the capabilities that you are seeking in the digital tap area would include an ability, after the subject of a warrant intercept had gone off of a conference call, to continue to intercept the remainingparties to the call, even though they may not have been the subject of the court order warranting the intercept. That seemed to me unlikely to be the case but it had been raised with me by credible people and I just wanted to get your reaction. Mr. Freeh. One of the capabilities that we have requested and which is at issue now with the common carriers is the ability to continue on what would be a good faith and predicated initiation of a conference conversation, for instance, on John Doe's phone because we had predicated probable cause to believe he is involved in narcotics. He calls two individuals. The monitoring agent believes that they are talking, even cryptically, about a narcotics deal. John Doe then hangs up the phone or John Doe and the first individual or John Doe and the second individual or break off on a separate conference feature. We are asking for the technical capability to monitor that conference, but as I mentioned before, there is nothing new about that. Right now, under current authorities and authorities since 1968, if we listen to a telephone conversation and there are multiple parties on it, not on a conference, and one of them goes off, even the subject, we are authorized to continue listening to that with minimization requirements in place to determine whether or not a criminal conversation is continuing. So although the access to the conference feature is new, the principle, the Fourth Amendment principle, as well as the statutory authority, is not enhanced. Mr. Skaggs. And I infer that this must have been fully litigated and the Fourth Amendment issue has been resolved? Mr. Freeh. Yes. In my view, it has been completely resolved for many, many years. Mr. Skaggs. It is just not my area of practice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IMPACT OF STAFFING INDEPENDENT COUNSEL INVESTIGATIONS Mr. Rogers. Mr. Director, the campaign finance investigation, as I am told, is requiring 101 FBI personnel and $9.8 million during this fiscal year. In addition, the FBI has also participated in other investigations of allegations of criminal activity by Administration officials in such things as Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, perjury in the Jones case, Independent Counsel Smaltz for Secretary Espy, Independent Counsel Barrett on Secretary Cisneros, Independent Counsel Pearson on Secretary Brown, an independent counsel for Secretary Babbitt, the investigation of the President's role in the Indian casino case, the investigations of Vice President Gore and former Energy Secretary O'Leary, the investigation of Secretary Herman, the investigation of the Magaziner health care task force matter, and so forth. Do you have adequate resources to thoroughly conduct, number one, the campaign finance organization? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. I believe we do. Mr. Rogers. Do you have adequate resources to share FBI personnel on all these other investigations? Mr. Freeh. We have dedicated all the resources required. When any of the Independent Counsels, including recently, have asked us for enhancements, we have without question furnished them. They do drain, obviously, from many of our other investigations, particularly since many of these agents assigned are accountants and white-collar crime experts. So they do impact on our program, but we fully staffed them and we have enough resources to staff them. Mr. Rogers. Where are you getting the money and resources to do that with? That is quite a heavy load, is it not? Mr. Freeh. It is a heavy load. They are programmed out of our white-collar allotments, for the most part, and support people, too, because many of the Independent Counsels have computer analysts and personnel other than special agents. Mr. Rogers. So you are diverting agents and other personnel from other programs to this purpose? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, particularly to the Independent Counsel. Mr. Rogers. What is the impact on the programs you are diverting these people from? Mr. Freeh. We have less resources to work other cases. Mr. Rogers. Which indicates that you could get by with less in the first place? Mr. Freeh. Well, we may not be---- Mr. Rogers. You do not need all the personnel. Mr. Freeh [continuing]. Doing all the cases and responding proactively as we should be to all the cases with that diminution in resources. The resources also fluctuate. At one point, there may be several dozen agents. At another point, there may be only four or five. So it is not a continuous number. Mr. Rogers. But you are diverting 101 just for the campaign finance investigation, correct? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. That is a hefty slice of people. Did you ask Justice or the OMB for more monies to make up the difference? Mr. Freeh. I do not think specifically with respect to those resources, no. Mr. Rogers. Why not? Mr. Freeh. Well, we have a number of requests that we made to OMB, as is the case every year, with respect to resources. We do not receive them all. We did not make a specific request to make up for the agents assigned to independent counsels. Mr. Rogers. Or any of the other investigations? Mr. Freeh. Or any of the other investigations. Now, whether we ask for enhancements with respect to agents in white-collar crime programs and crimes against children programs as we did, I can itemize those for you. [The information follows:] [Page 342--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. In next year's budget, you are asking, for example, for a new initiative, the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, $8 million. You could fund a whole new initiative if you were not doing campaign finance, could you not, plus some? Mr. Freeh. We could in terms of an exchange for those resources, but as you know, the white-collar program is our largest single program and one which includes the cyber crime as well as other matters that we have a mission to perform. Mr. Rogers. What is the cost of all of these investigations I have mentioned from your budget? Mr. Freeh. Well, the Independent Counsels and the CAMPCON, I would have to itemize that for you. I do not know offhand. Mr. Rogers. Get that for me. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND CAMPCON INVESTIGATIONS--FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [Fiscal Year] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1993-96 1997 1998 Estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Counsel Barrett..................................... $410,464 $710,989 $450,000 Independent Counsel Smaltz...................................... 921,971 553,294 350,000 Independent Counsel Starr....................................... 15,071,186 977,421 1,000,000 CAMPCON......................................................... 10,092 4,718,636 11,105,321 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 16,413,713 6,960,340 12,905,321 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Rogers. It is substantial, though, is it not? Mr. Freeh. Yes, it is. Mr. Rogers. Would you say in the neighborhood of $20, $25 million? Mr. Freeh. I would say over the course of the years, yes, that we committed to those. Mr. Rogers. And you did not ask us for any reprogramming or any more money for that purpose? I am puzzled. Mr. Freeh. Well, some of the Independent Counsels have required only two or three Special Agents on a temporary basis. But I will certainly consider asking for more resources now that you have mentioned it. Mr. Rogers. I am not begging for a plea for more money. I am absolutely puzzled, since you ask for money for everything else, why you did not ask for money for these investigations? Is it correct that the White House will not let you ask for more money for these investigations? Mr. Freeh. No. We have not, as I said, made a specific request for either replacements or enhancements for Independent Counsel detailees. Those are not things that we have asked for, so they have not been specifically denied. We serviced Independent Counsels, actually throughout the life of the statute, going back several decades, and we have supplied---- Mr. Rogers. I am absolutely puzzled that you have not asked for more money on all of these myriad of investigations that are worldwide in scope. I am puzzled you have not asked for the money to hire the personnel with which to conduct those investigations and you are taking from regular FBI activities, the money and personnel to do that. Again, I ask you, is that because of some communication between you or anybody on your staff from the White House or anybody on the White House staff not to ask for more money to investigate the White House? Mr. Freeh. No, no such communication whatsoever. I mean, let me just give you an example. On the CAMPCON investigation which you mentioned, we have 108 onboard employees. The costs for fiscal year 1997 were $4.7 million and $11.1 million for fiscal year 1998. Now, that is not an Independent Counsel investigation, that is an FBI investigation right now. Mr. Rogers. Those are white-collar personnel, people that you are transferring over there, correct? Mr. Freeh. Well, we are not really transferring them. They work for me. They are still FBI agents. Mr. Rogers. What I am driving at is, we are dedicating 108 personnel out of your white-collar crime program for the campaign finance investigation. Does that mean that some other white-collar criminals are going free as a result of that? Mr. Freeh. I hope not. It certainly means that those resources are not being used to investigate other cases. Mr. Rogers. And it could be that we are not convicting some other white-collar criminals, correct? Mr. Freeh. Derivatively, that could certainly be a possibility. Mr. Rogers. And you have not seen fit to ask for more funds---- Mr. Freeh. Well, again, with respect to that, if I ask for new agents for every major investigation, when we had several hundred agents assigned to the TWA investigation, which turned out not even to be a criminal incident, major white-collar crime cases all over the country, if I took each one of those and asked to duplicate those resources, you probably would not give me them, but maybe I will try. I will get a separate itemization of the Independent Counsel agents, too, because those are actually outside of my purview. They are not working on any FBI-related cases. Mr. Rogers. I am interested in knowing what drain you are suffering because of agents being siphoned off to these various investigations and what impact, if any, that has on your main business. Mr. Freeh. I will give you an estimate of that. [The information follows:] [Page 345--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] information sharing initiative Mr. Rogers. You are asking $50 million in 1999 for the multi-year project to improve the automation systems that you use for your case management and investigative databases. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. You also say that over the next four years, that that is going to take about $400 million. What capabilities will that system give you that you do not currently have with your existing automation system? Mr. Freeh. I think it will give us the capability, which will be new to coordinate and integrate information. If we are working on a drug case or a cyber case in California in the organized crime program and we are working on a separate case in another division on an entirely different program, maybe a bank fraud program, this system would give us the ability to integrate, simple things such as names of individuals and corporations. We could store and retrieve evidence and information, including interviews, images. We do not really have that capacity now. We have good capacities in various program areas, such as the Organized Crime Information System (OCIS). But we need to have an integration which we do not have. This integration is going to require hardware, and training to get past this stovepipe infrastructure which has served us well in the past but is just not going to be very well suited for the next 20 years. Mr. Rogers. Pardon me for asking detailed questions, but your track record on delivering critical information systems is extremely poor: NCIC 2000 and IAFIS, both plagued by significant overruns and schedule delays; and CALEA, a major technology initiative, at a standstill, an impasse, three years after the law passed. And, frankly, the FBI dragged its feet for two or more of those years. Given that track record, I am skeptical, to be frank with you, on whether or not you are capable of carrying out another huge electronic technological feat. Assure us, please. Mr. Freeh. Yes. You certainly have the right to be skeptical. What we are doing in this area is distinctly different, I would submit, than what we were doing in IAFIS and NCIC 2000. In those two systems, which have been plagued but are now on schedule and on budget, we were trying to home grow our own technology and write our own code. We were not buying and dealing with off-the-shelf technology. With this Information Sharing Initiative, we are not going to be reinventing the wheel and writing code and doing all the things that challenged us in those other programs. In the first phase, for instance, we are relying on off-the-shelf technology and computers and contracting services to put together this initiative. We have established some monitoring programs, both within the Bureau and the Department of Justice, which were not in place for IAFIS and NCIC 2000. We are going to be very hard on ourselves and expect everyone else, including the Committee here, to regularly review this initiative and we will update you on our progress. We think that the initiative is a valid one and we have learned a lot from the problems with our past systems. Mr. Rogers. Have you developed a comprehensive system requirements plan for this initiative? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. We have a plan which deals with the systems development, not the implementation, at least beyond the first phase. Mr. Rogers. Well, we need to see the plan. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Information Sharing Initiative Plan A copy of the Information Sharing Initiative Plan is being provided to the Committee. Mr. Rogers. I do not want to start down this road to spend $400 million-plus. I guarantee you, before it is over with, you will be back for more than the $400 million that you now say you need if it is true to form, and I do not want to start down that road until we know that, one, you can do it, two, it is necessary, and three, it is going to come in on time and within the cost figures. Mr. Freeh. I agree. Mr. Rogers. We are not going to do another overrun business. I want to get that straight at the outset. Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. I agree and I do not want to go down that road, either. Mr. Rogers. Now, will the new system be compatible with the systems we funded for DEA, such as their Firebird and Merlin systems? Mr. Freeh. Yes. There will be interoperability for all those systems, as with the Drug X system, that being the template of how this can work between the two agencies. NCIC 2000 and IAFIS status Mr. Rogers. Are NCIC 2000 and IAFIS still on schedule for completion in July of 1999? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, they are. Mr. Rogers. Still within the current cost estimates? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, $183.2 million for NCIC 2000 and $640 million for IAFIS. The builds that have been delivered have not only been successfully tested but utilized. In fact, we have been solving some cases with the IAFIS builds, so we are very confident it is going to work. Mr. Rogers. Good. It is about time. FBI personnel system Last year, you expressed the critical need for an exemption to the Federal pay system for recruitment of personnel for certain highly specialized and technical positions in the FBI. We provided that authority for up to 3,000 FBI positions, but also requested that you provide to the Committee by the end of February an outline of the proposed personnel system and a description of the problematic provisions of Title 5. What is the status of that report? When can we have it? Mr. Freeh. I expect we can have it, Mr. Chairman, I am told, within several months. The problem has been a direction we received from the President which told us that we were not to proceed without first working with OMB and OPM to construct a plan with their approval. We are doing that now, but that has caused unforseen delays in submitting the plan to the Committee. We expect to have it here as quickly as we can. In several months, I am told, it will be ready. And just to add--excuse me--it was not only when it was proposed and authorized, but more and more as we talk about these technology areas, it is an absolutely critical waiver, and we will put it to good use and get the people on board who can do some of these systems blindfolded as opposed to trying to reinvent them ourselves. Mr. Rogers. Well, given that hiring of FBI support personnel appears to be now on track, does that mean the FBI may no longer need this new pay system after all? Mr. Freeh. No, sir, not at all, because with respect to our technical areas, particularly linguists, computer specialists, we have a turnover rate in those specialized categories sometimes higher than the other support rates. I can break that down for you in some detail. To get the computer specialists, the scientists, the technicians that we are going to need for the infrastructure center and some of the other key forensic areas, I believe we need that waiver and we will use it very prudently. [The information follows:] [Pages 349 - 350--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] counterterrorism strategy Mr. Rogers. Over the last three years, we have provided huge increases totaling over $625 million and over 1,850 new FBI personnel for counterterrorism activities. Is there an overall strategy that the Administration is operating under to combat terrorism, and if so, what is FBI's responsibility in that system? Mr. Freeh. Our responsibility under Presidential Decision Directive-39 [PDD-39] is to be the lead counterterrorism agency in the United States and to be responsible to support the Department of State with respect to extraterritorial matters. We have formed, as you know, the Counterterrorism Center, which is up and running, which has representatives of all the key enforcement as well as intelligence agencies. The National Infrastructure Protection Center will supplement that. We have been conducting training, tabletop exercises. We have used that money to buy needed equipment, both helicopters and gear to deal with WMD situations. We have the lead responsibility for counterterrorism and I believe that those critical resources, as well as the PDD-39 authority and the Attorney General's leadership now with respect to submitting to the Congress the counterterrorism plan. The research and development plan put us in much better shape than where we were a few years ago. Mr. Rogers. Are there areas where we still have problems getting agencies to work together? Mr. Freeh. Actually, with respect to the counterterrorism initiatives, we are working extremely well with our partners, both domestically as well as international assistance where we need it. The CIA and the FBI in particular, and you can hear this from the DCI as well as me, the relationship is stronger than it has ever been in the history of the country. Operations that we do here and overseas, including bringing Kasi back to the United States, who was convicted in Fairfax County for murdering CIA employees later last year, those are the kinds of FBI-CIA-Department of State operations which are really doing what we have never been able to do before in terms of coordination. Mr. Rogers. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, we have provided that $625 million to you. Are you satisfied we are better prepared today to prevent that type of incident from occurring again than we were? Mr. Freeh. With respect to that type of incident, I would say probably not. That was an incident, unfortunately, that was, as you know by the evidence, not carried out or planned by a group, particularly a group where some law enforcement agency would have information or coverage. It was an act, by the finding of the jury, of two individuals really acting secretly and clandestinely over several years. So I think there is a sector of these types of threats for which we can have a very good response capability, but unfortunately and tragically, little preemptive capabilityunless we have the information from an informant, a co- defendant, a supplier of a component, unless that person comes to us beforehand. When we are operating against single individuals or leaderless conspiracies, it is very hard to prevent them. But we are in 100 percent better shape in responding to and dealing with those incidents, including weapons of mass destruction issues. legal attaches Mr. Rogers. In last year's conference report, we required the FBI to revise its overseas office planning process to include a threat-based, outcome-oriented assessment before offices could be opened or expanded overseas. How far along is that revised planning process and when can we expect to see your overseas plan? Mr. Freeh. We expect to have the plan in several weeks. We have used it to review and plan out all of the proposed expansions and enhancements. We have hired a contractor to help perform the threat-based assessment. I have seen some of the proposals in draft, including one for the Dominican Republic. We are incorporating the recommendations of the S&I review, as we know them and understand them. We have created a new International Operations Branch which will give us a better management capability. We are doing better training in preparation for our legats and their families. We need to make some other improvements. This has been an area that has grown very quickly, but we are confident that the threat-based assessments and the recommendations which are being made will put us in good shape. Mr. Rogers. For the three locations in which specific approval was given last year, Mexico City, Moscow, and Nigeria, what is the status of those openings or expansions? Mr. Freeh. They are all being filled. We have temporary agents in Moscow, three agents, one permanent, two on a temporary basis. We are now selecting two permanent replacements. With respect to Lagos, we are going to assign an agent there on a temporary basis, who has not yet been selected. With respect to Mexico City, I believe--I will check on this for sure, but I believe all the agents have been selected and are there. [The information follows:] Mexico City Staffing With respect to Mexico City, both agents and one support person have reported for duty. The remaining support employee will report during May. In addition, two Resolution Six agents authorized for 1998 are on-board. The remaining four Resolution Six agents will be on-board in the near future. Mr. Rogers. And you say you have established an International Operations Branch? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, we have. Mr. Rogers. One person in charge? Mr. Freeh. One person overall and a staff now of people who will help him carry out that assignment. But we are looking at and are considering, particularly based on the conversations we have had with your S&I staff, the establishment of actually a new International Operations Branch which would bring the leadership, the management, the resources, and the coordination not just within our FBI but also with Department of State and other agencies in a much more coherent manner. Mr. Rogers. Well, I would assume that as time flows that the threat to us from a given point on the earth changes. I mean, one year it may be one place. The next year, it may shift to another place and so forth. Is that generally correct? Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. It changes very quickly. Mr. Rogers. So you need to have some flexibility in moving forces around? Mr. Freeh. Yes, which is why the threat assessment is going to be a renewed process, not just a one-time process. Mr. Rogers. So you have a formal evaluation system for your overseas offices to determine the contribution each is making and whether that existence is necessary to be continued? Mr. Freeh. Yes. Mr. Rogers. You have a system for that? Mr. Freeh. Yes, we do. international training Mr. Rogers. Do you have any new international training facilities? Mr. Freeh. No. We cooperate in the Budapest facility. We have supplied some instructors to the Central American academy that the Department of Treasury is running and we will help support and staff that, as well as some other ones which the Committees have contemplated. But that is all, the international institutional participation is in the Budapest Academy. We have many training programs in many countries which we do under the auspices and the authority of the Department of State. Mr. Rogers. Are you planning any new international training? Mr. Freeh. New academies? No, sir, we are not. Mr. Rogers. Or training programs? Mr. Freeh. No. We have a list of 1998 programs and we evaluate those on a year-to-year basis, depending on the country that is required. But we do not propose to run or manage any other academies overseas. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Director, I apologize for taking a good part of the lunch hour of you and your staff, but we did get a late start because of unplanned activities. Thank you for your testimony and the material you will be furnishing us in the future. There has probably not been a time in the country's history when the Justice Department, including the FBI, have been called upon to investigate so many white-collar or public corruption cases, particularly Federal corruption cases. It is an unprecedented demand that we are making on you and the rest of the Justice Department and the Independent Counsels, as well, and I know this causes strains within the Bureau and within the Department and within the whole Government. But I want to commend you for standing forthright and for the right thing when the pressures must be intense. But know that the silent majority out there in the country wants and demands and deserves absolute independence by you and the Attorney General and the agencies that are charged with these horrendous investigations. So good luck to you and godspeed to you and know that we are here to help you in any way that we can within the wherewithal that we have. So we thank you for your dedication and your public spiritedness and your public service. Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. [Pages 355 - 386--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday March 19, 1998. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS WITNESSES THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION DONNA A. BUCELLA, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS MARY LEE WARREN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION Opening Remarks Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We are pleased to welcome this morning Thomas Constantine, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Donna Bucella, the Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, and Mary Lee Warren, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, to discuss the Department of Justice's law enforcement efforts in the War on Drugs. Our nation is being weakened by the prevalence of drugs and drug-related crime in our communities. This Subcommittee has increased drug law enforcement efforts of the Department of Justice by over 70 percent over the last six years from $4.3 billion in 1992 to $7.3 billion in 1998. The question is do we have an aggressive and coordinated plan to put an end to the flood of drugs entering our country? Without that, our investments in law enforcement to take down and punish drug traffickers and add prevention programs that are aimed at stopping children from using drugs cannot and will not succeed. Cocaine and heroine are cheaper and more plentiful than ever on the streets of this country. Methamphetamine, which can be produced fairly simply in any kitchen in any community, is spreading quickly to all areas of our country. Unfortunately, we have been waiving a white flag in the drug war for the last few years. As a result, we are seeing casual drug use grow, not only with our teenagers, but with our pre-teen children. That was unheard of ten years ago and should not be the case now. It seems that we are preoccupied in the Administration with the dangers of smoking cigarettes and tobacco and seem to have waived the white flag of surrender to cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and other drugs. We need to work together in a bi-partisan way to reverse the trends we have seen and to 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 this problem, even though they may not be requested by the White House. The Administration, when it came to power, decided apparently that the battle could best be won by fighting the war on the home front though prevention, reduction of the demand for drugs. This Administration fairly well abandoned the interdiction effort to try to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and source country eradication. As the result of that change in policy, drugs are flooding the country. They are cheaper on the streets, higher quality, available because of the low price to even those of very little income, including teenagers. I think it was a severe, sad, and tragic mistake when they took down the eradication effort between source countries and the U.S. We are trying to restore that interdiction effort. We are trying to beef up the Coast Guard, for example, and to beef up the DEA's efforts, and FBI, and the other law enforcement agencies engaged in the interdiction effort with much of our naval forces redeployed from the drug trafficking lanes to the Gulf area. The military has been withdrawn from the West Coast of Mexico, for example, where we are going completely unprotected now. The Coast Guard cannot do it. It does not have the money. Their money has been withdrawn. The military cannot do it; because they have gone to the Gulf. You cannot do it, because you do not have the kinds of forces to do that. The Caribbean is being guarded to some point. We provided forward-looking radars to the Coast Guard, C130s, last year despite the White House's objections. Now they have the radars. The White House cut their funds to fly the planes. I wonder what in the dickens is going on sometimes down there. Well, we will include your written statements in the record, Mr. Administrator. At this point, you can proceed with your opening remarks. Just summarize them and then we will hear from the others. Opening Statement of the DEA Administrator Mr. Constantine. Chairman Rogers and Congressman Mollohan, I first want to thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I also want to express the deep appreciation to both of you from the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration. In my four years here in Washington, you have been very, very supportive and understanding of the issues and the needs of our agency. The drug problem in our country is reported in any number of publications, in any numbers of reports. If you spend any time talking with mothers, fathers, people in the education system from the biggest city to the smallest town, you see that the drug problem is having an extremely negative effect on the quality of life for virtually every citizen in the United States. One thing we should understand about drug trafficking, a fact which really defines the role of DEA, is that all of the importation, and virtually all of the major distribution, plus the collection of the profits that accrue from drug trafficking are really being conducted by very powerful organized crime syndicates, somewhat similar to the Mafia of the United States in 1930. However, these two large criminal syndicates in operation work out of Colombia and out of Mexico. As a result, our strategy in DEA, and the cornerstone of what we do is focus on attacking the command and controlfunctions of the organized criminal syndicates that are responsible for virtually all of the cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine trafficking within the United States. However, in addition to building cases against these leaders in their home countries, or against their surrogates that have been sent to operate within the United States, we have a responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States from the incredible levels of violence that are attendant, and still are to a great degree, to the drug trade. An additional objective of DEA is to lend support to cities, counties, and towns that lack the resources to address these sophisticated and powerful groups. I am going to give you just one example because sometimes I think concrete evidence is as important as any statistical or governmental report. There was an investigation that began much like many of these cases with the small series of incidents, which were then later followed up by the DEA, the FBI, Customs, and the Justice Department. It starts with highway stops by two troopers in Tyler, Texas who provide critical information, one on the seizure of several million dollars in cash, and a second seizure by these same two troopers, not more than two months later, of almost two tons of marijuana. They, along with officers of Tuscon, Arizona, provide substantial information about how these drug trafficking organizations operate. These are then followed with an investigation that went not only nationwide, from one coast to the other and to virtually every major city in between, but also to Mexico where these organizations were being commanded and controlled from. This case consisted largely of Title III wiretap investigations to gain the evidence. At the culmination, we arrested 88 major figures of these organizations who were working within the United States. There was $18 million in cash seized, seven tons of marijuana, and six tons of cocaine. But that is really only the tip of the iceburg because the key transporter for this one cell has now advised us that in two years he brought 30 tons of cocaine into the United States and took $100 million in cash out of the United States. We have had many successes in criminal investigations. We have arrested over 100,000 serious drug felons in the last four years, either because of the level of their distribution or their violence. budget request Our budget this year supports many of those same philosophies and strategies. The total budget request is for 257 new agents and 508 total positions. The first part, the smaller aspect of it is 17 additional agents and support personnel to be housed in our international operations, most of them in offices in the Caribbean, strengthening our operations in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, St. Croix, Curacao, Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. We also are asking for positions for Manila and Vietnam. The larger number of positions that we ask for deals with the international organized crime systems as they operate within the United States. This would be for 240 special agents and supplemental support personnel to go after the organizations that are based out of the Caribbean, but are operating up and down the Eastern seaboard of the United States in a very dramatic and violent fashion. Forty-two of the 240 agents will be housed in our domestic offices primarily on the East Coast where the organizations are operating from. The second part of the request is for 95 special agents and attendant support personnel to combat the heroin trafficking and production operating within the United States. heroin distribution I would like to give you a sense of the dramatic change in the heroin distribution system in our country. In 1994, 32 percent of the heroin samples seized in the United States were coming from South America, which is primarily Colombia. In 1995, that figure reached 62 percent. In this last year, since 1996, we have seen the amount of heroin from Mexico go from 5 percent to 20 percent. So, about 70 percent to 75 percent of all of the heroin now that is bring brought into the country and used in the country is coming from either Colombia or in Mexico. Again, to give a sense of what happens to citizens of the United States when heroin trafficking occurs, we can look at Plano, Texas, which is a very nice community just outside Fort Worth/Dallas. The Chief of Police, Bruce Glasscock is one of the great professionals in this business and he is a Vice President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. That little community was visited with a horrendous problem. Young people, many of them children of opportunity, children of great potential, were dying rapidly from heroin overdoses. Fourteen young people died in a fairly brief period of time, and one adult. We were asked by the Chief to assist. We were able to determine that the primary suppliers were from Guerrero in Mexico. A whole series of arrests were made with, Federal law enforcement and State and local law enforcement. The individuals involved in the distribution knew full well that the purity of the heroin they were selling created great risks for those who would use it. But the profit margin was more important to them than the safety of these young people. methamphetamine problem The third part of our priorities deals with the methamphetamine trafficking, which has exploded throughout the United States. From 1990 to 1995, there was over a 200 percent increase in citizens who checked into hospitals which are part of the Drug Abuse Warning Network indicating that they had serious problems from using methamphetamine. There was a brief drop in methamphetamine in the first half of 1996. However, unfortunately, that skyrocketed an additional 71 percent during the second half of that year. We are making more methamphetamine arrests and seizing more methamphetamine laboratories than we ever believed possible. The numbers of laboratories go from the single digits to virtually the thousands. You have two separate distribution systems: one, extremely sophisticated organizations out of Mexico who are controlling the smuggling, manufacture, and distribution of methamphetamine all the way from California to Iowa, to North Carolina, to Georgia, to Florida. They account for about 80 percent to 90 percent of all of the methamphetamine in the United States. The remaining 10 percent or 20 percent is from a whole series of small homemade laboratories that started in the mid west, but seem to be affecting many areas, including areas like Kentucky or Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. Although they produce a small amount of methamphetamine,the sheer numbers of laboratories are so large. They represent a danger for the citizens who live in that area, especially clean-up costs. There also are problems for local law enforcement with violence and suspects who refuse to abide by the rule of law. It is a very difficult situation. We are asking not only for additional agents, but again, we are seeking continuing assistance for training local police officers in how to handle these dangerous situations, for equipping centralized cites, and being there to help them with the clean-up of those operations. As you know, much more information is contained in more depth in our formal report. I thank both you and Congressman Mollohan for providing me, and primarily the DEA, with the opportunity to update you on these drug efforts, and to detail the reasons for our 1999 request. Thank you very much. [The statement of Mr. Constantine follows:] [Pages 392 - 421--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] usa introductions Mr. Rogers. Ms. Bucella. Ms. Bucella. Chairman Rogers, Congressman Mollohan, Congressman Dixon, I am pleased to be here today with my distinguished panel members. I am also joined by Joe Famularo, the United States Attorney from the Eastern District of Kentucky, Bill Wilmouth, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia, and Michael Troop, the United States Attorney from the Western District of Kentucky. Mr. Rogers. You are accompanied by some very powerful, strong people and friends of mine also. Ms. Bucella. With them, I represent the 10,000 men and women of the 94 United States Attorneys Offices throughout this nation. I thank you on their behalf for your ongoing support of our critical law enforcement mission. budget request To carry out our mission, we are requesting a total of 236 new positions; a $23.4 million increase for the following initiatives: targeting drug organizations that attack our neighborhoods and victimize our children; violent crime on Indian reservations; computer crime, including telemarketing fraud, child pornography, and computer intrusions; and increased civil defensive litigation. I address these issues in my written statement submitted for the record. I will focus my testimony on our work at combating drug trafficking. opening statement--usa As a career prosecutor, I know the problems presented by narcotics trafficking. We cannot underestimate it. The United States Attorneys Offices have spent an enormous amount of resources and effort in fighting this problem. In fiscal year 1997, 28 percent of all criminal attorney work years were devoted to drug prosecutions. In that year alone, 11,935 cases were filed against 23,542 defendants; a 14- percent increase in cases filed over the previous year. An additional 502 drug cases involving 991 defendants classified primarily under our Violent Crime Program were also filed. Not only are the United States Attorneys Offices doing more, our Assistant United States Attorneys are doing more individually. The average number of drug defendants handled per attorney work year increased from 54 in fiscal year 1993 to 65 in fiscal year 1997. The average number of drug cases handled per attorney work year increased from 26 to 33 during the same period. That represents a 20-percent and 27-percent increase in productivity respectively in four years. The significance of the drug problem and the range of drugs we are fighting demand that we do much more. We have seen a remarkable influx of methamphetamine and heroin along the Southwest Border. The methamphetamine enters this country through Mexico. It is distributed from Texas through California, to Oregon, and north to Washington State, and curves across the rest of the United States. We see heroin and cocaine from Colombia distributed through Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and then it comes through Florida up I-95 all the way to the State of Maine. Narcotics prosecutions are resource-intensive. One of our most effective tools against drug conspiracy is the use of the court-ordered wire tap. However, wire-taps are also labor-intensive. It is a round- the-clock effort, often involving simultaneous translations of multiple languages, complicated by the practice of telephone switching and cell phone use. drug strategy Our prosecutors must prepare and file numerous papers with the court, reporting every ten days and seeking renewals as required every 30 days. In response to the directive from this subcommittee, the United States Attorneys currently are moving forward in developing cohesive, coordinated, counter-drug strategies to ensure that prosecutive energies remain focused on drug priorities. The United States Attorneys are setting forth methods to ensure the effective use of counter-drug resources provided by Congress. Finally, the United States Attorneys Offices must keep up with increased resources provided to investigators. Our request for 64 additional attorney positions and 32 support staff will support both resources received and enhancement requests by the DEA and FBI in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Although the United States Attorneys received additional resources from this subcommittee in fiscal year 1998, and we are very grateful and we thank you for that, we need more to handle new cases and to put more of the most serious drug offenders behind bars. defensive civil resources Our efforts against narcotics, violent crime, fraud, and other criminal offenses must be ongoing. But a similar commitment and effort must be made to our civil work. I ask that you give special consideration to our request for defensive civil resources. We have not received resources in this area in over 15 years. Our cases are piling up. We can neither delegate nor decline these cases because we are the only game in town. Any increases that you give us will be used wisely and well. We in the Executive Office will do all that we can to ensure that our U.S. Attorneys Offices have the tools they need to get the job done. In this era of tight budgets, finding the resources to keep up with the drug traffickers is a continuing challenge. Once again, I appreciate all of the support you have given us over the years. I will be happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Ms. Bucella follows:] [Pages 424 - 440--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] opening statement--criminal division Mr. Rogers. Ms. Warren. Ms. Warren. Chairman Rogers, Congressmen Mollohan and Dixon, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program and for the Criminal Division account. I, too, would like to express the Department's appreciation to this committee for the increased drug fighting resources you have provided us over the past several years. We will continue to take best advantage of the funding that is allocated for our purposes. Last month's release of the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy highlights the coordinated federal effort that addresses drug abuse in our country today. The 1998 National Strategy and the resources requested in our 1999 budget are aimed at improving our ability to coordinate and facilitate national and international narcotics law enforcement, to build upon past successes, respond to new and emerging drug threats and maximize coordination between and among our law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. doj drug control strategic plan Pursuant to this Committee's direction, the Department of Justice itself is in the process of developing a drug control strategic plan that addresses problems relating to drug trafficking and use and their consequences in this country. That sets the frame work to implement concrete action plan items to combat such problems. My remarks today will reflect many of the fundamental programs discussed in the upcoming DOJ Drug Control Strategic Plan. The DOJ plan adopts a comprehensive balanced attack and draws upon the expertise, experience, and resources of its numerous counter-drug components. The DOJ plan fits within the Attorney General's over- arching vision that with insightful intelligence and analysis, we will identify and target the major trafficking organizations causing the greatest harm. We will work nationally, regionally, and locally against them. The Criminal Division and other Justice components achieved the Department's counter-drug purposes set out in the strategic plan in five primary ways. First, we aim to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations through a coordinated inter-agency approach. We believe that a coordinated task force type approach is the best method for attacking sophisticated multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking organizations. For instance, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, the OCDETF Program, targets the highest level traffickers by coordinating the collaborative efforts of nine law enforcement authorities working in conjunction with state and local agencies. As another example, the Special Operations Division, DEA, FBI, the Custom Service, the Criminal Division, Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section work together to provide direction, intelligence analysis and coordination to the field, primarily in the Southwest Border Initiative. Our coordinated inter-agency approach has been applied in geographic regions, the Southwest Border Initiative, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and as well for particular drug types, the National Methamphetamine Strategy. Based upon the experience and success of the methamphetamine strategy, we are now designing action plans to implement as part of a proposed National Heroin Strategy. Second, we combat the counter-drug problems of local communities and neighborhoods. Director Bucella's presentation addresses the many types of cases prosecuted and the strength and enthusiasms of the U.S. Attorneys. Third, we aim to reduce drug-related violence. The Department's Anti-Violent Crime Initiative, ongoing since 1994 recognizes that the full array of U.S. law enforcement agencies, federal, state, and local, are needed to address the root causes of voilent crime in this country. Fourth, we attack drug trafficking through a financial sector approach. Working with the Treasury Department, we have made significant strides by targeting particular sectors of the U.S. financial system in order to reduce their potential for abuse from money launderers. In a similar vein, the Department will make greater strategic use of asset forfeiture as an offensive weapon to disrupt the operations and dismantle the economic structures of drug trafficking organizations. Fifth, we will work cooperatively with foreign governments to develop counter-drug relations. The Department of Justice working with the Department of State is actively involved in negotiating new extradition treaties with countries we did not have a relationship with before and modernizing some that are now out of date. We, in this effort, vigorously promote the need for treaties to permit the extradition of nationals. We anticipate that the DOJ Drug Control Strategic Plan will be useful in providing the Department's leadership, Congress, and the American public with a measuring stick to gauge the Department's progress, and hold it accountable for results achieved with the resources provided. In addition, we look forward to working with Chairman Rogers and the Members of this subcommittee and others as this process evolves to continue developing the best, most effective counter-drug strategy for DOJ. Let me take just a brief moment to highlight the role of the OCDETF Program and the Criminal Division in the National Drug Strategy and outline our fiscal year 1999 budget request. OCDETF remains our premiere inter- agency anti-drug coordinating mechanism bringing together the U.S. Attorneys and eight federal investigative agencies, and their state and local counterparts against the most sophisticated, those large multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking organizations. the ocdetf program The OCDETF model works in every district of this country, integrating investigators at the federal, state, and local level, and involving prosecutors at the inception of major investigations. I think the effectiveness of OCDETF can be seen in the increased number of investigations opened in the last fiscal year, a rise of 22 percent over fiscal year 1996. The giant successes mentioned by Administrator Constantine against the major Mexican trafficking organization and then in the methamphetamine area were both OCDETF cases. We will continue to highlight this exceptional inter-agency cooperation that is fostered by the OCDETF Program. The high level work of OCDETF will continue. In addition, we will work with the HIDTAs, the high intensity drug trafficking area groups, around the country in order to combine and complement the expertise and resources of both OCDETF and HIDTA in our common purpose. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget requests $304 million for the Inter-Agency Crime and Drug EnforcementAppropriation account providing program resources for DOJ's agencies that participate in OCDETF. It will support 3,015 permanent positions and 2,960 work years. criminal division resources For the Criminal Division, first the Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section, the 1999 budget request seeks an increase in the Division's Narcotics and Organized Crime account of $465,000 for five additional attorney positions in the Criminal Division. These will help to coordinate and facilitate those national narcotics efforts, to address increasing narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean Basis and along the Southwest Border, to develop and coordinate the Department's Heroin Strategy, to enhance bilateral cooperation with the U.S. and Mexico, and to improve coordination among intelligence and law enforcement agencies in narcotics efforts. We are also seeking an increase in our computer crimes and high tech crime area. Let me conclude by expressing the appreciation of the OCDETF Program and the Criminal Division for the strong support this committee has demonstrated. Stemming the level of drug trafficking and the abuse in this country remains the top priority for the Administration. The Department will continue to follow a comprehensive, coordinated, inter-agency approach to fight drug trafficking and illicit drug abuse and their consequences in an effort to protect our nation's youth. We believe the National Drug Control Strategy, DOJ's evolving Drug Control Strategic Plan, and our fiscal year 1999 budget request provide an opportunity to strengthen and expand our efforts in this area. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Warren follows:] [Pages 444 - 475--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] the drug problem Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I thank all of you for your statements. We have two votes on the Floor; a 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute vote. I think we can proceed here for a short period before we are required to go vote temporarily and come back. Now, as I alluded to earlier, when this Administration took office, and I am not intending to be political here, I am critical of the Administration's policy, they have changed the policy which had been going on for a number of years, even decades, of attempting to interdict the flow of narcotics and drugs into the country, and also at the same time trying as best we could to prevent the use of drugs in the country. With respect to the effort at eradication in source countries, the Administration made a shift. They seriously cut back on the interdiction resources. They cut the interdiction monies by 35 percent. They cut the international drug control programs by 55 percent. They increased the treatment programs here at home, treating the wounded. They increased that by 23 percent. It is as if we have simply declared a truce in the war against drugs, brought our money home to treat the wounded, and let the war continue almost unchecked. That shift from interdiction has been costly. The availability of drugs in this country has increased. The drug purity has increased and prices have fallen. The price of a gram of cocaine has dropped 11 percent. The price of a gram of heroin is down 34 percent, purity is up 21 percent. We hear about progress in the leveling off of drug use by eighth graders over the past year, but cocaine use by eighth graders is up 57 percent in this period of time. Marijuana use by eighth graders is up 175 percent in this same period. Experimentation with harder drugs among seniors, such as heroin and cocaine is again up 75 percent during this period of time. It validates what many health practitioners, social scientists, and most of us have feared that the increase in marijuana use we saw over the past years is the gateway, the precursor to harder drugs. Juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations have increased 138 percent during the period of time when we have been cutting back on the interdiction effort. We have increased the funding for DEA, U.S. Attorneys, Justice. In total, in the War on Drugs, we have increased funds like no one has ever seen before, over the objections of the Administration and many times over the vetos out of the White House. Then to see the Administration get on television and claim we are fighting this War Against Drugs sickens one at the hypocrisy that we see down there. As I say, I am not talking politics. If Reagan had done this, I would have been harder on him than on Clinton and Bush. I do not care who it is. They are dismantling the War Against Drugs and letting this sickening influence take over this country, in spite of the best efforts of people like yourselves. I told General McCaffrey jus the other day face-to-face the same thing, except in stronger words. He is a nice man. He is just absolutely powerless. He has no authority or power. He does not command any troops. He has got no budget. All he can do is write papers and talk well. He is good at that. We have no coordinated fight against drugs apparently; all the while we increase treatment of juveniles and treatment of drug addicts in the country. We give money to try to make them feel better. Thank God we can do that. I want to see that that continues. We are absolutely ruining the nation's young people by declaring a cease-fire on the War Against Drugs coming into the country. I do know whose idea was it to cut interdiction and shift all of the monies to treatment. Do you know, Mr. Director? Mr. Constantine. No, sir. Mr. Rogers. Does anybody here know? Ms. Bucella. No, sir. Ms. Warren. I think the decision was a combined inter- agency decision that our money was not being best used, sort of indiscriminate interdiction in the transit zone. Intelligence queued interdiction was a lot different. We were a whole lot more successful there. mexican extraditions Mr. Rogers. Well, let us get right to the chase here. Have you extradited a single person from Mexico on drug charges since you and I talked here last year? Ms. Warren. Yes; not Mexican nationals, though, and I know that is your question. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Warren. No. There has not been a single Mexican national extradited on drug charges. We have had other nationals and we have Mexican nationals not on drug charges. Mr. Rogers. Well, have you sought extradition? Ms. Warren. We have provisional arrest warrant requests for maybe 120 individuals. About a third of those are probably for narcotics. The Government of Mexico has ordered extraditable ten individuals, five for drug trafficking pending their completion of sentences or appeals down there. They have not been surrendered to us. Mr. Rogers. What are they wanted for? What are the arrest warrants for in general? Ms. Warren. In general, narcotics conspiracies, maintaining continuing criminal enterprises, often homicides in relation to the narcotics trafficking, enormous violence. There are prime targets. Mr. Rogers. Director Constantine, tell us about the kinds of people that we are seeking to extradite from Mexico. Mr. Constantine. We are able to determine who is responsible for the command and control of drug trafficking within the United States. There are a number of principals from these organizations. They are primarily from the Arellano-Felix organization; one of whom, is Ramon, one of our top ten fugitives. Others include the Amado Carillo Fuentes Organization that operated out of Juarrez, Miguel Caro Quintero and a new individual named Taliveres, who was very much involved in the same types of trafficking. These are the leading organized crime figures probably in the world today. They have been indicted in jurisdictions within the United States. Warrants have been issued with the cooperation from the Justice Department. Provisional arrest warrants have been issued. There are two major difficulties with our enforcement strategies. The Government of Mexico has been unable to locate and to arrest many of the primary figures. Those that have been arrested have not yet been extradited to the United States. Mr. Rogers. Those are the major drug cartel figures in the world. Mr. Constantine. These are the primary players in the world, yes. Mr. Rogers. But the ones that impact us most severely are the Mexican nationals that you have mentioned. Mr. Constantine. The two major organizations are from Mexico and Colombia. I would say given the nature of the methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine trafficking combined probably the figures from Mexico are those most dangerous to the citizens of the United States. Mr. Rogers. Mexico refuses to send them to us for trial? Ms. Warren. They have not refused. Mr. Rogers. Well, why did you say it? Ms. Warren. Either they are serving out their sentences, or on appeals, or they have not arrested them yet. We are very anxious to get those individuals here. Mr. Rogers. They have arrested a great number of them. Ms. Warren. At least ten that we are seeking now. Mr. Rogers. And they have not extradited those to you. Ms. Warren. That is correct. Those individuals are appealing their extradition orders. Mr. Rogers. Is there a more egregious violation of international societal behavior than the refusal of Mexico to arrest or extradite for trial those accused of the most heinous drug crimes? Do you know of anything in the world more heinous than this? Ms. Warren. We consider this a top priority. mexico certification Mr. Rogers. Then why in the devil did you certify Mexico as cooperating with us on drug wars? Ms. Warren. The Department of Justice does not certify them. The Administration certifies. Mr. Rogers. You recommended. Ms. Warren. I would prefer not to comment on any particular recommendation. Mr. Rogers. Did you recommend that they certify Mexico as being cooperating in the drug war? Did the Attorney General recommend? Ms. Warren. I believe that is an internal---- Mr. Rogers. I believe it is not. The Attorney General, in fact in her hearing herself, publicly swore that she recommended it. Now, who is right, you or the Attorney General, about whether or not it is public. Ms. Warren. The Attorney General is my boss. Mr. Rogers. Yes. And she recommended it. What did you do about it, Director? Mr. Constantine. Well, I have always taken a position, and I think it is the appropriate one. It is not the responsibility of the head of the law enforcement agency to decide what countries should be certified. Mr. Rogers. Did you recommend it or not? Mr. Constantine. No, I---- Mr. Rogers. You recommended against it? Mr. Constantine. No, I did not, Congressman. I did not do that. Mr. Rogers. You did not do what? Mr. Constantine. I did not recommend against it. I did not recommend for it. All I do is---- Mr. Rogers. What did you do? Mr. Constantine. I provide all of the information on the drug trafficking to other people who are in policy positions. Mr. Rogers. Then you sat there without saying a word about whether or not we ought to certify Mexico? Mr. Constantine. That is true; yes. Mr. Rogers. The Committee stands in recess; we will be back. [Recess.] Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Constantine, what about Mexico. Did you have any statements to make about the Mexico certification? Mr. Constantine. No, Congressman. Maybe I can make myself clear. I have never seen my role as a law enforcement official, public policy issues or something like certification, to recommend certify or de-certify. What I do is I go over every piece of information I have about the criminal organizations, the quality of law enforcement, and the results. I just provide that information in a very candid fashion to policy makers. They use it for their decisions. I have always felt more comfortable with that role. Mr. Rogers. Well, but your assessment of Mexico's cooperation did not support certification; correct? Mr. Constantine. Well, that would be for others to decide. Mr. Rogers. In your opinion. Mr. Constantine. I have avoided saying that, Congressman, because I do not think it is appropriate for a law enforcement official to even render an opinion on something like that. I give full, candid, honest information on what the criminal organizations look like, what the response looks like. I leave it to others to evaluate that in the context of, I guess, other things that they look at. I have always been given an honest opportunity to do that. Mr. Rogers. Well, you provided a secret intelligence report about Mexico to the White House; did you not? Mr. Constantine. No, sir. This idea of a secret intelligence report to the White House on the issue, or a secret intelligence report that was indicated in some publications, there is no such secret intelligence report that I know of. Mr. Rogers. Well, you provided a report to the White House. Mr. Constantine. No, sir. I report all of my information on a continuing basis to the Attorney General. Mr. Rogers. Were these statements made and whatever communications were made to the White House, ``During the past year, the Government of Mexico has not accomplished its counternarcotics goals or succeeded in cooperation with the United States Government?'' Mr. Constantine. That would never be in a report of mine, Congressman. Mr. Rogers. So, in the press accounts that quoted that language, those quotes are not yours? Mr. Constantine. I am not sure where they got that from. I know of no such secret intelligence report that was indicated. I saw the same things in the press. There were some issues in there that I knew were not reported correctly. In fact, I called the reporters on one of the issues and made sure that they knew what the facts were. There was an allegation supposedly that General McCaffrey and I had a shouting match over the issue. That never happened. mexican government Mr. Rogers. The question is, is that statement correct? During the past year, did the Government of Mexico accomplish its counternarcotics goals or succeed in cooperation with the United States Government? Mr. Constantine. No. I do not think they reached the goals that were set out. The goals of arresting many of the major figures of these organizations has not occurred. I think these goals were set out last year, I believe by the Senate, perhaps in conjunction with the Executive Branch. The extradition of major narcotics figures and a number of other issues--no, those have not occurred, Congressman. Mr. Rogers. Tell me whether this is true or not. The Mexican Government's prospects for success are low because of endemic corruption, violence and the unabated growth of the drug trafficking syndicates in Mexico. Mr. Constantine. Those are not my words, but they are very close to what the situation is. You have very powerful wealthy criminal organizations and you have civilian law enforcement organizations in the narcotics arena, which were totally dismantled in the spring of 1997. They are just now being rebuilt. You have the military having the primary counter-narcotics responsibility for civilian law enforcement. This fact was reported to us in investigations that we looked at. The reason for dismantling all of their civilian organizations was corruption that they had uncovered. Mr. Rogers. Is it true that the Mexican Government has arrested and prosecuted few individuals, despite the fact that the leaders of the main Mexican drug trafficking organizations are fully identified? Mr. Constantine. As I mentioned before, individuals and criminal organizations that we are aware of only a few of them have been arrested. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. But not many. Mr. Constantine. No, sir. Mr. Rogers. Is it true that every major investigation in Mexico uncovers significant corruption of law enforcement officials that continually frustrates your efforts in building cases and apprehending the most significant drug traffickers? Is the primary reason because there has been no meaningful progress in drug law enforcement in Mexico? Mr. Constantine. That is very close to the situation on the major investigations and the relationship between corruption and the inability to reach the objectives. Those are not my words exactly, but that is fairly close to the way I see it. Mr. Rogers. Most of the narcotics and drugs coming into the country are coming by way of Mexico. Mr. Constantine. I figure it fluctuates, Congressman. The two areas of vulnerability are the Caribbean and the Southwest Border. The Southwest Border is where the majority of cocaine is entering the United States. The estimates we have from the various intelligence services vary between 60 percent to 75 percent of the cocaine. I think that total probably fluctuates depending upon the circumstances of a month or a week. Virtually all of the methamphetamine that we have in the United States can be attributed to those organizations out of Mexico. About 20 percent of the heroin that is now being seized in the United States comes out of Mexico. The other area of vulnerability as I said is the Caribbean. For the most part Colombian organizations bringing massive amounts of cocaine, and lesser amounts of heroin into the Caribbean region with the goal of getting into Puerto Rico so that they can then trans-ship it into the major cities on the East Coast. bi-national task forces Mr. Rogers. We have the bi-national task forces with Mexico and yet I gather there is no sharing of intelligence between the task forces, correct? Mr. Constantine. At the present stage, the bi-national task forces have not been put together in the structure they were intended to be. So far, they have been ineffective. The plan was for a co-location of agents from the DEA, the FBI and Customs in three cities on the other side of the border in Mexico along with a substantial contingent of law enforcement officials from Mexico. Two issues have disrupted that plan. One was in the beginning, a lack of funding, a lack of assignment of qualified personnel on the part of officials in the Government of Mexico, which really culminated with the arrest of General Gutierrez Rebollo in February, 1997. His position allowed him access to all of the intelligence and all of the investigations that had been conducted by these bi-national task forces. His arrest for major corruption with the Carillo Fuentes organization, in our opinion, compromised every investigation up until February 1997. There is presently a process, and we are optimistic on this particular program, that began last spring in which the Government of Mexico has imposed rigorous standards in a double vetting process for selected law enforcement officials from Mexico to be in those bi-national task forces. However, because of security issues and problems that affect U.S. agents, there are no DEA, FBI, or Customs agents co-located with those particular units. Mr. Rogers. Well, I can see why. I mean you do not dare share any meaningful information with those task forces because since last year, at least five senior Mexican officers involved in the task forces were arrested on suspicion of everything from taking bribes from traffickers to stealing and selling cocaine confiscated by the task forces, which was later found being sold in the U.S., to kidnapping key witnesses, right? Mr. Constantine. That is accurate. That is true. Mr. Rogers. Yet, our government certified that Mexico was fully cooperating on the War on Drugs. How can you justify that? Can you rationalize that? Mr. Constantine. Well, as I said before, that is not my decision. Mr. Rogers. I understand that. What is your opinion? Mr. Constantine. Clearly, I have to say that key law enforcement officials, their Attorney General, and two of their major anti-drug civilian law enforcement institutions are making substantial efforts to bring into their service honest, earnest, people who will be narcotics enforcement agents. The problem is that the number is in the low hundreds presently. Really, the situation with their adversaries are these huge powerful organizations with this tremendous amount of wealth and an incredible willingness to use violence against any honest police official. It is really a mismatch at this stage of the game. Unlike last year when I testified here and in the Senate, there are specific units now that we do share information with, Congressman, on a limited basis. dea agents in mexico Mr. Rogers. Your agents are not allowed to carry a gun in Mexico. Mr. Constantine. I have always asked that any discussion involving the security of our agents, not only in Mexico but anyplace else, should be discussed in a private rather than a public forum because any discussions about their security or lack of security could make them vulnerable. I would be more than willing to discuss that privately with you and the other Congressmen. Mr. Rogers. Do you have agents there now? Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. There are approximately 45 DEA agents stationed in various places, or attached to the embassy or consular offices throughout Mexico. Mr. Rogers. Are you satisfied with their security? Mr. Constantine. Well, at present, I am. We still have some very serious concerns about their security. Security arrangements of a number of high level officials of the State Department and other places are trying to work with the Government of Mexico to ensure that our people will be safe because there are a number of threats that have been made against DEA agents, both in country and against agents traveling into the country. Our highest priority is to make sure that these kids come home safe every night in return for what they do for us. Mr. Rogers. Well, I will talk to you privately about that. Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. colombia decertification Mr. Rogers. I will wind up this phase of the questioning and let someone else have it for awhile. I just want the Administration to know that a lot of people, including this Member, think it is horrendous that they certified that Mexico is fully cooperating with us in the Drug War when most of the drugs are coming through Mexico and through the corruption of Mexican government officials, among other people. At the same time, we decertified Colombia. I am glad for that. However I cannot understand how Colombia gets decertified because they are not cooperating and Mexico is certified as being fully cooperative. Can you find a difference between Colombia and Mexico in that respect? Mr. Constantine. Well, one of the key things in Colombia, you have to recognize is the professionalism of law enforcement. I am a personal friend of General Serrano who is the head of the national police. I think he has done an outstanding job in cleaning up an agency that had problems and being effective in doing proactive investigations. One of the issues in Colombia is the significant reports everywhere about corruption involving high ranking elected officials up to and including the President. The eventual sentencing of the former Minister of Defense, who had responsibility for the law enforcement for issues involving substantial pay-offs, from the traffickers that has been reported again and again. If I recall properly, the President of Colombia had his visa held by virtue of corruption involving narcotics issues. I think that is probably a key factor in many of the decisions. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. measuring the success of the war on drugs Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Constantine, Director Bucella, and Ms. Warren, I join the Chairman in welcoming you here this morning. I would also like to join the Chairman in welcoming some fine U.S. Attorneys from West Virginia and Kentucky. Bill Wilmouth, we are pleased to see you here. I join the Chairman in welcoming Mr. Famularo and Mr. Troop. You all have a really difficult job. Obviously, the Chairman is focusing on the problems that are associated with performing that job and achieving success. I notice, Ms. Warren, in your testimony you allude to standards, measurements, or a matrix for measuring success as one of your goals. Could you talk to us a little bit about that? How should we measure success on the War on Drugs? To what extent are we being successful? Where, as the Chairman points out, are we coming up short? First, I would like to know if we do have some standard, some indices that we can do a quantitative discussion of the issue? Ms. Warren. In the course of trying to develop the DOJ Drug Control Strategic Plan really the hardest part is providing those measurable indicators so that we can be accountable to you, the public, and to everyone. In the course of our work in developing the strategic plan working with all of the components of DOJ, we have looked to the particular programs that we believe need to continue or need to be initiated and tried to develop under each one of those measurable standards. They vary in the present version from one to another. Sometimes they are more qualitative in nature. Sometimes quantitative and will have absolute numbers, or percentages or increases over what we have done in the past. It is very difficult. The raw statistics of numbers of arrests, I do not believe will give you a meaningful indicator of how well we are doing if we do not show you the importance of those arrests, the level of the trafficker that the organization was dismantled. If it is just a number, it could be a street level dealer or it could be one of the leaders of the Mexican federation that we would like to have here to pursue. Mr. Mollohan. Right. Are you developing such a matrix? Ms. Warren. Yes, we are. As I say, it will be a mix of qualitative and quantitative instruments. Mr. Mollohan. How far along are you on that. We get books with statistics in it; arrests and all of that. What are you doing that goes beyond that and when will it be available? Ms. Warren. Our strategic plan was due to you on March 31st. It may be just a little late, but we hope to have it here shortly after that. It will include the performance indicators that we are proposing. Mr. Mollohan. What do you consider to be the major successes? Could you talk about these indices that you are going to develop? Would you talk with us about your successes and where you think you are falling short? Ms. Warren. In terms of successes, I think we are doing quite well in our Southwest Border Initiative, particularly working through the OCDETF Program--Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys working on those giant multi-district cases against the major trafficking organizations. Those wire-tap investigations take months, take enormous amounts of attorney and agent time. In the end, I think we have been able to take out particular cells of the distribution network that have had a tremendous impact on the country. We have to keep working against the additional cells that spring up. I think we have been successful in that area. I think we are having some success in the methamphetamine area, which is good after such bad news after so many years. There is emerging threat on the prosecution side. As well, DEA has enormous amounts of laboratory cleanups. There are hazardous materials that are left. It has trained innumerable state and local officers to handle that difficult task. We work at it a different way, as well, trying to convince sellers of the precursors like the Walmart stores not to sell their precursors. They have voluntarily stepped back. We have also gone against rogue chemical corporations to prosecute them so that they know that they cannot sell the precursors with impunity. Mr. Mollohan. If you want to cite some statistics to make the point that you are achieving successes, what statistics would you cite? Ms. Warren. I think for individual programs, first of all, I would look at those. I would look at the numbers of organizations that we believe we have dismantled. To show you the relative power of those organizations and therefore how important those prosecutions were, I think we would show you their financial worth, the number of individuals involved, the scope of their operation; how many states they affected, as well as the volume of drugs. drugs and our youth Mr. Mollohan. The Chairman has expressed considerable concern over the last couple of years about youth drug use. I think it is probably the one area with which we are all concerned. How are you targeting that? How are we doing in that part of the war on drugs? Ms. Warren. Those are the disappointing statistics when you see increases in drug use by young people. We are working in our juvenile justice program trying to work with other departments, HHS, Department of Education in an education campaign, as well as mentoring work. One of the most important efforts we have to break the cycle of early introduction of a young person into the criminal justice system is to either work through a drug court or through some other coerced abstinence program to force them to be drug free in order to stay out of jail. We feel that we are more successful if we do it earlier on and not later on and follow it with counseling and after care. Mr. Mollohan. Would any measurement indicate that you are making progress on this and do you see us turning a corner? Is there light at the end of the tunnel, if you will? Ms. Warren. I think there are some measurements. For instance, for drug courts you look at the recidivism rate. Mr. Mollohan. What about the overall trends for youth drug use and the early trends that the Chairman mentioned? How are we focusing on that? We are asking for additional increases in the fiscal year 1999 budgets of DEA and U.S. Attorneys have been requested. To the extent resources are available here, those requests will probably be honored. But youth drug use is one area that everybody truly in a bipartisan way can be concerned about. Ms. Warren. Absolutely. Mr. Mollohan. With these increases, how are we attacking this aspect of the problem, the use of drugs? Ms. Warren. I think in the ways that I have laid out. I think our indicators will be of the effectiveness of those programs because the DOJ is an important component, but one component in this larger mix. As I said, there are other departments involved in the federal system, state, and local. Families are involved. Communities are involved. It will be the work of all of us together that will show some final success, I hope. Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask Ms. Bucella that question. Just one of the increases you are asking for is $8.9 million for 64 additional attorneys. What part of that request is the result of the drug problem we are having? Surely there are other reasons for that request. Ms. Bucella. Well, those will clearly be able to be of use in taking out some of our drug organizations and for narcotics prosecutions. If I could address your question about what are we doing with our youth in dealing with each of our U.S. Attorneys Offices, obviously we have 94 districts. We have 94 different ways to approach different drug problems. Some districts have marijuana problems. Some districts have methamphetamine. What we have seen certainly in the last several years is an increased effort of the U.S. Attorneys Offices and of Assistant United States Attorneys not only involved in the prosecution end, but trying to do something back in the community. Let me give you a couple of examples. We have a Weed and Seed Program. Weed and Seed Programs started back in 1991, and we had about 17 sites. Basically, it is going in, taking out the drug dealers, cleaning up the neighborhood, and giving it back to the community, and letting the community take over. Just last month I was in Oxnard, California at a Weed and Seed site. Not only is it a place where prosecutors take the drug dealers out, but we actually have prosecutors that are going to be involved in the DEFY Program. It is Drug Education For Youth Camp. They are camp counselors, basically. They spend some time with the young children, as well as with the local police. This is a cooperative combined effort. It is law enforcement, the cops and the prosecutors, the community leaders, and the educators. This is not the be all and end all. I believe it is certainly a start in which we have been able to get our prosecutors involved, not just for weeding, which we are very, I think, pretty good at, but actually the seeding. United States Assistant Attorneys pick locations to be prosecutors because that is really where they want to live. A good indicator of what kind of job they are doing is if they are able to go into certain neighborhoods and not be in fear of getting mugged or attacked. So, that is one area. The Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees (LECC) Program is another area where our prosecutors with all the state and local community people find out what the problems are and try to attack those problems in such a way that they take out the largest drug dealer in a surgical way so that they get more bang for the buck and they are able to get the supplier as opposed to just the people that are distributing the drugs locally. They get the supplier out and take the drug element out of the community. So, there are many different ways. I believe in our strategic plan, as certainly the United States Attorneys do. This is what you are going to see. This is going to be an evolving process. The U.S. Attorneys will be fine tuning it, depending on what the needs of their communities are. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. decision on certification of mexico Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all of you here also. I just want to clarify for my own information, Mr. Constantine. You are saying that you had no input as to the certification of Mexico. Mr. Constantine. That is correct, Congressman. I never have and hopefully I do not think I ever will be asked to, tell people whether another nation should be certified or decertified. I am an experienced 37-year career law enforcement official. I provide people with the facts of what the criminal situation looks like and what organizations are responsible for drug trafficking. I let other individuals make those decisions on certification. methamphetamine use in iowa Mr. Latham. I think the Chairman will remember two weeks ago when we had Director Freeh. He had no input either as to certification of Mexico. I think that is amazing. As you are well aware, the methamphetamine problem in Iowa is very serious. This is totally amazing to me. Last year the number of methamphetamine-related arrests in Iowa surpassed the number of drunk driving arrests. Mr. Constantine. That is correct, in the Des Moines area. Mr. Latham. The number of methamphetamine-related arrests surpassed the number of drunk driving arrests. It is America's Heartland. First of all, I would like to, I do not know how after saying that I can do this, but I really commend you for the effort as far as the Tri-State Drug Task Force up in Sioux City has really done a tremendous job working with local law enforcement. Last year, the federal agencies seized out of that task force 30 pounds of methamphetamine and made 66 felony arrests. The cooperative effort up there I think has really made a difference. The learning that law enforcement has been able to achieve at all levels, coordination did not give these people a place to hide anywhere up there. Of the 66 arrests, 34 of them were made on state charges and 32 on federal charges. How do you determine whether the state is going to get the case? Mr. Constantine. It will probably be a prosecutor's decision. Usually, if we are working, as we do in Iowa, with a law enforcement agency, there will be a decision as to what is the best jurisdiction to bring that criminal prosecution. Where will it be most effective? Where will the sentencing structure have the most impact on the traffickers? What you have in Iowa, which I am sure you know, is large amounts of methamphetamine usage and you have substantial criminal organizations that are being directed from Mexico and from California who are responsible for most of the distribution systems in Iowa. Very often a major investigation that begins in California, in Mexico, or in Texas, the defendants in Iowa will be a part of the conspiracy and will wind up with the federal prosecution as the result of their interstate activity. Then if the charge is more appropriate to be placed at the state level, and there is institutional capacity in the prison system, and there is capacity in the prosecutor's office, then they will go with the state charge. ketamine problem Mr. Latham. Apparently since 1993, you have been collecting data on Special K or ketamine. Can you tell me the extent of the ketamine problem in the U.S., I guess, and in my part of the country? What conditions in current law impede DEA and the Department of Justice from adding ketamine to the list of federally scheduled controlled substances? Mr. Constantine. Just by way of education, ketamine is a legally-manufactured substance in the liquid state. We have a lot of it that is used mostly in the veterinarian arena. It is an anesthetic, tranquilizer drug in that particular state. It is also used in medical practice in a much smaller proportion with humans. What has happened is that young people have found that this drug, can be reduced to the powered form, and they are using it like they would use ecstacy, MDMA, LSD, or PCP. It produces a hallucinogenic state. It is a psychedelic response that people have from using the drug. If when you look at the numbers of hospital room admissions for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs, the numbers are not as large certainly for ketamine. They are really in the single digits for a substantial period of time. There is a big jump in 1996 of individuals who either have been found to have an experience that brought them to the attention of a hospital room admission. I think were 46 such people maybe in 1996. That is substantially more than the year before. A number of post- mortem examinations on people who had expired, there were five or six. So, it is a legally manufactured thing that creates a problem for us in the scheduling control system. We have aregulatory responsibility in DEA where we schedule drugs under controlled substances. It is like many of the processes in the Federal Government. It is very elaborate and very long. Sometimes it can take two or three years for us ever to reach that particular stage. With ketamine, we have looked at it and we are now providing all of our information to the Department of Health and Human Services where they will do a medical look at it and come back to us with a response. We can support the scheduling process which will go through hearings and fact-finding. That is an elongated process. The second area available is for straight legislative scheduling which can be done in a much more expedited fashion. Emergency scheduling for certain substances is available in the regulatory function. It does not apply to substances that are legally manufactured for a legitimate medical purpose. So, if we were to have a requirement to be able to address these usage problems and abuse problems, the emergency aspects of it would have to include those already either legally manufactured or under clinical study. Those are two areas for drug substances that we cannot attach emergency scheduling procedures as of today. drug derivatives Mr. Latham. What about derivatives of designer drugs? Are they automatically as a derivative scheduled? Mr. Constantine. When you get to the scheduling of drugs where people will change certain molecules or something in the chemical structure, we have the ability to address that in the emergency scheduling and then to look at the information both from our own abuse patterns---- Mr. Latham. What kind of time periods is that? Mr. Constantine. I would have to get back to you from our diversion people to tell you how quickly we could do that. I think in a fairly short period of time when you compare the other process. Mr. Latham. Would you have any idea what percentage of the methamphetamine in Iowa is home grown? Mr. Constantine. A very small amount. I would say in Iowa, 5 percent at the most is home. Now, if you would go over to Missouri, you would find a little bit different---- Mr. Latham. Yes. Why is that? Mr. Constantine. I'm from Buffalo, New York. I thought everything west of the Mississippi was the Pacific Ocean for most of my childhood. I stand corrected. But most of it obviously is coming from major distributors out of Mexico and California who are bringing the methamphetamine to Iowa for distribution. Mr. Latham. I am not picking you out here necessarily, but I have a lot of questions as to who is actually making up the budgets and if the requests are actually what is needed or if someone else is doing it. methamphetamine network program It says in the testimony that the Administration's request is for $24.5 million for the Methamphetamine Network Program. How much did you actually request from OMB for the program? Mr. Constantine. I do not have the figure with me. That is very close, Congressman, to our request. This is the second year of substantial efforts in the methamphetamine program. Sometimes it gets a little complicated. Let me try it briefly to reduce it to where it is easily understood. When we have a Southwest Border investigative strategy where the FBI, the DEA, and the Criminal Division target organizations that are poly-drug distribution systems, it will include methamphetamine traffickers as well as cocaine traffickers. Additionally, we have doubled the number of people in Iowa over the last three years because of this problem. All of the money that we spend on these very elaborate organized crime investigations benefit the State of Iowa because the major traffickers who reside in California or in Tijuana are bringing the drugs there. If we can do something about their activities, that is all part of it. We call it a seamless continuum. It really is. We were able to pick that up from these elaborate Title III investigations and court-ordered wiretapping. Mr. Latham. Very good. In looking at the budget in general, maybe we should figure out some kind of user fees that we could charge here to pay for this. They have got user fees everywhere else. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Dixon. strategy for war on drugs Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our three witnesses today. Mr. Constantine is the strategy to attempt to win the War on Drugs or contain the War on Drugs? Mr. Constantine. Let me say, it seems to me that in our society today, it is going to be very difficult in the foreseeable future to declare victory on the use of drugs. The proliferation of precursors in our society, the financial motivation, differences in our relationships with other countries. In the foreseeable future, we cannot prosecute drug dealers out of existence because there are too many people standing in line. Source country eradication has not worked because from what I understand, it merely drives the price up. In impoverished countries where farmers are encouraged to substitute crops, it just means that persons interested in drugs will pay more. Once you close down one highway used to bring drugs into the country, another one crops up. We are always exploring new ways to get drugs into the country. It is very similar to the manufacturing of garments. There are people traveling the world always looking for a place. Once you close down that Caribbean, there will be something else that crops up. Education and rehabilitation are very important because if we can, and I am not suggesting that we can be totally successful, but if we can reduce the demand for any product, we find that there is less of that product around. Mr. Dixon. Now, I understand that education and treatment and rehabilitation have had some modest success. I did not hear from my friend, Ms. Warren, an articulation of that success. I notice that the White House, the National Drug Control Strategy. I note that it says Drug Control Strategy. It does not say anything about winning this war. It talks about the impact of treatment. So, I would like to take my time for you to explore the importance of education and rehabilitation in a triad of attack on it. Mr. Constantine. Let me answer the first question. I have always been uncomfortable with the analogy of the use of the words ``War'' on Drugs. I grew up as a young child in World War II. I know the sacrifices that this country made in human life. I can remember my brother had a paper route and he was taking me around to houses that had like gold stars on the window and him slapping me around to keep my mouth shut and not talk because of what had happened at this house. I saw people go without certain amounts of food, cars, and tremendous sacrifices. If the word ``war'' is an analogy that you use, then in essence you have to be willing to make those same types of collective sacrifices. I do not see that anyplace in this society presently. I also am somewhat of an optimist because I started my police career in 1960. The world then was much different than the world today. So, I know that the world does not have to be this way. At that point time a number, still too large, but only two million people in this entire country had ever used drugs of one kind or another. Now 80 million people in this country have used illegal substances at one time or another. I watched in horror as people philosophized and, I have to say, went past that and encouraged young people to use drugs because it was part of their liberty. It was a learning experience. It would not harm them. I knew this thing was going to be a disaster. Most of us did, but we were kind of laughed at when we told them that this is where we were going. Well, this is where we got to. Mr. Dixon. LSD would be a classic example of that. Mr. Constantine. Marijuana, LSD, cocaine. I mean, this was a horror story. So, we have got ourselves, I thought, a terrible situation. I do not see any alternative but to make dramatic improvements over the next five or ten years. I do not think we can take these figures we are looking at right now. People should look at more than just the figures. There is a doubling in that population that is experimenting with drugs. What is not there is that there is going to be an explosion in the number of teenage people by the year 2005 in this country. It will be the largest number of teenagers we have ever had in our demographic base. If we do not do something about that drug use, we are predestined, an entire generation, to tremendous social problems. I do think prevention works. I think over the long haul, it has to be the ultimate answer for this society. prevention risk of drug use I think you start off with as a nation, as leaders, myself and others, we have to articulate a very strong disapproval of the use of drugs by people in those age brackets. I have looked at study after study, Congressman. Where you can show a strong disapproval in a social sanctioning of the use of drugs, young people perceive a risk to their lives and their future of using of those drugs and their usage goes down. If we, as a society, decide that we do not articulate that disapproval, children do not see the risk. So, if we have TV shows, if we have people who proclaim that drugs are just a part of an interesting experience in life, it is no mistake to me or something that people should not understand that young people start using drugs. I am very impressed by the Partnership For a Drug Free America. There were programs that you funded last year. I do not know if you see the value that I see. The mere identification of the issue and the threat level of the issue communicated in a very sophisticated fashion to a wide population I think is worthwhile. If we do not start today, I think we are making a mistake. If we start today and say, hey, we are going to influence our young people that this is not something they should be invovled in, hopefully seven or eight years from now we will see a result. I also can recall a period of time in 1989 and in 1990 when I was New York State. I had been in New York State law enforcement for 30 years watching violence explode in that state and people saying we could not do anything about it. Well, the leaders in that city and in that state did do something about it. They have dropped the violent crime rate in that state by 60 percent to 70 percent, where people said it was impossible to do previously. So, there are a number of things that I think we can do. Our role in law enforcement, I think we can proclaim some successes. I think if you look at that level of violence everywhere in our society, at least half of it and in the cities, probably 70 percent to 75 percent, was violence attributed to gangs involved in drug trafficking. reduction in violent crime Very active enforcement, the Attorney General's anti- violent programs, state level enforcement, local law enforcement have targeted those violent criminals who were involved in drug trafficking. If you look around this country, many said they would never see it happen. Every year for the last four years, you will see the violent crime rate dropping. In New York City, you are seeing it dropping to levels that people would not believe. I just saw the figures Saturday. They came out for the first two months or three months. In 1990, there were 2,200 murders in that city. Last year there were under 800. So, that means 1,400 people have their lives that would not have had their lives. Those are cumulative numbers that build over years. So, I am an optimist that things can be done. I know that my role in life as a law enforcement official is to try to bring some order to society while prevention experts and familiessolve this problem. family structure--solution to drug problem I also believe that the ultimate institution that will solve this problem if they want to is the family structure. Absent that, I do not know that we in government can ever solve those problems. That is kind of a long answer. There are areas where I may not have a lot of expertise. success rate versus resources used for combatting drugs Mr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, if you would just allow me one follow-up question to this. In the triad that the Chairman talked about, and that is eradication, education rehabilitation, and interdiction, how would you measure or compare the rate of success with the money spent on rehabilitation and education with interdiction and source country eradication? Mr. Constantine. It would be almost impossible for me to do, but I will tell you exactly what I told people at my Senate confirmation hearing when I was not an employee of the Federal Government and probably had a little more freedom to say what you want from time-to-time. The idea of having these three philosophies compete with each other, I do not think is in everybody's best interest. Rather than trying to find different ways to cut the pie up, I think the better way is to get a bigger pie. I think they are all related and they are all important to solving this problem. If we all agree, and I have to agree because I have six children and 11 grandchildren. I have spent my whole life in communities, mostly in New York State, seeing the devastation of this problem. If we are that committed, I do not think we should take from one to give to another because I think we will then be locked forever into this constant competition which I think is unhealthy for resources. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Mollohan points out to me that the pie has gotten larger. Mr. Constantine. That is correct. You are asking me to compare the efficacy of five or six different programs. Mr. Dixon. Let me ask you this. Is the money for interdiction versus education equally well-spent as an investment? Mr. Constantine. I would say so. Mr. Dixon. Do you think that if we put all of the resources that we could muster to interdiction, that we could ever close down entirely or 90 percent rate of success in closing down borders? Mr. Constantine. No, I do not think so, Congressman. Mr. Dixon. What about the source country eradication programs? Mr. Constantine. Do you mean if you took all of the money and put to country source eradication? No, sir, I do not. See, that is my sense of this. If we took all of the money and put it in any of the three areas that we are talking about, that would not have an effect. I think they have to be done at the same point in time, at the highest level of intensity that the government can afford. Mr. Dixon. I see the Chairman is getting nervous. Thank you very much. drug trafficking in the caribbean Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. We have another series of votes coming up in about 15 minutes. So, we will try to conclude this by that time, if that is agreeable. All of us, I think agree, that prevention efforts here at home are worthwhile and they work. We ought to do that. Eradication has not worked very well. The thing that was working well that has been cut back on is the interdiction of drugs coming into the country. This is a law enforcement hearing. This is not a hearing on how to prevent kids from wanting drugs. I mean, none of us are experts in that field. Certainly, I am not. We are here as law enforcement people. This is a law enforcement hearing on the budget for the DEA, the U.S. Attorneys, and the Criminal Division. That is what we are going to focus on. That is what this is all about. This is where you expertise comes into play. That is what we pay you for. Now, let us talk about the Caribbean. We have neglected the Caribbean for awhile here. Your testimony, Mr. Administrator is that we have seen a resurgence of trafficking in the Caribbean. Would you mind giving us an overview of that? Mr. Constantine. What has happened, as far as we can see, is that when the arrest of the leadership in Cali, Colombia took place, which was a very effective stroke, their relationships with people in Mexico, the successors was not as strong. They were looking for a way to get their cocaine into the United States without having to deal or to give any large payment in drugs or money to the organizations from Mexico. These new groups, many of them were North Coast traffickers, began to use the Caribbean again with an intent of using anyone of those islands, to get the drugs into Puerto Rico and then from Puerto Rico into the United States. Mr. Rogers. So, it is a major route. Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. It is 30 percent or 40 percent of the cocaine anyway. funding for the caribbean Mr. Rogers. Over the last two years, this Subcommittee provided $85 million, not requested by the Administration, to enhance DEA and other Caribbean area drug efforts. We strongly believe that intelligence collected and gathered, and investigations conducted by DEA agents in source countries like Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and the Caribbean countries such as the Bahamas and Puerto Rico, provide the critical information needed to track and interdict shipments bound for and even into the U.S. I think you would agree with that. Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Yet, this is the first year that the Administration has requested additional resources for the DEA and the Caribbean. If this is such a major transit route for drug smugglers, why is this the first time they have requested an increase in funds? I mean, we, the Congress, have been doing it. Finally, after three years, they come back in and say, we want some more money. Mr. Constantine. I think part of it was the timing of when the arrest took place in Cali and when the traffickers revisited the trafficking pattern through the Caribbean. Many of our budget requests had been, I think rightfully so, built upon our concern with the Southwest Border, as often happens. Unfortunately, the traffickers' ability to make decisions and to change strategies, too often, are too quick for the government. That could be a part of it. Then there was a series of hearings that were held. I believe Congressman McCollum and others held hearings in Puerto Rico focused more and more on the issue. We were able to provide the information. I think that resulted in the supplement to last year's budget. Mr. Rogers. Well, I mean we have been furnishing that out of this subcommittee for two years. Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. This is the first time you have requested an increase in funds for the Caribbean without us making you spend it. Mr. Constantine. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. Yet, the Caribbean route has been blossoming now for several years. Mr. Constantine. Since probably early 1996 is when it started to become, again, a major factor. I mean it never really went away. I think most of our attention, rightfully or wrongfully, was directed at these organizations on the Southwest Border. INTERDICTION Mr. Rogers. What percentage of intelligence leads which DEA gathers and passes along to interdiction agencies are not followed up on due to lack of interdiction resources, would you say? Mr. Constantine. I cannot give you the exact number. I can get back to you with a number and figures. We would work very closely with Admiral Kramek and Southcom. The ability to deliver interdiction assets on the part of the Coast Guard, I can check and see what those figures would be. Part of their problem, I believe, right now is that in the Caribbean the traffickers are using these very fast, fairly small, boats. The Coast Guard or Customs can see them on radar tracks. They may see them in an aerial surveillance. The ability to interdict them and to stop them in some type of engagement on the water, I believe, is limited. The Coast Guard has advised me of that and we are trying to address that now. I know that many times they have been with the Admiral and listened to him. I do not mean to speak for him. There are so many issues that have involved immigration and other issues in the Caribbean. It has been difficult for them to keep up all of the responsibility that they have. COCA PRODUCTION Mr. Rogers. We will have to rush through here. I may have to ask us all to try to keep our questions and answers as brief as we can because of the limited time. Since 1992, coca leaf grown in Peru, I am told, has increased 12 percent; in Colombia 81 percent increase. Crop eradication is not working; correct? Mr. Constantine. The coca leaf production and distribution to markets in Peru I think has been sharply reduced over the last two or three years with the air interdiction policy of the Peruvian Government. There has, however, been really a dramatic jump in coca leaf production in Colombia. Mr. Rogers. Crop eradication is not working. Mr. Constantine. Well, it does work only if it is part of the whole strategy. Mr. Rogers. What I am trying to get at is crop eradication is not working very well. Mr. Constantine. A reduction in the total number of plants, no, sir. They have not been reduced. Mr. Rogers. Is it true that we could better use those monies in interdiction efforts more efficiently? Mr. Constantine. Number one, the eradication issue is a State Department funding issue. The interdiction is the Navy, the Coast Guard, and Customs. For me to say which one of those two would be a more effective expenditure of the money would probably be inappropriate. STATUS OF DOJ STRATEGIC PLAN Mr. Rogers. Now, Ms. Warren, back briefly to the report strategy that we asked you for in the 1998 bill that you are going to give us before March 31st. Ms. Warren. Close to March 31st, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Are you progressing well on it? Ms. Warren. I think we are. I think all of the components have really thrown their heart and strength into it. Mr. Rogers. Will that lay a plan for the work of the Justice agencies to tackle drugs? Ms. Warren. That is what we are aiming towards. IMPACT OF NOT UPGRADING TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT Mr. Rogers. Quickly, let me ask you really quickly, CALEA. We are trying to get that worked out. Apparently, the Attorney General has hit another snag with the phone companies. Tell me, Mr. Constantine, if the industry does not upgrade its telecommunications equipment, what will be the impact on your drug investigations? Mr. Constantine. We will be out of the business of arresting major drug traffickers. There is no way that we are going to be able to identify, produce evidence, and arrest these big organized crime drug traffickers without court- authorized wire tapping ability. If the CALEA situation and the technology are such that they are not addressed, we will be in big trouble. We are seeing it already in major investigations where our agents do five or six-months work, tremendous surveillance, are able to provide evidence to a judge who agrees that a court-ordered wire tap is appropriate, only to find ourselves so frustrated by the technology. That all of that work for all of those months by all of those agents has gone for naught and the traffickers are able to continue unimpeded. INDICTMENT OF DAVID BOWMAN Mr. Rogers. Now, you have indicted a former DEA budget analyst who stole $6 million, David Bowman. Anyone held accountable? Mr. Constantine. Well, obviously he has been indicted. He started in the fall of 1990 and systematically looted the public Treasury in a fraudulent larceny scheme. Mr. Rogers. Have you instituted tighter internal controls to prevent that from happening? Mr. Constantine. Well, we did two things. One is we did a very elaborate criminal investigation. We went through thousands of vouchers. In addition, we are now contracting with an outside auditing firm to ensure that every possible implication that he would be involved in is closed. Mr. Rogers. Thank you much for your testimony. Mr. Constantine. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned. [Pages 497 - 506--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday, March 26, 1998. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES LAURIE O. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS JOSEPH E. BRANN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES SHAY BILCHIK, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION Opening Statement of Congressman Rogers Mr. Rogers. The Committee will be in 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, also known as the COPS program. Your agencies represent the Federal Government's primary assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies in their fight against crime in our communities. You are responsible for administering grants totaling $4.8 billion, an amount that has increased 100 percent since 1995. That was a full arsenal of programs from adding more police officers, building new prisons, addressing domestic violence, and combating and preventing juvenile crime. There always seems to be an incident that strikes hard in all of our hearts as to the destruction that an act of violence can create in our communities. The tragic incident two days ago in Arkansas has left us all wondering: How does it come to this? Children age 11 and 13, opening fire indiscriminately on their friends and classmates, now face not only capital murder charges, if they can be brought legally, but also the reality that they have killed four classmates and a teacher, not to mention destroying their own lives and injuring many others. How will the families of the victims ever recover from such an event? But today the Nation is focused on juveniles, partly because of this most recent event, but also because we are still witnessing unacceptable levels of juvenile violence and crime. This crime often goes hand in hand with drug use, which still is at unprecedented high levels for our teenagers. Casual teenage drug use trends suffered a marked reversal over the past 6 years. Drug use among teenagers in virtually every childhood age group and virtually every illicit drug has increased. Obviously money is not the only answer because not only has the Federal crime effort substantially increased, but State and local governments are also spending more and more all for the sake of our struggle to reduce teenage crime. We all have ideas about how best to tackle these problems, and with the limitations on funding that we face, we will have to pool our knowledge, talent, and resources to make sure that we are investing in truly effective programs. You are the experts on this subject who must look closely at State and local needs and recommend strategies for them that work and will make a difference. Your leadership is essential to addressing the crime and drug problems facing this country, and we expect you to give it everything that you have. We will continue to support you, as we have over the past years, to the best of our ability, to give you the resources you need to address the most significant crime problems. We will include your written statements in the record. You need not read them. If you would like to summarize 5 minutes apiece or less, we would be happy to hear you. General Robinson, we will let you begin. Assistant Attorney General Robinson's Opening Statement Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan, thank you so much for having us back again this year, and I am very pleased to have the chance to talk with you this afternoon not only about the challenges that we face together, but also about what I see as the progress all of us together are making in helping States and local communities combat crime. And I recognize very much, Mr. Chairman, that this progress is due in large part to the bipartisan support which this Subcommittee has offered to OJP to help us in the fight to help America's communities address crime. As a result of this sustained bipartisan support, we are, as you know, continuing to see decreases overall in the crime rates across the Nation. Crime rates are now at their lowest point in 25 years, and for the second year in a row, both the FBI uniform crime reports and our BJS National Crime Victimization Survey are showing significant decreases in crime. But even recognizing this progress, of course, there is still clearly a very hard road ahead. As you mentioned, the continuing challenges that we face with youth violence, gangs, family violence, cyber crime, use of drugs by young people, and very tragically, of course, the event in Arkansas this week which reflects the kind of school-related violence which still occurs far too frequently in this Nation. The decreases we are seeing do, in my view, reflect in part how much we have learned after 30 years of Federal criminal justice assistance about not only what works in controlling crime, but what the best role is that we from the Federal level should be playing. OJP Objectives Over the past year, we have taken a close look at the University of Maryland report, which, as you know, was commissioned by NIJ in response to the directive in the 1996 Appropriations Act, and its summary of existing evaluations, along with other recent assessments has helped lay out a road map for where we should be going and what our role at OJP should be. And I want to share with you from that some of my observations. First, it is clear to me that our approach has got to be comprehensive, that we have got to combine and interconnect enforcement, prevention, community engagement, and punishment, and that no one strategy alone is likely to have a lasting impact. Second, we know we have got to tailor our assistance tomeet the needs of individual communities. So we are listening hard to what State and local officials and local criminal justice practitioners have to say, and we are shaping our programs to be responsive. And, third, we know that a critical role for OJP is to aggressively share information with the field about what works, and then help States and local communities effectively implement those approaches. And on the issue of information sharing, I am pleased to report that our OJP home page is now getting up to 24,000 hits a day, which is much more than I have been able to report to you in the past. Our 1999 budget request before you, Mr. Chairman, reflects these themes and these lessons learned, the notion of comprehensive approaches, of meeting the needs of local communities, and of focusing on what works. And I want to give you a couple of quick examples of that. To combat violence against women, we are learning that comprehensive approaches that draw on every part of the community, every part of the criminal justice system, victim advocates and medical professionals, that all of these together are needed to protect domestic violence victims and to ensure offender accountability. So an initiative like the one in Quincy, Massachusetts, which includes mandatory arrest, offender sanctions, mandatory drug and alcohol abstinence, and victim services, has had real impact there in reducing violence against women, and, in fact, there has been only one domestic violence-related homicide there in 10 years. Turning to the second theme, that of meeting the needs of local communities, the Weed and Seed program embraces not only the comprehensive approach that the Maryland report touted that combines enforcement, the weeding side, with prevention, the seeding side, but it is a strategy that allows a local jurisdiction to tailor the program to meet local needs. I have had the chance over the last several years to visit about two dozen Weed and Seed sites, and I can tell you that every one of them is somewhat different. Every one of them is tailored to the local community needs. Like in New Orleans, where I was recently, in talking with the community police officer who has helped turn around a tough public housing site so it is now a peaceful place where kids can play. Or in Mobile, Alabama, when I was down there last September, Mr. Chairman, with you and Mr. Callahan, where the Weed and Seed safe haven there is teaching the kids computer skills instead of their engaging with gangs and drugs. Or in Charleston, South Carolina, where I was last year, where I saw young at-risk kids participating in a boxing league and getting to know their local police officers. And we can tell that this work is paying off. In Seattle's Weed and Seed site, for example, we have measurements now that violent crime has dropped 54 percent within the site since that program was launched, and that compares to a drop of only 38 percent citywide. And in Las Vegas, the Weed and Seed target area saw an 8 percent drop from 1993 to 1995, while citywide, crime increased by 3 percent. links between drug use and crime Finally, our budget request focuses on what we know works to address crime. We know, as an example, that about 63 percent of the people coming into the criminal justice system in this country are testing positive for drugs. And we know that study after study has confirmed the strong link between drug use and crime. So it seems to me that we need to use the time that they are, in effect, in the clutches of the criminal justice system to break the cycle of addiction and crime, to hold them accountable, and to force them to stay clean. And evaluations tell us that interventions like this can and do make a difference. I was out in San Diego earlier this year and went to the Donovan State Prison in the desert outside San Diego and visited the Amity Drug Treatment program, and I saw and talked to violent offenders there who are staying clean and whose lives have literally been turned around, even in a prison where they told me that any kind of drug was constantly available at low cost. But these people are not using drugs, and we know it from the drug testing. And, importantly, we also have follow-up recidivism data to tell us that this kind of approach can work. So as a matter of public safety, it seems to me we should actually be demanding that offenders go through this kind of regimen. So our request for this residential substance abuse treatment program for drug treatment in prisons and for the new comprehensive drug intervention initiative that could help local jurisdictions implement these programs at the pretrial, probation, and jail level, I think all of this reflects the fact that we do know here what works. Mr. Chairman, I could spend the afternoon detailing a number of other programs where we have seen great results, but I know my time is limited. So, in conclusion, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and we look forward to working with you as well as our State and local partners in the effort to make America's communities safer. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [Pages 511 - 527--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Brann. Mr. Brann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COPS Director Joseph E. Brann's Opening Statement I do appreciate the opportunity to testify here today and to provide you with an update on the accomplishments of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the solid results that we are seeing in communities that are achieving a great deal of success with the aid of our grants, and the Administration's budget request to continue the work of this office in fiscal year 1999. I, too, want to especially acknowledge the Committee for the support that you have shown the COPS office and the American law enforcement community in particular. I am looking forward to the continuation of our mutual efforts to continue addressing the fundamental goal of adding 100,000 additional police officers who are engaged in community policing across this country. The role of the COPS office is to support local community policing efforts by providing initial funding for these additional officers, to provide for the addition of equipment, technology enhancements, training, the creation of demonstration centers, and other kinds of regional resources, and to meet other needs in ways that are consistent with the provisions of the 1994 Crime Act. At this stage, we are actually slightly over halfway through our life span of this program, but, in fact, we are almost three-quarters of theway towards our goal of funding an additional 100,000 officers. To date, as of this day, we have funded over 72,000 additional community policing officers, and about half of those officers are already screened, hired, trained, and redeployed or active on the streets. COPS has funded officers from our major communities across the country, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, to places like Barbourville and Clay County, Kentucky, or Vienna and Worthington, West Virginia. At this time, more than 87 percent of the American public are being served by COPS grantees. As a former cop and former police chief, I have to say that the COPS program is going to be of continuing value, of lasting value, primarily because the officers that we are funding are engaged in community policing, and that strategy is, in fact, a very tough and extraordinarily effective one. I think that that is true largely because it wasn't created here in Washington. It wasn't created in some academic institution or at a research think tank. It actually came out of the neighborhoods and the communities across this country where cops and citizens have been willing to invest their time and their energy trying to do something different. Community policing was developed by cops like myself who knew that the traditional, reactive approach that we have engaged in to dealing with crime, that we have employed for many decades, has been ineffective. I think we have all been frustrated by the repeat victimization and the recidivism that we have seen as well as our own desire to do something more than simply respond to crimes after they have occurred. We want to do something to prevent those crimes and to stop violence and disorder, and I can say that my 26 years of local law enforcement experience, it has convinced me of one thing, and that is that community policing works, and it works because it is a strategic, relentless, and effective strategy. It is resulting in lower crime rates across the country. By way of example, the city of Salinas, California, has used COPS funding to target gang violence. That police department used a COPS Youth Firearms Violence grant to create a violence suppression unit. And since the inception of that unit in 1995, Salinas has experienced a 14.7 percent drop in crime, and robberies with weapons have gone down a full 24 percent in the past year alone. Closer by, Prince George's County has experienced a tremendous decrease in crime. Homicides were down 42 percent last year to an 11-year low. Rapes have declined by 6 percent and are at an 8-year low. And armed robberies there are down 23 percent to their lowest level in 9 years. I think what is particularly remarkable there is that this is all happening in a decade in which Prince George's County has actually experienced a 12 percent increase in their population. Community policing has been and is being credited with reducing violent crime in our major cities as well. Chicago is an example where in 1997 they experienced a drop in crime for the sixth year in a row. Los Angeles had a 12 percent drop in crime during 1997. But it also applies equally to small communities: Owensboro, Kentucky, where police credited their 7 percent decrease in crime in 1996, and a similar drop in 1997, to their community policing activities. I think as a result this shows that the investment of COPS funds at the local level is clearly making a difference. Perhaps the greatest impact can be seen in the communities where a COPS grant has meant the difference between having a police department and not having one at all. We have provided funding for over 200 towns to establish their own police forces. These are towns that never had their own police force, that now has an officer actually out there on the beat. And we are seeing that occur in towns such as Mt. Olivet, Kentucky; Fletcher, North Carolina; and Junior, West Virginia. So what we are seeing here is COPS grantees in large and small jurisdictions, urban, suburban, and rural settings, are expanding their crime prevention and problem-solving capacities and maximizing their use of resources to better protect these communities, these towns, these cities, and the suburbs. 1999 cops budget request I would now like to turn to the administration's budget request for the COPS program for fiscal year 1999. We are requesting a total of $1.4 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for the COPS program. We are also requesting $20 million for the Police Corps program. That will result in a total request of $1.42 billion for fiscal year 1999, and this appropriation will allow us to fund an additional 16,000 officers both through the direct hiring of new officers, under the Universal Hiring Program, as well as through the redeployment of existing officers through our COPS MORE, or Making Officer Redeployment Effective, strategy. Due to the continuing and pressing need for law enforcement assistance in the Indian country, COPS is requesting $54 million be made available in grants and cooperative agreements for Indian tribes to directly enhance the capabilities of tribal law enforcement officers in policing those communities. These agencies do face particular challenges and have some very limited resource. So if COPS is to address the public safety needs of all Americans, we need to provide crucial funding to the tribal law enforcement agencies as well. Further, we would like to make $1 million available for police recruitment efforts in support of the President's hate crimes initiative. The police recruitment program will provide funding to local non-profits to assist police departments in identifying and recruiting minority candidates. Funding for both the Indian country and the police recruitment initiatives will be derived from available funds and will not have an adverse impact on our ability to fund the 100,000 additional community policing officers by the end of fiscal year 2000. From the perspective of the management and administration of the COPS office, we are requesting $27.9 million and 315 positions, which is a total of 251 FTE, from our total program dollars. That funding level is necessary to process the grant applications and the budgets, to approve payments on existing grants, and to monitor all the grants that we currently have out, as well as the new ones that will be added, and ultimately to provide the necessary management support to ensure that the goals of the COPS program are being achieved. Despite a relatively low level of funding for administration and staffing, the COPS staff has truly done a superb job of managing more than 20,000 grants to over 10,000grantees. I think that the level of customer service that we are providing is extraordinary. Our staff has helped many of these agencies obtain Federal aid for the first time ever, and they have ensured that the grants are being used effectively and appropriately. Our fiscal year 1999 M&A request represents an increase of $7.3 million and a staffing level increase of 65 full-time equivalents over the 1998 appropriation level. In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, on behalf of the COPS office, as well as on behalf of our grantees. I very much appreciate your interest in, and your continuing support for, the COPS program. I would be more than happy to respond to any questions you might have. [The information follows:] [Pages 531 - 541--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Bilchik. OJJDP Administrator Bilchik's Opening Statement Mr. Bilchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be with you today to discuss the activities of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Last year, when I appeared before you, I described how we were working with States and local communities to reduce and prevent juvenile crime and violence. And during the past year, I believe that we have been able to serve as a meaningful partner to communities across this country. During the course of today's hearing, I hope to update you on our activities, share with you some of the progress we have made, and lay out some of the challenges that we still face. One year ago, I told you about the FBI's latest uniform crime report data showing a 3 percent decline in the overall juvenile violent crime arrest rates for crimes such as murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. I am pleased today to be able to inform you that this decline was followed by a decrease of 9 percent. Last year, I also shared with you the news of a 14 percent decline in the juvenile murder arrest rate. That decline continued for a third year in a row with another 14 percent, for a total decrease of 31 percent over the past 3 years. The juvenile murder arrest rate in this country is now at its lowest rate in 10 years. While we are encouraged by these declines, we know that much more needs to be done. We know that even this lower juvenile murder rate is unacceptable as we hear the reports out of Jonesboro, Arkansas of children taking the lives of other children. We know that while progress is being made in some communities, there is still much to be done to lower juvenile substance abuse in all communities. And we know that we need to target our efforts on the problem of juvenile female offenders, a population which has been growing, not decreasing. Our ability to do what is needed to achieve dramatic reductions in juvenile offending, however, is hampered by recent growth in the juvenile population, which is straining our already overburdened community resources. Schools, day care, after-school programs, courts, social service agencies, and other institutions that are supposed to serve children and their families and help provide for the public safety, are unable to do their job as well as they need to be done. I believe, however, that we can effectively address the problems of juvenile delinquency, of violence and victimization, if we are willing to adopt and invest in a balanced and comprehensive approach to the problem. FISCAL YEAR 1999 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for OJJDP of $277.95 million, a $40 million increase over the fiscal year 1998 level, reflects this balanced, coordinated, and comprehensive approach. It provides for prevention, early intervention, and graduated sanctioning, while giving the communities the flexibility to implement proven strategies that are planned and implemented where it counts--at the local level. It is clear from research, evaluation, and Federal, State, and local experience that we have learned a great deal about what works in reducing juvenile crime. The President's 1999 budget request for OJJDP, as outlined in my written testimony, supports communities in implementing the full range of activity that needs to take place to assist communities in reducing juvenile crime. It supports the types of efforts that will greatly improve our chances of impacting the juvenile substance abuse problem, as they have done in Miami, and of finding remarkable success in reducing juvenile homicides, as they have achieved in Boston. As I have testified as recently as last year, we know what works to reduce juvenile crime. We now need to implement those programs and strategies at sufficient scale to significantly impact juvenile offending rates, which are too high. Mr. Chairman, while we may differ in how we approach supporting State and local efforts in bringing these effortsto scale, I am pleased to sit before you and the Members of the Subcommittee today knowing that we do agree that the substantial increase in Federal support you have provided in the 1998 budget was desperately needed. And I hope that despite the decreases we have seen in juvenile crime, we also agree that the Federal Government must refuse to treat these issues as yesterday's problem and that we will be vigilant each and every year in doing whatever it takes to maintain the decreases we have seen over the past 3 years. An effective juvenile justice system must implement a sound, comprehensive strategy. It must identify and support programs that work to further the objectives of that strategy. I believe that the programs funded from the appropriation of this Subcommittee form a continuum of activity designed to address youth violence, delinquency, and the victimization of our children exactly in this manner. I want to thank the Subcommittee for the support it has provided to OJJDP in the past, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of the Committee to continue the progress we have made over the past several years. I would be pleased to respond now to any questions you may have. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Pages 544 - 561--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ROGERS ON JUVENILE DRUG USE Now, Mr. Bilchik, we have a new report card for you on the effectiveness of the programs to reduce drug use amongst teenagers. We told you last year we were going to do a report card every year so that we can sort of keep track and see how things are going. Turn this chart around where they can see it better. Now, while you see some progress in the leveling off of drug use by teenagers over the past year, let me point this out: In 1997, 42 percent of seniors had used drugs as compared to 25 percent in 1991. Experimentation with harder drugs amongst seniors--we are talking about seniors in high school-- such as heroin and cocaine, up again last year, up over 75 percent since 1992, validating the trends of what many health practitioners, social scientists, what most of us have feared, that the increase in marijuana use that we saw in the past years is a gateway. And then the next chart. Since 1992, the percentage of junior high school students--that is grades 6 through 8--who used illicit drugs has almost doubled, from 11 percent to 21 percent. Cocaine use by 8th graders, up 57 percent since 1992. Marijuana use by 8th graders, up 175 percent since 1992. That is not your fault. It is the fault of the Administration in allowing the flood of drugs coming into the country, because they cut out the drug war on the oceans. They practically withdrew the interdiction efforts off our shores and played back on the source country eradication programs in places like Colombia, Bolivia, and others in the effort to try to win the war at home, trying to keep people from using drugs, which is a laudable goal, as you are showing. But the bottom line is the price of drugs have dropped through the floor. They are more readily available, therefore, there is a bigger supply on the streets and in the dealers' hands, and the quality, the purity is up because the Administration withdrew the war at sea and offshore. And so my quarrel is not with you. You are working as hard as you know, and we are giving you plenty of money to work with it. The problem is the policy that they had of drawing back on the interdiction efforts. Last year, for example, on another Subcommittee, the Coast Guard said we have got to have night- vision radars to see the drug runners at sea up through the Caribbean at night when they are running. They don't run during the daytime when we are flying over watching for them. They wait until the cover of darkness, and here they go and they can't see them. Please give us forward-looking infrared radars for our C-130 patrol planes in the Caribbean, where the big bulk is coming. The Administration wouldn't do that. So we found the money, part in this Subcommittee, part in the Transportation Subcommittee, and we gave them forward-looking radars, FLRs, to watch at night, and they were elated. Now we see the Administration's budget for the Coast Guard this year. They are grounding the equipped C-130s. I could go on like this forever and ever. I mean, they are shifting the Coast Guard cutters from drug patrolling to patrolling for people who are catching salmon illegally. Look at the numbers. I mean, it just goes like this. I don't really understand that. I cannot fathom any sensible person figuring that you can--and I told General McCaffrey this. I said, General, do you believe that you can win a war on your own turf without taking it to your enemy? And he is a nice man. He just has no power or authority or budget. He doesn't command the FBI, the DEA, the Coast Guard or anybody else. He doesn't command anything. He can talk and he writes a beautiful, beautiful book. His charts and diagrams are the best. But, you know, if you have got nothing else to do, I guess you could get at it, too. So I am just preaching at the wrong people here. I know that. But please carry the message back down there that you can't win this fight by yourselves, and you can't. You are being swamped with drugs into the hands of these kids, and we are going to continue to see degradation of our youth by hard drugs. And as time passes, the older they get, the worse the problem gets. Now, we provided a new $5 million grant program to your office to develop initiatives that would increase the perception among teenagers of the risk and harm of drug use. What do you expect to see out of that? PERCEIVED RISK AND DRUG USE Mr. Bilchik. If I may, Mr. Chairman, distribute a chart so I can explain how we are approaching this program. Mr. Rogers. You have got your own report. Mr. Bilchik. I, actually, do have one I want to share with you before we are done. It took me three years, but I learned I should bring a chart. [Laughter.] And they advised me to bring a big one, so I have a big one in the corner I can show you, too. Mr. Rogers. I have never seen a student bring his own report card. [Laughter.] Mr. Bilchik. It is part of the new schooling. You grade yourself. You are always your toughest critic is what ends up happening. But this is actually a chart, the small chart I shared with you last year, showing the inverse relationship between the perception of risk and then the actual drug usage. Where perception of risk goes up, the drug use goes down, and thatis what we are trying to do as indicated through the $5 million appropriation, with this program. We have identified two programs through the work of the National Institute of Drug Abuse that are school- and community-based, that have achieved exactly that result. One of them is the Life Skills Curriculum Program and the other one is the Midwestern Drug Abuse Prevention Project. They have been demonstrated and shown to be effective in achieving significant results in juvenile drug use extended out over up to six years in time. They have not only been demonstrated in one location, but they have been replicated in more than one location. So we know that we can take this program and transplant it from one jurisdiction to another. We know at the Life Skills Program that we can have it taught by the school teacher, we can have it taught by a fellow peer, we can have it taught by an outside person coming into the school and working with the teacher, and it will get the same kind of results. So what we have done with the program is to contact the two people who have implemented those two programs and worked with the center out in Colorado, run by Del Elliott, to help replicate those two projects in up to a dozen other communities with these funds. It will cost us $375,000 per community to do that on a broad basis, but with proven results of 40 percent to 50 percent in some instances of reductions in juvenile drug use, that is worth the investment to get those kind of outcomes. So that is how we are moving forward with this program. We think that it is the kind of replication work that you have been looking for and, Congressman Mollohan, that you have talked about so eloquently in the past about the scale issue. If we do not help bring it to scale, we are not going to succeed. This will allow us to take these two models and move them to at least 12 other communities to be successful in reducing drug use. So it reflects the best thinking we have in the country today on school-based curriculum, increasing risk, and reducing drug use, and that is how we are moving forward with the program. Mr. Rogers. When do you expect the funding to be given to communities? Mr. Bilchik. We are working with the Center out in Colorado. My assumption is, within several months, we will have the awards made through the Center. So we are working hand-in- hand with the Center because they will help with the actual training and replicating the programs true to the principles by which they are founded to make sure that we are not deviating from what made them effective to begin with. We are also evaluating to make sure that the process followed is identical to the prior programs. Mr. Rogers. You are also in charge of administering the grants for community coalitions against drug abuse. Mr. Bilchik. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Approximately, five weeks ago I was contacted by ONDCP and asked whether I would administer that program. Mr. Rogers. When do you expect those monies to go out to the communities? Mr. Bilchik. The Federal Register announcement on that program will be out within two days. The communities are asked to come in within 30 days, and I expect the monies to be awarded within a couple of months after that. So by early summer they will be awarded. Mr. Rogers. Do you plan to distribute that money in small amounts to a great number of communities consistent with the congressional intent? Mr. Bilchik. Yes. It will be approximately 100 to 200 communities with the first set of $10 million in awards up to $100,000. They will vary. Some will be $50,000. Communities will come in requesting different amounts of money. ANTI-DRUG ABUSE MEDIA CAMPAIGN Mr. Rogers. Last year we provided $195 million for an anti- drug abuse media campaign, and I understand that is being handled by ONDCP. In your opinion, does an adequate infrastructure exist to respond to calls for help from either parents or kids as a result of that media campaign? Mr. Bilchik. I think that the project is learning as they go along in terms of the 800 number response, in terms of how to have the most adequate response. I understand there is an automated system in place at this point that can help refer people to other sources of information as well, but I do not have specific information about the next steps in improving that system. Mr. Rogers. Well, the reason I ask that, my information is that the 800 number is getting a lot of calls, but there is a machine answering it, and it is not very effective. The machine, I think, obviously, there is interest out there, it is stirring up interest, but I do not think you are handling it very well. Mr. Bilchik. I think we need to look at how that automated response can refer people out, depending upon the area of work they are interested in doing, to all of the other sources of information that are available, and I believe ONDCP is looking at that and re-evaluating that at the present time. Mr. Rogers. Is someone here from ONDCP who could respond to that? Mr. Bilchik. I do not believe so. Mr. Rogers. Well, do you agree that the machine answering the phone call is not an adequate response? Mr. Bilchik. I cannot give you that absolute conclusion because I have not seen it myself. I was only relaying what I have heard from other people, that they are re-evaluating how to get the optimum response from the 800 number. So that tells me that they are looking at it and it is not fully adequate at the present time. Mr. Rogers. I have certainly concluded that it is not working and that you need to warm it up and make it effective. We are spending $195 million of the taxpayers' dollars, and if it is resulting in a phone call and a message from a frustrated teenager, and a machine answers the call and nothing ever happens, we have wasted the money, but we have also, more importantly, wasted the chance to rescue that youngster. So I think you are dropping the ball at the end of the telephone call. Mr. Bilchik. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment further on the Coalition Program and elaborate upon why I am so optimistic about their program, not just technically moving forward and being awarded, but why that was such a wise investment by Congress in a bipartisan way with the Administration. That brings me to my chart, if I may show you my chart. Mr. Rogers. Before we leave, I want to say with this phone business a minute here. Now, Justice has the role, does it not, in responding to those telephone calls? Mr. Bilchik. I am not aware of that, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Robinson. No, we do not. Mr. Rogers. What role does Justice have in relation to the anti-drug abuse media campaign? Ms. Robinson. ONDCP reached out to a number of different departments and agencies across the Government, including the Justice Department. OJP, OJJDP, and others were part of that, and our staff have worked with them in developing the campaign and having input as a number of departments have. Mr. Rogers. Well, who is supposed to be answering the telephone? Mr. Bilchik. I believe the 800 number is supported by NCADI, which is a substance abuse organization. Mr. Rogers. Who? Mr. Bilchik. The abbreviation is NCADI, N-C-A-D-I. Mr. Rogers. What role does Justice have in disseminating information about drug use to young people and what is happening in that respect? Mr. Bilchik. There are several things that we have done, independently, but in support of the campaign. We have conducted two satellite teleconferences that have been broadcasted nationally on substance abuse prevention programs and intervention programs. We have published resource materials for communities, such as the one I presented to you last year, that has now been distributed to over 40,000 individuals and organizations on how mentoring can reduce juvenile substance abuse. We have also produced publications on drug identification and testing of juvenile offenders as they come into the system, to identify whether they have a substance abuse problem, so that they can be identified for treatment, and then also how probation officers can work more effectively with parents and youth who are substance involved. All of those are publications that we have produced over the past year. And, in fact, one of those publications I have with me today is about to be released, which is on the drug identification and testing. Mr. Rogers. Last year, you pointed out that mentoring programs are helpful in addressing problems of drug use among juveniles, and yet the new grant structure you have proposed in your budget eliminates the mentoring grant program. Why and what impact will it have? Mr. Bilchik. It is our belief, Mr. Chairman, that with the increase to $95 million in the At-Risk Children's Program, that it will also support numerous mentoring efforts across the country. So consolidating the mentoring program into one larger prevention and early intervention program we believe that many communities will still respond and fund mentoring programs as part of their efforts. And, in fact, that has happened with our Formula Program. Right now we are funding 93 mentoring programs through the JUMP-dedicated funding pot. We are funding over 100 mentoring programs through the Formula Program, where communities have chosen themselves which were the interventions they needed and then used mentoring as one of them. We feel we have the same results with community local-based options with mentoring still being supported greatly across the country. Juvenile Drug Demonstration Initiative Mr. Rogers. Is the current drug strategy sufficient to reduce drug abuse amongst kids? If not, what else can we do? Mr. Bilchik. I think the things that you have put in place with the $5 million program that will allow me to show that we can take these proven strategies and increase their work into a dozen other communities, that kind of thing catches fire in other communities. When they see it happening, they start adopting it themselves. When the Coalition Program that you have funded at $10 million grows to $20 million and then $30 million and then $40 million, I will be able to show, through administering this for ONDCP, that we can get the same results that we got in Miami, which, again, brings me back to my chart. [Laughter.] Mr. Rogers. I guess we are going to have to look at that. [Laughter.] I showed you mine. I have got to look at yours. [Laughter.] Mr. Bilchik. This chart, Mr. Chairman, affirms what you have shown me, and it focuses on high school seniors and the trends in annual drug use with, in particular, alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, and cocaine, and that is that disturbing upward trend. I do not want to dwell on this chart because, as you will see, I am going to overlay on these charts. So we can go to the next one. The next one is the result of a coalition in Miami, Florida, working as part of a ten-year strategy to reduce juvenile drug use. This is their high school seniors in Dade County, Florida. This is the toughest population we have to work with--seniors in high school. This is what they have achieved through sticking with and sustaining the strategy through their coalition, the kind of coalitions that you funded this past year, that we will see 100 to 200 of them in place by the end of this current fiscal year. How did they do that? They did it by parent education programs, community policing efforts, the Dade County School System adopted school-based strategies, like the ones that I mentioned earlier, through juvenile justice system interventions, through probation and the courts, student and peer-led efforts, like a project called Defy It, where peers put pressure on other peers not to use drugs through incentives, as well as the entire coalition's effort targeting marijuana use, in particular, that has spread to others as well. Now, I have shown you the seniors. John, if you could overlay and compare the two. You will see now how Dade County, with the work of their coalition, compares to the country as a whole. In each and every instance, they have achieved downturns, where the country is looking at upward trends. They have done the same thing for eighth graders across-the-board, not just twelfth graders. So the youngest and the oldest, through the work of the coalition idea that you have generated through that appropriation. Now, it is not going to be in one year, and it is not going to be in two years. They have done it on rohypnol, when they saw the rohypnol problem coming several years ago and they targeted it, and now they are seeing the same downturn in rohypnol. Community coalitions using best practices, sending themessages about normative behavior and perception of risk will get these results. That is why I am optimistic about what direction you have taken and how with the increased expenditures that you have planned for that program we can be even more successful. It does not stop there. There are other things, individual programs, but those are the--I think it is the most significant thing we can look at and shoot for in terms of the future for juvenile drug use. Mr. Rogers. That is the Drug Free Communities Act. Mr. Bilchik. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. That we passed last year. Mr. Bilchik. This past year. This is the first year the funding will go into these communities from the Federal Government for these programs. Mr. Rogers. Well, you have got a nice chart. [Laughter.] Mr. Bilchik. We worked all year on it just to make sure we did well with it. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. We are going to bring your report cards back. [Laughter.] Current Request vs. H.R. 1818 Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, you have found the right community. You mentioned your At-Risk Children's Grant Program and requesting $95 million for that. How do these initiatives compare with last year's H.R. 1818 that did not end up getting enacted? Mr. Bilchik. 1818 presents the kind of balanced approach that we are talking about in this appropriation request, looking at formula-supported side for juvenile justice system interventions and accountability-based measures, as well as a prevention sum of money that could be used and dedicated for that prevention/early intervention work. So I think they do mirror each other significantly. And that, of course, was the bill that had very high bipartisan support in the House. Comprehensive Community Approach To Reduce Crime Mr. Mollohan. To what extent does the budget request before us today reflect the recommendations of the University of Maryland Report that came out last year? Have you taken it to heart and to what extent is it reflected in this budget request? Ms. Robinson. Yes, Mr. Mollohan, we have taken a very close look at it, as I said in my oral statement and tried to adapt many of our programs and requests to reflect that. So, as an example, the increased request in the Weed and Seed area from $33.5 million up to $40 million reflects the fact that the University of Maryland Report gave plaudits to that kind of comprehensive community-based approach that focused on a hot spot type of area. So that would be one example of it. A second example would be our increased requests through a number of pieces of legislation, including the juvenile area, for set-asides for evaluation and research, the importance of building that into programs from the beginning. I would, also, point to the requests relating to the Drug Testing and Treatment Initiative, something that the Maryland Report pointed to as an effort and initiative that works. Mr. Mollohan. Which of your programs contribute to this anti-drug advertising campaign directed at youngsters? Ms. Robinson. The ONDCP campaign? Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Ms. Robinson. None of our money was transferred to ONDCP, but staff in OJJDP and in OJP, generally, who have worked on the issues relating to kids and drugs, have participated in the working sessions to help put that together. Mr. Mollohan. What is your assessment of its effectiveness? Ms. Robinson. I think it is too early to say what the effectiveness is, but I think one of the things we have learned from OJJDP's programs is the need for a comprehensive approach that includes community efforts, parents' efforts, school- based, and also a change in the general message sent broadly to kids and to adults. It is to the parents as much as to the kids, about what is acceptable and what is not. I think the focus in the ads addressing parents is likely to be effective, but it has to be part of an overall comprehensive approach. Mr. Mollohan. Is it? Ms. Robinson. I think when you look at the different pieces, the Anti-Drug Coalition piece, the kind of prevention funding that we are seeking in the President's budget, and a number of these things together that, yes, it can be. Mr. Bilchik. One other short-term measure that I could add is that an initial sampling done of whether in the targeted communities the campaign has begun its work, whether they are accessing the population; that 97 percent of those surveyed have seen or heard the ads on television and radio. Now, the outcome of that will be measured later, but the threshold is are you reaching people and 97 percent said they were aware of the campaign, had heard one of the ads or seen one of the ads. Mr. Mollohan. Do you have a way of measuring the effectiveness of the ads? Mr. Bilchik. There are ways to control, to a certain degree. It is not as controllable as an experimental design evaluation that you might conduct, but you can take a look at attitudes pre and post in a community and see whether the ads may have impacted; talking to the people about whether they have seen the ads, whether it helped changed their attitudes, those are the kind of things that you are going to look for over time. It is the same message they sent with the Miami Coalition. Part of their campaign was a media campaign--one element. Mr. Mollohan. There must be a way of measuring that effectiveness. With all of the advertising in the nation competing for ideas in the marketplace, there must be a way of measuring its effectiveness. My sense is the ads could be tremendously effective if they could change the attitude of youngsters with regard to drugs. It would be incredibly powerful if the ads could make drugs look unattractive. It is important to measure the effectiveness of the advertising campaign. Mr. Bilchik. I think they will be measuring through surveying attitudes and perceptions during the course of the campaign. Mr. Latham. Will the gentleman yield for just a moment? Mr. Mollohan. Sure. I am going to yield to you. Have you voted? Mr. Latham. Yes, I have. Mr. Mollohan. Let me just finish and then I will yield. Mr. Latham. I was just going to---- Mr. Mollohan. Go ahead. Mr. Latham. Just on the 12 target cities they also have control cities. Sioux City, Iowa, is one of them, and they have Duluth, Minnesota, as a control, so that you can measure the difference as far as awareness between the control and where the program is right now after four months. Grants and Retention of Cops Mr. Mollohan. Chief, are we going to put 100,000 officers on the beat? Mr. Brann. Yes, Mr. Mollohan, we will. Mr. Mollohan. When are we going to do it? Mr. Brann. By the end of Fiscal Year 2000. We are not only on target, we are actually ahead of schedule. I am extraordinarily pleased about that. Mr. Mollohan. How many do you have in the grant process right now? How many do you actually have on the street? Mr. Brann. At this stage, as of the announcement that we did today, there are actually over 72,000 officers that we have announced in terms of grant awards having been announced, given out. The last count that we did, and we are doing those counts three times a year, the last count was as of November. At that time, there were 67,000 funded. Of those there were 38,000 that had been hired and about 36,000 were actually on the streets. There is a lag time from the time of the award to the time of hiring, but we are seeing very steady progress. Mr. Mollohan. Some communities have had the programs with a three-year cycle by now, have they? Mr. Brann. Our first grants, the grants that were awarded early on are just now starting to come to closure, literally this month and next month. Mr. Mollohan. What is your experience with retention after the grants expire? Mr. Brann. We are finding pretty much across-the-board that the agencies that we have conducted site visits, monitoring visits with, along with sort of an independent assessment that is being done by the media, if you will, we are hearing back as a result of media coverage around the country various surveys that they have done, and consistently we are finding extraordinarily high numbers of these agencies indicating that they are going to retain the officers; that, in fact, they have made plans. They are focused on that. They are well aware of the retention requirements. We do have a handful of agencies I would say, based upon our monitoring efforts, about 5 to 6 percent are indicating some problems with retention, and we are working with those individual agencies on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Mollohan. What are you going to do with agencies that are not going to retain the officers? Mr. Brann. In some instances, what we are finding is it is really being driven by local economics. Mr. Mollohan. I did not ask why it was happening. I am saying what are you going to do about it? Mr. Brann. Again, we will work with those on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, if, in fact, we find that there is clearly a problem that there was not an intention of retaining in the first place, we will use the sanctions that we can bring to bear. But, frankly, we are finding the vast majority of cases that is not the problem or issue. Typically, it is a local funding consideration. Mr. Mollohan. It is a needs problem. Mr. Brann. Exactly. So we are trying to work with them to help identify what other available funding sources they might turn to. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. I was just going to follow up a little bit on that. Not only in small communities--I think it becomes very clear that they cannot afford to be in the COPS program in the first place. I would be curious, after the five years how many cops are you going to have on the street after small towns and communities drop those officers after three years and they cannot afford it? You are not going to net 100,000 after five years. Mr. Brann. Congressman Latham, actually I believe that we will net 100,000. But if I can address that---- Mr. Latham. They will not all be on the job after five years. Mr. Brann. Let me try to address this because the recognition was there up front that, first of all, we are not going to get to the 100,000 until the final year of this program. But part of our approach and strategy has always acknowledged that there will be some shrinkage, if you will, there will be some agencies that will not be able to retain, for a variety of reasons. I think there will also be some where we are seeing extraordinary results, and it is a local decision. Frankly, it is ultimately going to come down to a local determination as to whether or not there is a need to continue that on a permanent or a semi-permanent basis. So there will be some shrinkage, and we actually have always counted on exceeding 100,000 in order to get to the point that we will have 100,000 out there. In good conscience, I could not sit here and tell you that five and 10 years beyond the end of this program that all 100,000 will be out there. But I think that the kinds of strategies being implemented vis-a- vis the community policing efforts, the impact that we are seeing on the crime rate across the country, already there are some significant declines that we have seen across the board here. There is a 14 percent decline in the crime rate nationally over the last five to six years. Local agencies will have to make a call as to whether or not they are going to continue those efforts, the retention requirement is there. I think they will do that on a case-by- case basis, and I think that based upon what we are seeing already it will be a good faith effort in all cases. Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Mr. Latham. The Justice Department requested the continuation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, and apparently that was denied by the Administration. I will tell you that in a rural area where a lot of communities cannot afford the COPS program this is absolutely essential as far as we are concerned. I have got a community right now that had applied to the COPS program, has been approved and they are in the process of voting whether or not they are going to accept it because they cannot afford it long term, after looking at the liability. And after three years of training they would probably have to let the person go afterwards. So that is why the local law enforcement block grant has been so beneficial to really help those type of communities. And especially in an area that has an exploding meth problem, it is extremely important to us. I just wondered do you have any statement about your request toOMB, and is there any rationale for denying that request? Ms. Robinson. We have been, I would say, very proud of the way BSA has implemented that program. We have gotten grants out to 2,700 different communities around the country, I think particularly the first year, which was an abbreviated year, in record time. Through that project we have reinvented our whole grant process within OJP to automate it and get these out quickly. And we have seen really tremendous interest from State and local jurisdictions in response to it. As you know, we did include that in our Justice Department request because we see it as a complement to the COPS program, and a complement to many of the other pieces of the overall budgetary request. OMB's approach on this, as I understand it, was one of dollars. There are tough choices to be made when the amount of dollars in the pot are limited, and they should be directed in other areas. Mr. Rogers. You funded fully the COPS program. You did not find any shortage of money to fund the COPS program. But you did not put a penny in the congressionally funded counterpart to COPS which--we funded your COPS program last year. We funded the Congressional program last year. So we treated you fair. So it comes time for you to write your budget, you drop all of ours and keep all of your own. Which means with the shortage of monies we had, we have got to find the money for the other grant program somewhere, and it is likely either to come out of the COPS program or we have got to wipe out all the other good stuff which you are doing. What should you have us do? Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, you point to obvious problems and difficulties here. These were tough choices that had to be made, and OMB made other choices here. Mr. Rogers. I know that. You cannot just dump it off on us and say, what are you going to do about this mess we made? I am asking you, what are you going to do about the mess you have made? I am talking to you, the Administration. And it is true not only in this part of the budget but all the other parts of the budget. The SBA, for example, the disaster loan program that we deal with here. You give us the choice on this Subcommittee of raising the interest rates charged to people who have been wiped out in disasters and can borrow money nowhere else, who have lost everything they have. The Administration says, double the interest rates on those people on disaster loans or, Congress, you find another $800 million somewhere to fund the program. The budget is a sham through and through and you ought to be ashamed of it. COPS Grants vsrsus Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Mr. Latham. In your request, I assume you were given limitation in your request. How did you break it down? Ms. Robinson. How did we break down the---- Mr. Latham. You included the local law enforcement block grant. Ms. Robinson. Yes, our request from OJP was larger in total than what was in---- Mr. Latham. Do you know by how much? Ms. Robinson. I think probably around $400 million to $500 million larger. Mr. Latham. So basically it all came out of the local law enforcement block grant. Even the one larger town, and by comparison it is probably not that bad, but Sioux City is about 80,000 people. They have had 10 officers. They are not going to be able to continue with all of them after the three years are up. Mr. Brann. Congressman Latham, on the COPS side of this. First of all, I appreciate Laurie Robinson stepping to the forefront here and helping to address the local law enforcement block grant issue. We are dealing with two separate pots of money, if you will. The issue here I think is how can we move forward with these COPS grants and try to assist the local agencies? As I was indicating earlier, we try to deal with agencies on a case-by-case basis and truly provide the highest level of customer service that we can. One thing that we are doing that may have some benefit here is we are actually developing a retention kit for local agencies to help them identify what kinds of strategies are being employed by other communities around the country to come up with those dollars to retain these officers beyond the life of the Federal funding. I would just like to offer our staff as a resource here to try to work with these local agencies. We will be taking this information out to the grantees that we currently have on board, to work with them, to try to make sure that they have ideas as to other resources they might turn to. It is not a perfect solution. Clearly, we are trying to adhere to the guidance that this Committee gave us as well, which is not to create a permanent entitlement out of this, but to find ways to assist local agencies in their efforts to bring these officers on board, to make the best use of them and retain them at the end of the---- Extension of Cops Program Mr. Latham. I would think one very good source would be the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, if you were going to try and help these communities out. Do you foresee any extension more than three years as far as the COPS program? Mr. Brann. The fact is this Committee did provide an earmark of $100 million this year for us to focus in particular on the small communities. What we call the Small Communities Grant Program, $100 million for those agencies that fall under the 50,000 population that have a need and---- Mr. Latham. That is not the question. Under the three-year COPS program do you see any potential for going to a fourth year and a fifth year? Mr. Brann. That is what that program specifically does. It provides for a fourth year for those agencies. Beyond that---- Mr. Latham. You are just talking about communities under 50,000 though. Mr. Brann. That is correct. As it stands now, no. Again the funding stream, the way this was set up was to be a three-year grant program. Mr. Latham. And your Attorney General will reinforce that also. I got a personal call from her yesterday after I had that question. So no, it is not any more than three years, and it will not be. Meth Grants Last year in this appropriation we had a COPS meth grant for Sioux City to coordinate local law enforcement and really working the tri-state drug area. Just to give you an idea, all of last year they confiscated about 120 pounds of meth. The first three months of this year they have already got over 240 pounds of meth. It is a horrendous problem. The Drug Enforcement Administration reported we now have more meth arrests in Iowa than we have drunk driving arrests. It is a huge problem. We got $1.2 million for this coordinated effort for all law enforcement in the region. We still do not have the guidelines for the grant, and we are six months into it. They were finally in Sioux City last week talking to them after I urged the Attorney General to take a personal interest. It is very discouraging to get the kind of lack of response that we have gotten for a crisis that is upon us out there, to see the foot-dragging. We could not even get a person assigned to get the criteria drafted for the grant until I talked to the Attorney General personally. To me, it is just outrageous when you have a law on the books and the money there appropriated to address this crisis. Can you give any response as to what is going on? Mr. Brann. Yes, sir. In fact, once the earmarks and everything was finalized in November on the appropriations, we immediately established meetings with the staff to begin discussing those earmarks and determine how to move those forward. In turn, I had the staff out of my office contact the sponsors behind each of those earmarks, and to work with them and the local communities. There have been discussions that have been ongoing. There was in fact a meeting, I think it was this past Monday our staff went to Sioux City to have some discussions with Chief Frisby and his staff---- Mr. Latham. After I talked to the Attorney Generalpersonally because you did not have even a person assigned to it before then. We did not have a contact person on that grant. Mr. Brann. If that is the case, I apologize. But in fact, we did have contact people assigned on this. Starting in January we actually designated within our office lead staff for each of these earmarks to deal with. Mr. Latham. Well, I do not know where they were, if they had a month vacation. We have not got any criteria yet. Mr. Rogers. When can we expect to have these through and over with? We earmarked those how many months ago? Mr. Brann. November. Mr. Rogers. November. It is time they got out there. This is a serious problem these folks are having. That is the reason we went to the trouble of earmarking, and you are letting the money lay there. Now when can we have the money out there? Time deadline. Mr. Brann. Mr. Chairman, on each of these earmarks we have identified timelines. This in fact very much comes back to the reprogramming request that we submitted---- Mr. Rogers. I do not want a long answer. When will you have the money in their hands? By what date? Mr. Brann. I wish I could give you--in fact I will go back and this week I will get you a specific answer on that. But off the fly I cannot give you a---- Mr. Rogers. You have got until May 1st. The money is to be in those communities' hands by May 1st or you appear right back at this on that date. One way or the other. You have had enough time. Go ahead. Mr. Latham. That pretty much takes care of my problem, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Mr. Latham. It is really frustrating, to not even have a contact person. The Sioux City police are excited. They want to go. They have got ideas on what they want to do to coordinate the whole region so that we do not give these slimeballs a place to hide in the whole region. And to not even have somebody that we can talk to is ridiculous. Mr. Brann. Again, I apologize for that. My information does indicate that we had actually made the contact back in February on this. I will need to go back and take a look at this and I will get you an answer. Mr. Latham. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Cap Needs While they are--could you tell me what the U.S. Marshal's Office needs in prison space? Apparently there is $25 million requested. Is that going to be adequate for the needs? Ms. Robinson. Mr. Latham, I am afraid I cannot answer a question on the Marshal Service. We can get back to you with that information. Mr. Latham. Okay. [The information follows:] Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP) The CAP program allows the government to obtain guaranteed long-term bed space for federal and alien detainess in state or local facilities that would not otherwise make space available for these detainees. Specially, CAP funds help finance new jail construction or facility renovation projects in return for the contractual guarantee of a number of bed spaces for federal use. Generally, CAP funds are awarded where federal detention bed space needs are most crucial, based on the current detention status and prisoner population projections. In FY 1999, CAP funds are requested for both the U.S. Marshals Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This is the first opportunity for INS to request resources through the appropriations process since obtaining authorization for a CAP program in FY 1997. Admittedly, the requests for resources far outstrip the $25,000,000 request, but the Department will work diligently to make the best possible use of available resources. Should any emergency detention needs arise, we will have to consider other funding options for this program. Mr. Rogers. Director Brann, I think there is four of those COPS meth grants. Mr. Brann. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. We want all those out by May 1st. Is that agreeable? Mr. Brann. Yes, sir, I will give you an answer as to--if there is a problem. But we do have--in fact these all appear to be on track, and I will give you a definite date as to when they will all be completed. Mr. Rogers. You will do what? Mr. Brann. I will give you a definite date as to when-- before May 1st. Mr. Rogers. Before May 1st. Mr. Brann. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Under no circumstances will any of them go beyond May 1st. I am sure you can work out the details on that. Juvenile Incentive Block Grants Now the budget request also eliminates a new $250 million block grant program which the Congress enacted in 1998 aimed at juvenile crime to be used by States for juvenile prosecutors, juvenile courts, juvenile detention facilities, and some prevention programs. The budget request proposes to replace that block grant with $150 million in discretionary grant programs for prosecutors and courts to address juvenile crime. What evidence do you have that the Juvenile Crime Block Grant that we have already passed will not meet the needs you are now requesting new money for? Who wants to answer that? Mr. Bilchik. I will take a first stab at it, Mr. Chairman. The Administration's position is that we were looking at a balanced approach in the funds scheme at a base level in our OJJDP appropriation, looking at the at-risk children's program at $95 million, the formula program at $89 million, and the incentive program which focuses on accountability programs as well, as $17 million. And then to lay over that a dedicated program of $150 million for prosecutors and courts. Realizing that corrections and law enforcement had received substantial support, we had heard back from the field that they were looking for dedicated court and prosecutor support. Our concern on the accountability block grant is, with the way it is set up with the 12 funding areas, and we may still not see that sufficient amount of money go to the courts and prosecutors to do the job they need to do along with corrections and law enforcement. We are pleased, in terms of the way we can report on the accountability incentive block grant. We thought we had abetter mix in relation to how we approached it in a budget request. The key here is getting the support to these communities, and our immediate concern was making sure the courts and prosecutors received that support as well. Mr. Rogers. Has anything been done to get the block grants out? Mr. Bilchik. Yes, sir. We immediately contacted representatives in the field, States, localities, conducted a focus group to get their input on their needs, and sent out guidance to the States in February. All States except three have indicated an agency to administer the funds, and all of the money will be funded by June 30th. It is available today. Any State that came in today would be able to get the money by June 30th which is the deadline. They cannot come back later than June 30th to get the money. Mr. Rogers. Has anybody come in to get their money? Mr. Bilchik. Not yet, sir. There are certain things that have been laid out in the appropriation that they have to do to make calculations as to the proportion of money going into each local community, so they have some work to do with the way the appropriation was laid out. We have sent them out some guidance on that, and we have made ourselves available in each and every instance to help them work through those calculations so the money can get out as fast as possible. Cops More Program Mr. Rogers. Now Director Brann, last year we heard from many local police agencies that there was a need to augment the new officers and equipment in the COPS programs and others to address specific crime problems in their communities. We gave you the flexibility to use $200 million of unobligated balances for discretionary grants to meet certain law enforcement needs, and we also provided a statutory change that allowed a greater percentage of COPS funding to be used for the COPS MORE program, which does provide equipment and technology for police agencies. Are localities now requesting of you funding for equipment and technology and other programs instead of new officers? Mr. Brann. The COPS MORE program you are making reference to continues to be a very high priority. The COPS MORE program, the agencies are in fact quite anxious to start submitting their applications on that. The final date, we will actually have the COPS MORE 1998 program application completed. It has been to OMB for approval and we are awaiting final word on that. We expect to have the solicitation on that announced next week, the first week of April. The deadline on that one is going to be the end of May, at which time we will start awarding the 1998 technology grants under the MORE program. Mr. Rogers. Is there quite a bit of interest in it? Mr. Brann. There continues to be a very high level of interest in this. Mr. Rogers. Now do you estimate that there will be carryover funds available in the COPS program at the end of fiscal 1998? Mr. Brann. Yes, we continue to project that there will be carryover available. Again, I do need to come back to the fact that this is tied to the staffing issues, our ability to move this funding. I am grateful for the cooperation we have received from the staff on that. We did submit the reprogramming request, which was provided for in this year's appropriation, and I am hopeful that it will be signed. Mr. Rogers. Any other changes to the COPS program that you would recommend? Mr. Brann. The associate attorney general, Ray Fisher and I were on the road this past week, and again this was one of the major issues we were focusing on, was what the local agencies are identifying. We continue to hear especially from the large jurisdictions about the need for technology, equipment. The earmarks that are currently provided for have also drawn a great deal of interest. The school program is an example. I would have to say that not just this recent trip but what I have heard fairly consistent from around the country is a combination of agencies that are desirous of additional positions. Those that tend to be better staffed are more focused on the technology and equipment kinds of issues. As you are aware, the actual Crime Act language precludes us to some extent from meeting some of those needs only because these agencies do have to show redeployment as a result before we could fund them. So we have been as flexible as we possibly can with the MORE program to achieve that objective. Police Corps Program Mr. Rogers. Now over the past three years we have provided $60 million for the Police Corps Program, and I understand that $57.8 million of this funding is still not obligated, and yet you want $20 million more. You have only spent $2.2 million in three years out of $60 million and you want $20 million more this year. Why have you not spent those monies, and do you need another $20 million for 1999 to lay around again? Mr. Brann. The Police Corps Program, you are correct, Mr. Chairman, what has been obligated to date is just about $2.2 million. We have not begun to touch the fiscal year 1998 appropriations on this front yet. But of the $30 million that had been appropriated in the two prior years, based upon the discussions with the States and the commitments made to them, the committed funds actually total at this stage about $29 million. Those are not obligated because we actually have to wait for those States to come back with the specifics of who it is that is going to receive those dollars. These are done on a case-by-case basis and every individual student actually has to receive a grant. And they identify-- they have identified what their needs are, their total needs. But they have, in all cases, not necessarily identified the students. So I expect that out of this, clearly we have $29 million at this stage that we will be obligating as soon as all that information is in. That, however, does not mean that we have obligated anything out of this year's appropriation. Mr. Rogers. Well, there is still going to be $30 million sitting there and now you want $20 million. This program has not really caught fire, has it? Mr. Brann. No. In fact I would have to be honest with you and say that the States--this is really dependent upon the States coming back based upon the solicitation that we have sent out to them. To date we have gotten 17 States to participate in the program. We are continuing to encourage the other States to apply. But you are correct, it has not generated the intense level of interest that I think might have been surmised early on. Office of Justice Program Structure Mr. Rogers. Ms. Robinson, we have been extremely supportive of State and local assistance programs to address crime. Funding for OJP grant programs since 1995 has increased by 213 percent rom $1.1 billion to $3.4 billion. With that growth we have all seen the complexity and scope ofOJP's programs increase immensely. We have been concerned about instances of duplication and overlap that we believe are rooted in your agency's structure and then magnified by the growth. The report you submitted to the Committee regarding OJP coordination, duplication, and overlap issues confirms our concerns that there are lost opportunities for responding to crime, and tremendous inefficient use of resources as a result of the current OJP structure. I could cite many quotes from the report. ``OJP's current structure creates many obstacles to ensuring an integrated approach to the problems of crime facing the Nation. Steps to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency in the Justice Department, State, and local crime control program could provide more continuity and coordination and potentially conserve financial and staff resources. They could also provide a management infrastructure to ensure greater accountability for the impact of the substantial dollars Congress has invested in the program.'' Further in the report, ``Despite the tremendous amount of money that Congress is putting into State and local criminal justice, a comprehensive plan for directing funds at key problems cannot be effectively implemented when there are a host of separate decision-makers who retain the authority to steer programs as they choose.'' As stewards of the taxpayers' money, we are obligated to address that kind of problem. I am going to ask you what we need to do, short term and long term. Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, as you know from the report that I submitted to you, this is an issue that has been of concern to the Attorney General and to me and many others within the leadership structure of the Department. I think there are several options that could be pursued here. One option is clearly to do nothing except increase the number of coordinating working groups, joint conferences, joint publications, and the like; an effort which I think we have put a great deal of energy into over the past four and-a-half years. A second option, which could be done on a more short term basis, would be to consider the notion of consolidating the final grant authority in one decision-maker, giving that authority to the Attorney General for delegation down to the Assistant Attorney General or however that would be structured. A third option, which I believe would be a longer term consideration for the Congress, would be to look at the basic structure of the program. Right now, as you indicate, there are a number of statutorily created separate bureaus within OJP. They have, by statute, greatly overlapping subject area jurisdiction. In some cases there is a clear niche--e.g. development of statistics, research and evaluation. But in the programmatic area, there is and remains tremendous overlap. About two years ago I hosted a one-day retrospective in Washington inviting back all of the past leaders of the LEAA and OJP, and it was interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that from every era and from both political parties their recommendation was that a unified structure was what was needed down the road to ensure that the money is targeted in the best way and really presents a comprehensive and unified approach. So it seems to me at some point Congress and the Administration need to take a harder look at the basic structure of OJP and see whether a unified structure for the agency would result in a more streamlined and focused program. Mr. Rogers. How much money could we save, do you think, if we did this? Ms. Robinson. The money saved, I suspect, would be somewhat minimal on the administration end. Only 2.6 percent of our entire request is management and administration. There would be savings, however, in my view, because there is duplicate structure within the bureaus for areas like publications and administration budget and other areas. In addition to that though, it seems to me that what it does is ensure--let us take an area like courts--to ensure that the work across all of the bureaus and offices within OJP is focused in a way to leverage it, to ensure that it is going to have the greatest impact when it reaches States and local communities. That in the end is a cost savings as well. Mr. Rogers. Have you compiled or can you get for us the legislative changes that would be required in your option three, the third option you gave us? We need to know, I need to know what particular statutes need to be amended and where and how in order to achieve some degree of uniformity, and to avoid duplication and overlap. Ms. Robinson. I would be happy to work with you and the Subcommittee staff on that. I think what we would need to do is step back and look at the broad range of statutes that govern the OJP operations. Mr. Rogers. I would like to have in my hands the particular, specific legislative changes that would achieve the goal here, and I would like to be able to get that to the Judiciary Committee, or the appropriate committee--I assume it would be Judiciary--and try to encourage them to do this. So I guess what I am saying to you is, I am volunteering my help. Ms. Robinson. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and we will be happy to work with you. Mr. Rogers. I suspect there would be others, around this table especially, that would be interested in having you do that. Ms. Robinson. Thank you. drug treatment initiatives Mr. Rogers. Now you are requesting another new initiative, $85 million, for drug treatment of prisoners; $72 million for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program for State prisoners authorized under the Crime Bill, and to allow States to use any and all of their State prison grant funds for drug treatment instead of prison construction. Since States already can obtain substance abuse grants from HHS and can use those grant monies on their prisoners, why is Justice proposing new programs for drug treatment for State prisoners that overlap already what is there? Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, the Department is requesting this money for two reasons. The first reason is that we know the strong link, as I indicated before, between drug use and crime. We know from the research that interventions and treatment can reduce recidivism and reduce future victimization. The second reason is that the block grant funding through HHS for drug treatment (a) is limited, and (b) does not go primarily to criminal justice populations. The great priority in the States is not on the criminal justicepopulation. The $85 million requested here would in fact go to local communities as opposed to the residential substance abuse treatment money that would go to States for State prison inmates. Local communities are seeing the large influx of defendants coming in at the front end, and many of those need drug testing and need drug treatment interventions and sanctions to try to get them off of drugs. So the money in the $85 million pot would be used specifically for drug testing and treatment interventions for persons on pre-trial release status, on probation, and at the stage where they are in jail pre-trial. Mr. Rogers. Now in the request you asked for a proposed language change which allows State prison construction grant money to be used for drug treatment going to prisoners. It is somewhat vague, that language is, in that it may be interpreted to allow any and all of those funds to be used for treatment. If that were so, the $150 million earmarked for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program could effectively be eliminated. What was intended by the language? Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, it was not our intention to eliminate the earmark of $150 million for the SCAAP program. Our intention here was to give flexibility to the States for the prison-building money there, particularly for jurisdictions--Texas and Virginia are two of them as an example, that feel they have adequate prison space right now but are trying desperately to address the addiction problems and needs of inmates within the facilities. As you know, last year we required for the first time that every State, in order to receive its prison-building money starting in the next fiscal year, has to have implemented a comprehensive drug testing, treatment, and intervention program for everyone within the correctional system. The States view this as an important area to work on, but it costs money. They have come to us asking whether some of their prison-building money, particularly where they have an adequate number of cells, could be used for that purpose. One thing you might want to consider, Mr. Chairman, if you were open to this, is limiting the amount of money, the percentage of money they could spend for that purpose. Mr. Rogers. We certainly do not want the SCAAP money to be used for that purpose. Ms. Robinson. That was not the intention. state criminal alien assistance program Mr. Rogers. I am glad to know that. That helps. Now the California members wanted us to inquire as to why the 1997 awards have not yet been distributed. What is the status? Ms. Robinson. The 1997 SCAAP awards should be out within the next month. Let me back up and give you a quick chronology of where we are and how we got there. The guidelines went out last spring for that program, which as you may recall, saw some major statutory changes to include localities because of the inclusion of misdemeanor offenders in the pool. We sent out applications by late spring, and the applications were due back to us from the States and localities in August. As part of this, as you know, each State, or locality needs to do a compilation, of the number of aliens in their facilities, the amount of time they spent, and any other indicators that can help us in identifying whether the offender is legal or illegal. We got those tapes back in. They submit disks to us. We got those back in to BJA after the deadline in August and we began working with INS this fall for the verification tape runs. INS, as you may know, has a database of about 14 million individuals against which we can run the tapes. The process took longer than we thought. We were nearing completion in January when the State of Michigan came to us and asked us to reopen the process. The Governor's office asked us whether--because they had an administrative oversight and had failed to apply for the program--we would be willing to reopen it so as to include them in the award process. After consideration of that we agreed to do that. The process was opened for one month in order to give any jurisdiction that had an interest an opportunity to apply. We received 19 applications in, including Michigan and two other States. We are now running those tapes and we expect the awards to be out within the month. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. cooperative agreement program Mr. Latham. I just would clarify my question earlier about the U.S. Marshals. It is in the Cooperative Agreement Program, you have $25 million in your request. Ms. Robinson. Yes. Mr. Latham. Was that their request, or how did you--what is the justification for $25 million? Ms. Robinson. I am sorry I had not understood your question before, but yes. Mr. Latham. What is the justification? How did you come to that? Ms. Robinson. The justification there, that is something that the Attorney General requested be included in the budget. It was in the budget last year as well. It basically is money which the Marshals use to reimburse local jails when they are holding prisoners in those local jails. Mr. Latham. I have got some communities that would like to tap into that also. I am just wondering, is that enough? Do you have any opinion as to where that number should be? Ms. Robinson. That was the number which the Department provided to us. We will get back to you on that issue. Mr. Latham. That is all, Mr. Chairman. domestic violence programs Mr. Rogers. Now it is our understanding, Ms. Robinson, that Legal Services Corporation and their grantees can obtain money for domestic violence programs for clients that they represent that fall within that category under both the Violence Against Women Act, the STOP program, and civil legal assistance set- asides. LSC though has requested money for its own domestic violence initiatives. Are you coordinating with them to ensure that they and their grantees are able to access VAWA monies that you administer? Ms. Robinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have been working very closely with the Legal Services Corporation. We have had a number of meetings with them and their local offices would certainly be eligible grantees under the Civil Legal Assistance program. By the way, we are very excited about that program. We thank you for including that in the budget. In the months since the appropriation passed we have been doing a good deal of outreach to the criminal justice community, domestic violence victim services providers, and others out there, as well as bar associations and law schools. As I say, there is tremendous interest in that program. I think there are some differences in the focus of what we would do vis-a-vis what I think Legal Services ordinarily does. For example, in our grant program we are going to bestressing from applicants' collaborative ventures reaching out to work with domestic violence victim advocates, to reach out to bar associations, and to try to leverage some of the volunteer manpower from bars or from law school legal clinics in a way that I think ordinarily the LSC local offices may not. Mr. Rogers. That is good. But there are no obstacles to them successfully obtaining violence funds that you control? Ms. Robinson. They are certainly eligible applicants, yes. Mr. Rogers. That is good. Thank you. Mr. Latham, anything further? Mr. Latham. No. Mr. Rogers. Thank you all very much for your testimony. I think it is good to have the three of you here at the same time because we get a better perspective on the larger terrain. Anything further any of you would like to add? Mr. Brann. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring one thing to your attention. My staff is more efficient than I have given them credit for. I would like to let Mr. Latham know that the tri-state meth program was in fact obligated last Friday on the 20th. There was a special condition, there was an issue regarding a road---- Mr. Latham. Which we have never requested. But they were there last Monday. They told them what they could not use the money for, but they have not told them what they can use it for. There is no criteria yet that we have been advised. Mr. Brann. I will follow up on this. But the information that I have is it was actually obligated last Friday, but I will make sure that those issues get resolved. I just wanted to get that on the record. Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned. Questions Submitted by Representative David Skaggs $75,000 cap on hiring grants Question. What effect does this restriction [the $75,000] have on the flexibility of the DOJ to grant funds in higher cost areas? Answer. We are aware that the $75,000 cap does pose concerns for grantees and potential applicants that have higher salary and benefits costs. As you know, COPS grants fund up to 75 percent of the costs of hiring officers up to $75,000 over three years. Many communities, however, have officer costs that exceed $100,000 over three years. These communities end up paying more than 25 percent of the costs. Lifting the cap will allow these communities to make greater use of COPS hiring grants and it will also give the COPS Office greater flexibility in meeting the needs of America's law enforcement agencies. Question. Is the $75,000 cap necessary to allow DOJ to reach the goal of 100,000 additional officers? Answer. We are committed to fulfilling the mission of the COPS program to add 100,000 community policing officers to the streets. We would not propose lifting the cap if we felt it would hinder our ability to reach the 100,000 officer goal. Question. What changes are necessary to allow DOJ to give more COPS grants in higher cost areas? Answer. The Administration has submitted a reprogramming request to the committee to allow COPS to lift the $75,000 cap on grants. Approval of this request will make it possible for COPS to better serve communities with higher officer costs by assuring that all grantees receive a full 75 percent of their officer costs. Tuesday, March 31, 1998. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE WITNESS DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. We welcome this morning Doris Meissner, the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who will testify on the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. You are requesting almost $4.2 billion for the INS in 1999, an increase of $392 million; 10-percent over the amount that the Congress provided in 1998. This Subcommittee has provided INS with its largest increases in history over the past three years to address the problem of illegal immigration. INS' budget has grown at a rate greater than any Federal law enforcement agency during this time; from $2 billion in 1995 to $3.8 billion in 1998; an 83-percent increase. The Nation now has more immigration law enforcement officials than FBI, DEA, or Bureau of Prisons. Yet, we still have some of the same problems we had two years ago, and for that matter, ten years ago. The illegal alien population residing in this country is still the same; over 5 million and it is growing at a similar or a greater rate than in the past, despite a 94-percent increase in enforcement resources. Intending immigrants legitimately seeking green cards, asylum, and naturalizations still face inefficiency, antiquated processes, tremendous delays, and poor service forbenefits which they are directly charged through INS fees. This is despite a 150-percent increase in resources for INS service activities over the last three years. I have come to a point where I believe we are probably asking too much of any one agency and too much of you, Madam Commissioner, to manage the overwhelming responsibilities of our immigration system with an agency that is entrenched with inefficiency and ineptitude. The ship you have been trying to turn the last four years, I am afraid is so covered with barnacles that it will not respond. We worked together in the past with you to try to give you the resources that you need to address our most pressing priorities. I think we now must look together at ways to restore credibility to our immigration system and look beyond just trying to save an agency. That should be how can we fulfill this terribly important mission that has been given to this agency which has not been carried? At this point, we will insert your written statement in the record. You are invited to summarize as you would like in your opening statement. Ms. Meissner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Let me start by thanking you for the support that you have given us over the last several years. The new resources that you have just detailed are producing significant and concrete results at a time in which the immigration challenges facing the Federal Government have never been greater. Social, political, and economic changes in the last several years have put tremendous enforcement pressures on our borders and created record level demands for immigration services. Nonetheless, we have made important differences in communities around the country like in Brownsville, Texas where Operation Rio Grande is credited with helping to restore order and commerce in the downtown area. In Storm Lake, Iowa where our efforts to identify illegal workers in meat packing plants have helped return $11 an hour jobs to American workers. In New York City where we worked with Federal and Local law enforcement officials to obtain nearly 20 felony smuggling convictions in the exploitation of dozens of hearing and speech impaired Mexicans who were being held in virtual slavery. These accomplishments are not an accident. Last fiscal year we set many tough performance goals and we have met them. We set a goal of continuing to deter border crossers in San Diego. Apprehensions there last year reached a 17- year low. We set a goal of removing 93,000 illegal aliens with criminal records or without standing removal orders. We topped our goal by 20,000; having removed 113,000 criminals or removable aliens. We set a goal of hiring and training more than 5,000 people and we did. We set a goal of focusing our work site enforcement efforts on bigger cases and those with criminal violations. We exceeded those goals in completion of criminal cases by 29-percent and administrative cases by 25-percent. We set a goal to reduce the back-log of asylum cases and to keep current on new case receipts. Last year, we processed nearly 140,000 asylum cases, which is a 160-percent increase over 1994. We significantly cut our case backlog for the first time in three years. So, the year was a productive one, not just from the standpoint of how we met specific performance goals, but for a number of other reasons as well. We made a key internal change by bringing in an entirely new team of senior managers to head the Agency; a new Deputy Commissioner, a new Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations, three new Regional Directors, and a new Chief of the Border Patrol. We began enforcing a complex sweeping new law that gives significant new authority to the INS. In implementing the Illegal Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, we have retrained half of our staff, writing and implementing more than 60 regulations and creating 70 new forms. We also began putting into place a new infrastructure for the Naturalization Program. When I appeared before you last April, the Naturalization Program was in critical condition. The number of citizenship applications had tripled. Our system was simply not equipped to handle the crush. No one voiced greater concern about the lapses in reliability and credibility than did you, Mr. Chairman. In response, we established organization within INS Headquarters to focus solely on naturalization. By streamlining the chain of command, we have restored accountability and made significant progress toward building a Citizenship Program that is both customer oriented and secure. We instituted stringent new quality assurance procedures, including requiring verified FBI fingerprint checks for every naturalization applicant. A December audit by KPMG Pete Marwick has validated that these new procedures are working and that this is a system in which Congress and the public can have confidence. A year ago, more than half of the citizenship fingerprint cards prepared by outside providers were being rejected by the FBI as unreadable. That created unnecessary delays for applicants and raised concerns about the integrity of the process. Since the termination of the Designated Fingerprint Services Program four months ago, at your direction, we have completely revamped the fingerprinting process, bringing it in- house by creating 120 of our own centers and adding new technology to prevent data entry mistakes and reduce delays. The result, today, the fingerprint rejection rate is under 2-percent. A year ago, the majority of citizenship applications were being mailed to our over-burdened district offices for pre-processing; a system which contributed to delays and inefficiency. By mid-April, all naturalization applications will be mailed directly to our four highly automated service centers, freeing up personnel in our districts to focus on adjudicating the applications. Once INS did lack the resources it needed to do our job. Now, we are proving that when we are given the resources, we can do the job. We are not all that we can be. We are not all that we are going to be, but we certainly are not what we once were. We clearly recognize that we can do better and that wemust. Sticking with the status quo is simply not an option. Mr. Chairman, you have expressed your frustration that the INS does not seem to be changing fast enough. As the person in charge of leading this fast growing Agency, I can honestly tell you that I share that frustration. You asked the Attorney General and me to look at the proposal that the Commission on Immigration Reform put forward to improve the management of the Federal Immigration System and to report back to you with our recommendations. The Attorney General and I have treated your request as a real opportunity for INS. The Administration has seized upon it as well. In recent months, several organizations and individuals have also put forward proposals for restructuring INS. At the President's direction, the White House Domestic Policy Council reviewed the Commission's proposal and others, working with OMB, consulting with various Executive Branch agencies, and immigration experts outside the Government to evaluate reform ideas. What is most striking about the various reform proposals are not the differences, but the similarities. When you get down to it, we all share a similar goal, which is a more efficient, effective immigration system. Based on its review, the Administration determined that the Commission and others had correctly diagnosed many of INS' long-standing problems. With that in mind, we are seeking to improve accountability, consistency, and professionalism by fundamentally restructuring the INS. Working with the Department of Justice, INS hired a leading management consulting firm to provide an independent assessment and to help INS design a better structure. Our proposal untangles INS' overlapping and frequently confusing structure and replaces it with two clear chains of command. One chain would accomplish our enforcement mission. The other would provide services to legal immigrants and their families. The proposal calls for changing the existing field structure of regions and districts and creating new jurisdictions tailored to meet local service and enforcement needs. Finally, it establishes a shared support operation to serve as the administrative and technological backbone upon which the enforcement and service operations depend. On the enforcement side, our new frame work would lead to improved results by ensuring that priorities are shared and that day-to-day operations are closely coordinated among each enforcement discipline. We would achieve this by establishing new jurisdictions around the country called enforcement areas. The enforcement areas would oversee all enforcement related functions in their geographical area, including the Border Patrol, investigations, inspections, detention, and deportation. On the service side, our goal is to create an organization geared toward providing consistent and high quality service at every INS Office nationwide. There should be no advantage or disadvantage for individual applicants dealing with this agency based on where they live. We plan to establish neighborhood-based customer services offices across the country, providing an array of services from fingerprinting to interviewing. These offices would be staffed by service oriented professionals and their Directors would be held accountable for meeting nationally established standards for timely processing and courteous service. By retaining both of these functions within a single agency, the Reform Plan would ensure that both enforcement and service operations are appropriately coordinated and supported by Headquarters. To ensure the necessary coordination and integration, and to promote efficiency, we would establish a shared support operation that would serve as the administrative and technological backbone for both the enforcement and service chains of command of the agency. The new structural frame work also offers benefits to INS staff. For the first time, clear career paths would be established for enforcement and service personnel, allowing the Agency to attract, promote, and retain the best qualified employees. As for the cost of this proposal, we believe it would be minimal. For example, since we are responding to heightened demands in enforcement and service already, we have requested substantial resources in fiscal year 1999 for office space, construction of additional facilities, as well as new staff. The cost of the restructuring proposal could be absorbed within this and future growth. Those resources would provide the necessary foundation for implementing the structure we are proposing. We believe that we are giving you a cost-effective common sense approach that will maximize the return on investment that the Congress and the public have made in this Agency. For fiscal year 1999, we are seeking a total of $4.2 billion and 31,499 positions. This number represents a $390 million increase in funding over this year's spending level and adds more than 2,600 positions. The details of that request are in the long statement which is submitted for the record. With this money, we will continue to produce results and build on the progress that we have made in the last several years. We will do what you and what the American peopleexpect of us, uphold our Nation's tradition as a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws. Thank you very much. [The statement of Ms. Meissner follows:] [Pages 590 - 624--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] ins reorganization Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Commissioner. Now, in the appropriations for the current year, we, as you mentioned, directed that the Attorney General review the Commission on Immigration Reform, the so-called Barbara Jordan Commission's Recommendations, on reorganizing our Nation's efforts at stopping illegal immigration and giving intended immigrants proper service, as well as enforcing our laws. We set a date of April 1st, which is of course tomorrow. Late last week, the White House Legislative Office briefed my staff with representatives from OMB and INS on the Administration's proposal. No one from main Justice was invited to attend, even though the Attorney General was the one we looked to, to conduct the review and submit the report. She and her people were not there. It was the White House people. I am told that in preparing this plan that you are mentioning today, that the review process of that plan and the review process of the Barbara Jordan Commission was dominated, not by you, the experts in the field, nor by Justice, whom we asked to report to the Congress, but it was dominated by the White House. Justice's role was negligible. Even worse, it seems likely that Booze Allen, who was hired by you to ``independently'' develop restructuring options, was told only to consider keeping the INS in tact. That, that was the overriding consideration. There is no evidence that any serious attempt was made to evaluate the Barbara Jordan's Commission proposal or Representative Reyes' proposal to create a separate enforcement agency within Justice. So, here we are. This is another papered-over reorganization attempt. We have had 50,000 of these of INS over the last several years. I mean since you have been here, you have reorganized how many times? Before you were here, the last Commissioner reorganized and so on and so forth back ad infinitum. I know you are well- intentioned and I know you are trying the best you can. I have reluctantly, over 15 years now, after that period of time come to the conclusion that the mission that we have given--that Congress gave the Agency--is a contradictory, self-destructive mission. I do not think you or anyone else, I do not think the best manager in the work, of which you may be the one or among those, could manage this process. I do not think it is manageable. I have studied the Barbara Jordan Commission Report and have concluded that it is about the only way that we can manage this mission. I am sad that you apparently did not pay much attention to that Commission, a group of high-minded citizens who know a lot about this subject, who spent two years or more studying how best to deal with the problem and they have no axe to grind. Tell us why you did not consider or why somebody did not consider the Barbara Jordan Commission findings? I know you did, but you were dictated to by the White House. Why did they not consider Barbara Jordan's findings? Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, let me try to clarify this process of what has been taking place. First, I think it is very important that I make clear that the Justice Department and the Immigration Service have worked very closely on this assignment that you have given us. That has included many people in the Justice Department and in the INS, as well as the Attorney General personally and myself personally. We have, I think, spent as much time on this issue and on the proposal that we have put forward as any single thing that I can recall in my time in the Agency. We have, as you know, in addition to the internal efforts that were made, made a serious commitment to work closely with a leading consulting firm, Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. That has been a very intensive effort. That is an effort and a contract for which the technical management was actually provided by the Justice Department, by people in the Justice Management Division. Mr. Colgate and I have personally devoted a great deal of time to this. So, what has happened has really been a parallel effort. At the same time that the Justice Department and the Immigration Service were looking at what we believed would be the best way to proceed, there was an Administration-wide effort taking place to review the Commission's proposals. That is simply because the Commission spoke to not simply the Justice Department, but it spoke to several other agencies of the Federal Government, the State Department, and the Labor Department. The Administration received those recommendations with serious statements in the fall to review them. Indeed, that is what occurred. The President asked the Domestic Policy Council to lead that review. That was an inter-Agency review by the very nature of the subject. The INS and the Justice Department participated in that review, but several other agencies participated in that review as well. The ultimate recommendation and decision that was reached from the standpoint of the Administration was that the Commission's proposals were not the best way to go at this time. They would be protracted. They would likely be costly. That instead, the best way to proceed would be with a fundamental restructuring of the Immigration Service so that we could best take advantage of the interaction and theinter- connectivity that exist between our enforcement and our service missions. People often see our enforcement and our service missions as contradictory, as you have explained. In fact, we believe that when you look closely at them, they are mutually reenforcing responsibilities. When you are giving benefits you have to be every bit as concerned about the legal immigrant receiving those benefits as you need to be concerned about the potential for fraud and abuse and misuse of those benefit programs. Similarly, when you are doing enforcement, deporting aliens from the Country, for instance, it is extremely important to recognize whether the person has a legal benefit or eligibility to remain in the Country and be certain that, that process is carried out with all of the information available. So, what we have come to now is a proposal that is a fundamental restructuring of the Agency. It is not a reorganization that is like any prior. I did one reorganization in 1994 when I first arrived. This is a different way of doing business. It establishes two separate chains of command. The objective is accountability. The objective is improved performance overall. The objective is to reduce spans of control so that there is a greater focus on the variety of responsibilities that we have. It is consistent with the next step of the growth that, as you very properly recounted, has been extraordinarily ambitious to manage. It will, I believe, in the next several years get us to where we need to be. Mr. Rogers. How long will it take you to implement the plan? Ms. Meissner. The preliminary estimates that we have are for a three-year time frame. That is ambitious. This is a fundamental reform. It must be done properly. Mr. Rogers. So, you are saying three years. Ms. Meissner. But we would have a series of gains as we go along the way. It would not be something that waits for three years. It would begin in the year beginning now. Mr. Rogers. For 15 years, I have sat here and listened to Commissioner after Commissioner reorganize INS. I mean, we have had, I will bet you, 15 reorganizations since I have been on this Subcommittee. Each one was well-intentioned, holding out the promise that we would finally solve the problem and have an effective Agency carrying out the missions for the Nation and for intended immigrants the way it should, all of which have not only failed, but exacerbated the problem. This Agency comes here with a good deal of lack of credibility. We could go on all day at reciting the short comings. Citizenship U.S.A., where you naturalized thousands of convicted felons, all in the name of intending to gain voters in November; granting the Nation's most precious gift, citizenship, by violating the law to do so, by the tens of thousands. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Then you deceived Congress itself, the Agency officials had, visiting the Miami District Office where they were lied to by high ranking officials of INS who have not been disciplined. There are over 600 investigations of fraud and public corruption by INS officials, even as late as last week. There are over 5 million illegal aliens still in the country. No improvement in that situation since 1986; almost 12 years ago. There are questions by the Inspector General of the Department and the GAO, whether the Border Patrol strategy has made an impact. There are ineffective strategies for removing aliens in the Interior. We have had a catastrophic break down of the fingerprinting system, which we made you fix. You have had fraud in the testing system; bribery of testing officials. We could go on the rest of the day. I am tired of it. There is no way you can fix this Agency. I wish the White House would have listened to those people, well-intentioned citizens, the Barbara Jordan Commission, and followed those broad recommendations and done what needs to be done. That is to assign the visa process back to the State Department so that we have one Agency from A to Z monitoring the visas, and who is overstaying and who is not. You cannot tell me today how many overstays there are in this Country today. No one can because two agencies deal with it. State deals with it in the origin country. They hand it off to you over here. Neither of you have any accountability about who is here and who is not. That is intolerable. The Commission recommended that the Department of Labor enforce the labor laws in this Country where illegal aliens are being employed by domestic employers. Probably most importantly, Congressman Reyes, former Border Patrol Agent says, that the Border Patrol Team is absolutely a Chinese fire drill. We have got DEA down there doing one thing. You have got Customs agents doing another. You have got FBI doing another. You have got Border Patrol doing another and the Department of Labor people doing something else. It is, number one, not working. Number two, it is ineffective. Three, it is so simple to cure. Congressman Reyes proposes, and I think he is right, that we have a single Border Patrol Agency that does the work of all of these requirements that our laws require with the power to do all, not just a tiny fraction of the whole. You have completely ignored it. The White House has. They are the same people that infiltrated your regional offices to make fraudulent the Citizenship U.S.A. process in 1996. I see, again, the White House fingerprints all over this process. I am just going to tell you, it ain't going to work again. Do you want to respond? Ms. Meissner. Let me try to be very clear about the seriousness with which the Attorney General and I have addressed the issue of the structure of the INS. We have looked at the Commission proposal. We have looked at our own Agency. We have looked at the other proposals that are there. We have looked at what we believe we share with you as goals, which are accountability, improved performance, effective return on investment for the dollars that you and we have advocated be put into this Agency. We have come up with a proposal that addresses those goals. We believe that it is a proposal that is workable, that can be done. It is consistent with the growth that we have experienced. It is consistent with establishing and building on professionalism to be accountable, to be moreeffective in our customer service, to have an enforcement program that effectively deters illegal immigration. If we had believed that the Commission's proposal was the best way and the most workable way to achieve those goals, we would have endorsed that. We believe the Commission provided a very, very important catalyst to a discussion that might not otherwise have taken place. Their goals are similar to the goals that we are working toward. We have put forward a plan that we believe will get us there sooner and more effectively, and that will leverage build-on, take the best advantage of the interaction that must exist between enforcement and service in order to have an immigration system that works effectively. The White House's involvement in this is the involvement of being the lead in convening an inter-Agency review that involved other departments than the Department of Justice and the Immigration Service. It was a companion piece and a parallel piece. What I would hope is that you would give us the opportunity in a setting where we can go through the organization charts, work through what the career path implications of this would be, lay out for you the more detailed planning that we are presently providing in order to try to be convincing. Mr. Rogers. Madam Commissioner, this Agency does not even respond to your directives. You send out orders that are absolutely ignored. This Agency has its own encrusted bureaucracy that no one tells how to operate. These autocrats out there in this organization, you will have to admit, does not respond to your present-day directives. I do not know how you would expect them to respond to radically changing their stature. They just will not do it. The bottom line is, even if we approved your reorganization plan and funded it, it could not be implemented. They will not respond to it. Ms. Meissner. First of all, where responsiveness and accountability is concerned, I certainly have experienced serious frustrations in achieving that. So, I am very well- aware of the encrusted nature of some of the---- Mr. Rogers. If you cannot discipline a member of your organization that lies to Congress in the Miami Office, how can you ever think about reorganizing an Agency from top to bottom? Ms. Meissner. Well, because what this plan does is break apart the current structure and the range of authority that the key field managers currently carry. What this proposal does is eliminate the district offices. It eliminates the current regions. It replaces them with two separate chains of command; one for enforcement and one for immigrant services. Mr. Rogers. I understand that. You have said that before. I am just saying to you, how can you tell us that---- Ms. Meissner. By redistributing the authorities of the people that currently hold too broad of authority and too broad of a span of control. It narrows the spans of control, and focuses the authority, and creates accountability of chains of command that are manageable. Mr. Rogers. I think you are trying to rearrange the furniture on the deck of the Titanic, to coin a phrase. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, congratulations are in order. I see Kentucky did very well, as usual. So, congratulations from this side of the aisle. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. What did you think about our guard? Mr. Mollohan. He was terrific. He was just great, Mr. Chairman. West Virginia came close. They did very well. It would have been great if we were in the finals. Mr. Rogers. It would have been. Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Commissioner, welcome to the hearing. Ms. Meissner. Good morning. ident system Mr. Mollohan. I join the Chairman in welcoming you. We have, in the past, talked a lot about your identification system, IDENT. I would like to talk about it a little bit here at this hearing. INS spent about $65 million one way or another in developing it and funding it. I am not sure how the development breaks out in that. Why do you not start out by telling us. How much money have you spent on development of the IDENT System? Ms. Meissner. My understanding is that the total cost of the IDENT System today has been $65 million. Mr. Mollohan. On development? Ms. Meissner. In total. That includes development. Mr. Mollohan. I was asking you to break out development. Ms. Meissner. I would have to get that number for the record. Mr. Mollohan. Well, it is probably maybe upwards of half of that; maybe not quite that much. I am not sure. Does somebody have that number? [Negative response from the audience.] Ms. Meissner. We will have to get it for you. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. [The information follows:] IDENT Development Costs From October 1994 (FY 1995) to the end of FY 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service spent $6.7 million on IDENT development. Mr. Mollohan. When did you start on this IDENT System; how long ago? Ms. Meissner. We actually began to deploy it---- Mr. Mollohan. No, no. When did you start developing it? When did you conceive it and start developing it? Ms. Meissner. In about 1994. It actually was an outgrowth of a system that we used during the Cuban/Haitian influx to keep track of people and create identity cards in Guantanamo. Mr. Mollohan. That is a similar timeframe that another organization in the Department of Justice, the FBI, was developing an IAFIS identification system, was it not? Ms. Meissner. I believe that the IAFIS pre-dates it, but they certainly have been taking place during that time period. Mr. Mollohan. In parallel; right? Ms. Meissner. That is correct; in parallel and compatibly. Mr. Mollohan. I am surprised you used that word, ``compatible'' because that is an issue I would like to get to. The point I want to make here is indeed, they were developed in parallel; were they not? There was not a lot of communication and coordination taking advantage of the IAFIS System as IDENT was conceivedand developed; was there? Ms. Meissner. The Justice Department reviews all of our automation planning and development just as it reviews the FBI's. One of the major objectives that we have to answer to is that systems be able to talk to each other. Mr. Mollohan. I did not ask what one of the systems was. I am very pleased for you to elaborate on your answers, but the fact is that there was not a lot of coordination between the two systems; the standards for development, the standards for the identification techniques. There was not coordination between the IDENT and the IAFIS System; was there? Ms. Meissner. Well, I believe that there was. Mr. Mollohan. Describe that coordination to me. You have a completely different standard for establishing your data bases. If you were coordinated, then you consciously decided not to develop the same standards for your data base collection. Ms. Meissner. Well, if what you are referring to is that they are different systems; that IAFIS is a system that captures all ten fingerprints and IDENT is a system that captures two fingerprints, that is correct. Mr. Mollohan. What I am really referring to is the fact that you are developing a $65 million system and it is going to cost you more money than that because you are going to have to, at the end of the day, spend a lot of money integrating and coordinating the IAFIS and IDENT Systems. I would hope that you would. You have done that and the FBI has spent several hundred million dollars developing IAFIS. The fact is that the IDENT System, because you did specifically tailor it to the perceived needs of the INS, is unable to communicate with the IAFIS System. Is that not correct? Ms. Meissner. It can communicate with the IAFIS System. Mr. Mollohan. It cannot communicate with the IAFIS System. You use a two-print system. Ms. Meissner. Correct. Mr. Mollohan. And you do not send that information to the FBI. Ms. Meissner. Okay. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. So, how could you communicate with them? Ms. Meissner. When the IAFIS is operative, which it is not, IAFIS is not a functioning system at the present time. Mr. Mollohan. Well, neither is IDENT, I would point out. I will get to the IG's Report here in just a moment. But they are systems in the making. So, it would make sense to do them in parallel. You are developing conceptually a different system. It is a two fingerprint system, which you do not enter into the IAFIS data base. Ms. Meissner. Okay. That is correct. It has a different purpose. Mr. Mollohan. Therefore, you cannot communicate with that IAFIS data base, law enforcement across the Nation, or with any of the State data bases. You could not communicate with any of the State data bases. Is that not correct? Ms. Meissner. IDENT is not a criminal history---- Mr. Mollohan. I know, ma'am. My question is, is that a yes or a no answer? Then I really would be pleased for you to elaborate on that answer. You cannot communicate with any of the State data bases. Is that a misstatement? Ms. Meissner. Through IDENT, I believe that is correct. Mr. Mollohan. I almost guarantee it is correct. I am not an expert, so I would be subject to correction there, but I think the answer is no you cannot. You cannot communicate. So, you are spending $65 million. You are processing a lot of illegal aliens that come across the border. You are very imperfectly, according to the recently released IG Report, collecting those two fingerprints into an IDENT System that is not useful for law enforcement. It seems strange to me for an agency to do that in the same department as the FBI, a sister agency. I am curious. Why would you do that? Why would you develop a system when this concern has been expressed, and expressed, and expressed. It is increasingly becoming a concern of the law enforcement agencies that do use the standard protocol of ten rolled fingerprints. You have a two-print system. Some of them are flat. Some of them are rolled. They are very imperfectly taken. Ms. Meissner. Could I try? Mr. Mollohan. I am inviting you to respond. Ms. Meissner. I really am trying to be responsive. Mr. Mollohan. I am inviting you to be responsive, please. Ms. Meissner. The purpose of the IDENT System is a different purpose of the IAFIS System. The IAFIS System has been operational and we have been deploying it since, I believe, 1995. It is, as you say, two index fingers. Its original purpose has been at the border in order to determine recidivists coming across the border so that we could, first of all, know whether we were encountering criminals that we had previously encountered, and also for broad data gathering purposes and analysis on the border. But most specifically to be able to---- Mr. Mollohan. It is to identify past illegal aliens. Ms. Meissner. And to be able to know quickly whether the people that we are booking are smugglers, first-time crossers, have committed crimes, have come from other criminal data bases, et cetera. Now, in addition---- Mr. Mollohan. You cannot do that, Madam Commissioner, respectfully. Ms. Meissner. The IDENT data base has a criminal population in it. Mr. Mollohan. Oh, okay. So, you mean if it is in the IDENT data base. Ms. Meissner. That is right. Mr. Mollohan. Is that not a very narrow view of all of this? Why would we continue to give you millions and millions of dollars to develop a program in parallel without interception with the IAFIS System? Why would you not be thinking in those terms when we invite you to think in those terms? It is not only Members of Congress, but it is serious law enforcement people who are concerned about this. Ms. Meissner. I think actually that it is fair to say that one of the reasons that this is now being thought about and discussed is because of the successes of the IDENT System. When the IDENT System was first put together, it was able to be mobilized rather quickly. The IAFIS System wasnot going to available on an automated basis until fiscal year 1999. Mr. Mollohan. I would submit to you that the IAFIS System is as far or further along than the IDENT System. Have you read the IG Report? Ms. Meissner. The IAFIS System is not available on a quick response basis as an automated system at the present time. Mr. Mollohan. Indeed it is not, but it can very soon be. Your IDENT System that you are developing in parallel is not either. One-third of the aliens apprehended along the border where the IDENT System was installed were not being checked, according to the IG Report. The report found serious deficiencies in the IDENT data base used to store fingerprints and records of deported criminal aliens. Sixty-percent of the fingerprints and records of aliens in these categories were not entered into the data base. And if they were, they could not be picked up by law enforcement who use ten fingerprint systems. Virtually no controls were in place to ensure the quality of data. IDENT's potential for helping develop coherent prosecution strategies for dealing with aliens who repeatedly cross the border illegally has not been fully realized. Communications and infrastructure problems have delayed the installation of IDENT work stations. Those are IG concerns. I assume you will correct all of these problems, because this is a system in development. So, I can understand all of that, except when you go to the point of kind of implying here that we need to stand up IDENT quickly. So, we stood it up quickly. Indeed, you have not stood it up quickly. Maybe you have stood it up as quickly as one could in a complicated information system, but it is not standing up any more quickly than IAFIS, and certainly not with the quality of the technology. But all of that aside, my concern is more fundamental. At the end of the day, this system is structurally flawed. It is, as you say, developed for INS purposes. It is a very narrow view for you to come to the Committee and ask for millions, and millions of dollars when IDENT is not even going to be useful in overall criminal law enforcement. Ms. Meissner. Let me try again. Because we have tried and are committed to systems that can interface and share information with other law enforcement systems, both Federal, State, and Local, that is critical. Moreover, the question that has been raised, that you have raised about whether or not we should be gathering ten prints instead of two prints through the IDENT process is one that we now are looking at, as you know, with the FBI, with the Justice Department leadership. The FBI just has come back, as a matter of fact, from visiting the border and understanding and seeing the IDENT System in use on the border. The feedback that we have from them is that they understand and endorse the merits of IDENT as it exist. They also want us to look at the potential for gathering ten prints for the purposes of broader law enforcement. We are now working to put a feasibility pilot effort into place. This probably will take place in Arizona, as a matter of fact, over the next month or two in order to determine indeed whether we can gather ten prints. We very much see ourselves working in concert with the FBI on this. It is also the case, as you have said, that we did move quickly with IDENT, as quickly as we could, at relatively low cost as compared to the IAFIS System, and with results much more quickly than would have been available to us by going with a ten-print system that would have relied on IAFIS which was not operational in an automated environment. Mr. Mollohan. I think a careful review would show that the benefits were marginal in terms of bringing it on-line. I am glad you did not mention that we do not have enough people to take ten prints or enough time to take prints because with the amount of money that this Chairman has put into this bill and the amount of people that you are bringing on-line would argue against that. I will continue to be concerned about this. I would invite the Department of Justice to look at the amount of money they are wasting developing two systems that cannot even communicate, and the bad example they are setting for the rest of law enforcement. What a powerful system we could have if we really would move with an example of integration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with the Chairman and Mr. Mollohan in congratulating Kentucky on its victory. Arizona did not want to hog it a second year in a row. Mr. Rogers. You denied us a championship last year. Mr. Kolbe. We wanted to share it with you this year. Based on the hearing so far, I would guess that Commissioner Meissner would rather be in San Antonio this morning celebrating with Arkansas. Commissioner, thank you very much. I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed by the Members that have gone before me about the operations and functioning of INS, but my questions are going to be a little narrower and a little bit more specific. nogales, arizona border patrol checkpoint I have only one, though that I want to get on the record as a parochial one dealing with an issue that we have had in my district. Last year's supplemental appropriation bill, prohibited INS from using funds to build a permanent check point in the interstate leading from Nogales. It directed you instead to implement a roving check point system which I have experienced several times as I have driven around the district. So, I know they are there. Can you tell me specifically the status of that permanent check point? I am particularly interested in knowing whether you have any plans to try to resurrect the idea of a permanent check point? Ms. Meissner. The language was very clear. That is what we are working with. We are doing, as you say, roving check points on, I believe, five or six different major arteries. I think the one that you are principally concerned with is the road leading directly out of Nogales to Tucson. I think that is I- 19. So, those check points are relocated every five to six weeks. We operate them intermittently, but as much as we possibly can. We are actually doing a study right now of those check points, vis-a-vis, the traffic and changes that we see at the border. We believe there is a direct relationship between pressure on the border and the check points. We will continue to operate them as temporary facilities. We are not sending you any plans on a permanent one. Mr. Kolbe. Okay. That is what I wanted to hear because that language would have been in the supplemental appropriation. It was not permanent law. I wanted to be clear that you are not so that I will not need to have to deal with this again. Ms. Meissner. I am unaware of any plan to do a permanent check point at the present time. Mr. Kolbe. I appreciate you telling me. Ms. Meissner. Is there something I can give you as a follow-up to that? Mr. Kolbe. You just said, I am not aware of any plans. Ms. Meissner. Let me try to verify that there are no plans. As I say, we have been quite engaged with those issues along the border and knowing your concerns about it, knowing the local community's concerns. I have been there and listened to the community on this. I think I would be aware if there was a permanent check point plan moving forward. [The information follows:] Roving Checkpoint in Arizona The Immigration and Naturalization Service has no plan to build a permanent Border Patrol traffic checkpoint in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector. douglas arizona border patrol station Mr. Kolbe. Just before the hearing, you and I had a little discussion about the construction at Douglas. I had earlier talked to you about the concern that I had, having visited there recently. That they are just being overwhelmed, that facility which was built only three or four years ago. It was just utterly overwhelmed by the numbers of people that are there. Would you just share with us for the record what the plans for that facility are? Ms. Meissner. Yes, certainly. I actually visited that station myself a little while ago. It is a very nice station. It is totally outgrown now by the staffing that we have there. You are correct. We do have a new Border Patrol station for Douglas in our planning. It is funded this year and next year. It is a three- year project. Construction will be in fiscal year 2000. This year, we are doing the environment study and the site preparation. Next year is the design. It will be in a contiguous area to the current station just to the west of where the current station exists. It will be able to accommodate 300 agents and support staff. Right now we have just under 200; about 180, 190 agents. This should give us the size station that we need. new border crossing cards Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. Let me turn to a larger issue, but one that also has tremendous impact in the border communities. That is of the concern that I just cannot tell you how deep this concern is held about the new border crossing cards and the transition of moving the adjudication of these cards from INS to the State Department. We will just call these for a simple term laser visa. Now, the law says that you are to begin tomorrow. That the State Department is to begin the adjudication of these. You will continue to actually prepare the cards. As of October 1st, the transition is supposed to be complete, including the replacement of all of the existing cards. Everybody from the State Department and INS has told us that that is not realistic. Would you tell us: (a) where we are with regard to the program as it begins tomorrow for the issuance of new cards, (b) what the plan is for the replacement of the cards, and (c) if you cannot meet that time table, what INS and the State Department plans to do with Congress to change that. Ms. Meissner. Okay. The new border crossing card, laser visa, excuse me, that is to be issued beginning tomorrow with a biometric is starting to be issued out of applications filed in Juarez. That is the first site. The cards themselves will be delayed by a few weeks, but only by a few weeks. That should only be a problem for people in Juarez. Everybody else along the border can continue to use their current card or the temporary B1, B2 visa that the State Department is issuing. The reason for the delay of a few weeks has to do with the State Department's passport mast head, that laser mast head, that has to be put on the border crossing card that we issue. Mr. Kolbe. What happened. This is a new thing that I had not heard about this delay. Ms. Meissner. I actually mentioned this to you. Mr. Kolbe. I am sorry. I forgot it or I missed it. What is the delay there? Ms. Meissner. It is a set of software changes that are being made in the actual production of the card. It will be just a few weeks and we will be issuing the laser visa. Now, that puts us into production for the laser visa, as I say, very shortly. The replacement, everybody agrees, as you say, that the October 1st replacing of existing cards---- Mr. Kolbe. What is the estimate of how many we need to replace? Ms. Meissner. We believe that there are about 5.5 million. That is the State Department and our best estimate of the outstanding border crossing cards. Mr. Kolbe. How many new ones do you believe you will be issuing each year? Ms. Meissner. About 800,000 each year. Mr. Kolbe. About 800,000 new ones? Ms. Meissner. Yes, 800,000 new ones. Mr. Kolbe. Those are not replacement. Those are new ones? Ms. Meissner. Those are not replacements. Mr. Kolbe. Those are new ones. You will have no trouble meeting the 800,000. Ms. Meissner. We can meet the 800,000. That is correct. Mr. Kolbe. Now, the replacement of the 5.5 million? Ms. Meissner. The replacement will be about 5.5 million. Nobody knows the total number. That is our best estimate. Mr. Kolbe. The time table? Ms. Meissner. We want to show the Congress that we can issue the new border crossing cards. We will be able to show that to you. As I say, that will begin in a few weeks. We will be able to meet the 800,000 per year. As to the replacement 5.5 million, I believe that everybody agrees that, that is unrealistic. We will ask the Congress to change that date of October 1st. We will formally make that request when we have been able to demonstrate to you that we are issuing what we---- Mr. Kolbe. Does the Administration have a time table for asking for that? Ms. Meissner. I have already spoken with various Members of Congress. We have not sent a formal proposal forward. We will do so very quickly. That 5.5 million replacement, we will recommend to have that take place on a rolling basis so that now, with a 10-year expiration date on the border crossing card, on the laser visa, we will be constantly both issuing new cards and replacing existing cards as the expiration dates come due. That is a much better system because it does not, 10 years from now, create another huge bubble where everybody has to, you know, run to ramparts. So, we can, I believe, manage this process if we go on a rolling schedule for replacement cards. Mr. Kolbe. You expect you will bring that proposal to Congress in the next few weeks to make these changes? It would require legislation, is that not right? Ms. Meissner. It would require legislation. That is correct. I would offer that, that possibly could be handled in an appropriation. Mr. Kolbe. So, in sufficient time obviously before October 1st. Ms. Meissner. The October 1st time. departure control systems Mr. Kolbe. Let me turn to Section 110, the entry/exit system. The Chairman talked about the frustration we have about not being able to know people who come in and whether they over stay their visas. That certainly was the intent of Section 110. It clearly appears to be flawed because, if we develop a system that tracks documents in and out of the Country, it does not necessarily mean that the person is the same individual being tracked in and out of the Country. This is particularly a problem when you get to border crossing where people cross multiple times a day and use their visas very, very frequently when you are talking about land crossing. You have a plan now to use a simulated feasibility of the mandated entry/exit system. How will that be done? When will that take place? Where will it be done? Ms. Meissner. An entry/exit system is very important. It is an issue that the Chairman has been interested in for a long time and something that this Country needs. Could I just say something about airports, vis-a-vis land border ports because they are very different environments and very different challenges. Mr. Kolbe. Yes. Ms. Meissner. Where airport entry/exit control is concerned, we have, we believe, shown and are comfortable with a very good automated entry/exit method that is presently in use. We began it in Pittsburgh working with U.S. Airways. It involves an automated entry/exit form that the airlines now give you when you get your boarding pass. That is being expanded to ten airports this fiscal year. We are beginning now to work not only with U.S. Airways, but also with Continental and with Northwest. It works off of a technology booking that the airlines presently have. Frankly our limitations at this point are airline limitations in terms of their automation, no longer the Government's, the INS' automation. So, the entry/exit system for airports is underway. That can be mobilized quite effectively. We have with that the design and operation of a new data system overall that captures the records which we will be able to use. It will answer the question of overstays. This is extremely important because a great part of the resident illegal population is indeed visa overstays; people who have come through airports. So, this is a major improvement and step forward in being able to address that population. Mr. Kolbe. That is not a widely-known fact. Is it not true that about 60-percent of those who are in the Country illegally are visa over stays? Ms. Meissner. We believe 40- to 50-percent. Mr. Kolbe. Forty- to 50-percent. Ms. Meissner. So, it is very substantial. Mr. Kolbe. Go ahead. Ms. Meissner. Many of those people do arrive with legal documents which we would have no way or very little way of curtailing. So, this entry/exit control is responsive to that and deals with that. Now, on the land borders, as you know, it is an entirely different environment; a great number of different infrastructure situations and needs. The real question of how do you create entry/exit regulation controls, mechanisms with the incredible volumes that you are dealing with? What we are going to do in order to determine what kind of proposal to make is, as you say, a simulation. We have data for years that we have used in order to determine what the proper staffing levels of those land border ports ought to be. So, the data that we have collected over the years that deals with volumes of traffic is now going to be put into a simulation environment and run with a variety of technologies in order to determine how we actually could do entry/exit control without interrupting traffic and commerce. We are going to be doing that. In fact, we are working out the time lines right now. We will be actually sending a report on that to Congressman Smith tomorrow. That report is due. I do not know right now what the actual time frame is.It is soon. I will share that with you as soon as we have it. [The information follows:] Entry/Exit System Attached is a chart reflecting the timeline for the collection of data, and creation of an assimilation environment to run with a variety of technolgies with regard to developing an entry/exit system for land border ports. The results of this effort will help us determine how we can best conduct entry/ exit at land border ports without interrupting traffic and commerce. [Pages 640 - 641--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] year 2000 software conversion Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Chairman, the last question is about the year 2000 computer problem. It is very important for your agency with visas and immigration documents that have dates of birth and so forth on them and visas that are going to extend past the year 2000. Where are you on that? Are you fully compliant? How much attention are you giving to this issue? Ms. Meissner. We are giving a lot of attention to this issue. Mr. Kolbe. How about you, personally? Ms. Meissner. I have been personally briefed on this issue; not only I, but my executive staff. We will be briefed on a regular basis. Our planning is on course and current. We expect that all of the conversion that we need to make for the 2000 deadline will actually be done by December of 1998; in other words, the end of this year so that it will be running for a year before the clock turns. Mr. Kolbe. What grade has OMB given you? Ms. Meissner. I do not know what grade OMB has given us. I think it has given the Department a grade of C-minus. Mr. Kolbe. That is not good. visa overstay problem Mr. Rogers. Do I understand, Madam Commissioner, that you say--what percent of the resident illegal aliens are the result of overstaying visas? Ms. Meissner. Our best estimates are 40- to 50- percent. Mr. Rogers. So, somewhere around 2 million to 2.5 million or so. Ms. Meissner. Correct. Mr. Rogers. Of the total 5 million, roughly, illegal immigrants are here because we have no way to know when he has overstayed one's visa or where one is so we can remove him from the country because he is illegally here. Ms. Meissner. That is the importance of the entry/exit and of the automated system that backs it up. Mr. Rogers. That is something that I have been working on for 15 years on this Subcommittee is getting the State Department and the INS to mesh their data so that when State grants a visa overseas and passes that person off to you when they come to this country, that one or both knows when that person's time is up, where he is going to be or have him report to a certain place so that we can then let him go back home because his visa no longer is effective. Ms. Meissner. That is now happening because of your work. Mr. Rogers. I remember getting together Secretary of State Baker and Secretary Thornburg, I guess, the Attorney General. I mean this is ancient times we are talking about here; in the same room, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, on this very problem, 12, 13, or whatever years ago. I thought we had it right on the verge of solution. It fell apart. INS says it is the State Department's fault. The State Department says, oh, that is INS' fault. Ms. Meissner. You know, Mr. Chairman---- Mr. Rogers. I am throwing up my hands and saying, I am going to have one agency that does this. Ms. Meissner. I wish you would take just an hour to come to our building. Actually, we could bring the equipment here. It is portable. I had this demonstrated to me last week, the entry/exit automated system that is now in use and that we are expanding to the ten airports this year. It is fabulous. We could bring the equipment up here. We could put it in your office. We could show it to the Committee. It is happening. I would like to have you see it because you really have been the father of this. Mr. Rogers. We have seen no reduction in the number of illegal aliens since 1986. We have seen nothing lately. Ms. Meissner. Well, the system is now operational that gives us the tools to respond to that. Mr. Rogers. Well, we will talk. Mr. Skaggs. Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am sorry I had another Committee meeting that kept me from hearing your opening statement. I am sure these hearings are the high point of your year. ins accomplishments during fy 1997 I am interested in a couple of particular things, but wanted first to invite you to speak somewhat informally and expansively, if you wish, about what you have gotten done in the last year. Ms. Meissner. We have done a great deal this last year. We have hired more than 5,000 people in order to keep up with our attrition and our new growth in the budget. We have reached a 17-year low in apprehensions in San Diego, the most heavily trafficked corridor across the entire southwest border for decades. We have launched Operation Rio Grande, which is the major Texas/New Mexico Border Patrol deterrence effort that deals with the final major part of our comprehensive southwest border strategy. We have met the deadlines, by and large, in all of the requirements of the new immigration law that has called for training of more than half of our work force, writing scores of new regulations, and creating new forms. We have launched a variety of new automation initiatives, such as the one that I was just discussing with the Chairman. We have continued to push forward on verification for employers for their ability to hire people legally in the work force. We have removed record numbers of criminal and deportablealiens from the United States. We have put the fixes into place for a naturalization system that has integrity, that is customer oriented, and that the public can have confidence in. We have had that certified by an audit, as of last December, that the procedures are sound and that they are working. We have put into place, as of today, 120 new or co-located fingerprint centers in the course of less than six months so that people can be properly finger printed for naturalization. We have done a lot of work. H-1B PROGRAM Mr. Skaggs. Thank you. Let me ask you a couple of things about, is it the H1B Program? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Skaggs. I do not know if I have the correct designation. There was a piece I read about last week or the week before calling into question what we believe to be the accuracy of data justifying allowances under that visa program. If that issue hasn't already been discussed, I am just interested in your take on that, and what level of confidence we have in the underlying information that then justifies that visa program. Ms. Meissner. I think your question arises from some difficulties that did exist last year with the accuracy of the data; whether we were double counting, whether the people were being counted or the visa was being counted. Some visas have more than one person on them. I believe that has been now corrected and that we are receiving the data now on a real time basis and we will be accurate. Mr. Skaggs. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I was referring to a report that questioned whether we have the demand or the unmet need for some of these critical skill areas that then drives the granting of visas, or whether that is being exaggerated. It really comes out of all that we read about the tight employment situation in the country, particularly in information technology fields. Ms. Meissner. Yes, that is a different question. I was talking about the actual issuance of the H1B visas. That is a very broad question about tight labor markets, about demand in potentially shortage industries; whether it is widespread, whether it is only in certain parts of the Country. Fundamentally, we rely on the Labor Department for that data. We rely on the judgments that the Labor Department makes. Mr. Skaggs. So, you do not evaluate that data yourself? Ms. Meissner. We do not evaluate it independently. We rely on it. We use it. We obviously are a part of formulating the Administration's position in response to those issues, but we are not the lead. status of regulations affecting foreign nurses Mr. Skaggs. On one parochial item, we have been in correspondence with INS on behalf of a constituent who is awaiting the issuance of regulations having to do in particular, I think, with bringing in or certifying foreign nurses for immigration purposes. I am advised that some of this has to do with pending regulations that are about to be published. I do not want to take up my time here with an answer on that, but if you would please take a look at it and see if you can expedite things. Ms. Meissner. I will do that. [The information follows:] Visas for Nurses Section 343 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 establishes a new ground of inadmissibility for aliens seeking admission to the United States to engage in a health care occupation (other than physicians) who are not in possession of a certificate issued by the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS), or other equivalent entity, verifying the alien's education, training, license and experience are comparable with that required of an American health care worker. The certificate must also verify that the alien has the appropriate level of competence in written and oral English. Section 343 of IIRIRA became effective upon IIRIRA's date of enactment, September 30, 1996. The statute requires consultation between the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and between HHS and the Secretary of Education. After consultation with HHS and the other affected administrative agencies, the INS drafted an implementing regulation. The regulation is in the Administration's review process and, upon clearance, will be published in the Federal Register. During the development phase of the implementing regulation, the INS and the Secretary of State are exercising authority under the immigration laws to waive this ground of inadmissibility for aliens seeking temporary entry to the United States to engage in a health care occupation. No such waiver authority exists for aliens seeking permanent immigration to engage in a health care occupation. alien terrorist removal court Mr. Skaggs. The implementation of the 1996 act you mention, at least the first case that I am aware of that has gotten press attention, is the secret proceedings involving the deportation of the six, I think it is six, Iraqis that are out on the West Coast, and Mr. Woolsey's involvement there. Are you familiar with that case at all? Is that even secret from you? Ms. Meissner. It is actually secret information. If there is information that we can provide, I will be happy to gather it and get it to you. Mr. Skaggs. I do not want to get into what is classified, but I do want to ask, and I do not know, how many other cases have arisen so far under the provisions of that law for secret deportation proceedings? Is this the only one that you are aware of? Ms. Meissner. There have been some other cases, but obviously they are all quite unique. This is a sparingly used provision. Mr. Skaggs. Many of us were concerned that while the motivation for that provision of the law was a good one, that we were nonetheless inviting a serious change in due process standards in this area by authorizing these kinds of proceedings. I am wondering if we have enough experience yet to provide critical information one way or the other abouthow this is working and whether people's rights are being jeopardized? Ms. Meissner. I think it is too early. We are still very much in the beginning stages of this. We have been extremely careful and cautious with these provisions for the obvious reasons. I think we do need to have some more experience with it to really have a view of whether there are serious rights concerns. I will take your comment as an invitation to provide those views when we feel sound in doing so. Mr. Skaggs. If you will also take this invitation to provide for the record just a listing of those cases in which those provisions have been used so far. Ms. Meissner. We will do that. [The information follows:] Removal of Iraqis Using ``Secret'' Evidence In the fall of 1996, approximately 6,500 Iraqi nationals, including former U.S. Government employees, voluntary agency workers, and oppositionists who were members of either the Iraqi National Congress or the Iraqi National Accord, two opposition groups engaged in efforts to undermine the regime of Saddam Hussein, were evacuated from Northern Iraq, through Turkey, to Guam. The purpose of the emergency evacuation was to remove them from harm's way and provide them an opportunity to seek refugee protection. They were afforded that opportunity on Guam, where nearly all of the evacuees were granted asylum in the United States. On Guam, all of the evacuees were interviewed by a team of asylum officers from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Additionally, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted security-screening interviews of all of the evacuees as potential risks to national security, and it recommended that these persons not be admitted to the United States. As a result of these concerns, the government decided to bring these 25 evacuees to the continental United States and place them in formal exclusion proceedings, where they would have the opportunity to enlist the assistance of counsel and present their applications for asylum to an immigration judge. In 13 of those cases, the immigration court granted asylum, and those applicants have been released from detention. Of the remaining 12 applicants, 10 have been denied by immigration judges (7 on national security grounds and 3 on credibility grounds), and all of them have appealed those decisions or have time remaining to file an appeal. The remaining 2 cases are still pending before the immigration judges. In total, the government presented classified evidence to oppose applications for relief from removal in 9 of these cases. The United States Supreme Court has long held that the INS may use classified information to oppose an alien's discretionary applications for relief from deportation. See Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956); see also United States ex rel. Dolenz v. Shaughnessy, 206 F.2d 392, 395 (2d Cir. 1953); Ali v. Reno, 829 F.Supp. 1415 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd 22 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 1994). the regulation relevant to the government's use of classified information in the Iraqi cases is 8 CFR 240.33(c)(4). The proceedings against the Iraqis were not brought under the provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC). The government has instituted no removal cases in the ATRC thus far. INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE Mr. Skaggs. Finally, Commissioner, you are requesting some significant additional resources for interior enforcement, $80 million, I think, and that is on top of increases over the last few years. Can you give me a sense of both what is being accomplished and what the significant gaps still are in your view on the non-border part of your enforcement efforts? Ms. Meissner. What we are looking to do must involve both the border and serious disincentives in the interior. The critical effort in the interior has to be the proper meshing of enforcement that removes people who are improperly here, sanctions employers, and holds them accountable for who they hire, deals with smuggling and abusive practices, as well as fraudulent documents. So, that is what we are looking to do. We believe we are now being sufficiently effective on the border that we need to concentrate increasingly on this kind of coordination and targeting in the interior of a country. We want to be able to deal far more effectively with the smuggling routes. That is an issue that I think you are familiar with in Colorado. It is an issue that I have spoken about with Congressman Latham that he deals with in Iowa. What is happening is that the smugglers are shifting their operations and working in different ways in order to try to avoid us and get past the border. It is so much more difficult to get past the border. So, we see larger loads. We see much more recklessness on the part of the smugglers. We are beginning to get enough good information to see the linkages in the organizations between the border and destinations, particularly employment destinations. We made our first big case in Georgia, actually, where we were able to link an employer with the smuggler, with the source operation in Mexico. That all came about because of an arrest that we made at the border of a smuggler and we were able to track back the occupants of the vehicle and so on. Sometimes when vehicles in the Mid-west are let go, it is because we are trying to get to the organization itself, rather than just that smuggling vehicle and go to the source of these organizations. We do need more resources in order to be able to do that. We need it in order to be able to respond more effectively to State and local law enforcement when they intercept. We need it in order to be able to buttress our efforts to make the big cases that represent the organized traffic here, both in terms of employers and in terms of bad documents. We are formulating the strategy to do that. It is our commitment to put that kind of a systemic effortinto place linking the border with the interior. Mr. Skaggs. I think that is real important. I am glad to know where it stands on your priority list. Let me just close by saying my case work staff wanted to extend their kudos to the Congressional Relations people in the Lincoln Processing Center. Ms. Meissner. Thank you. I will pass that on to them. They will be pleased to hear that. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. You are fortunate the Chairman is in such a good mood today with the big victory last night for Kentucky. Ms. Meissner. I had an inside interest in who would win. CITIZENSHIP U.S.A. Mr. Latham. Yes. I am sure you did. Just looking back, last year I had brought up some questions, you know, with the Citizenship U.S.A. Project back in 1996. Apparently, there were 180,000 people naturalization without any background check. The testimony was that there were 71,000 that had an FBI record by your own estimates. Normally, there are about 18 percent of people who have felony records who would not be given citizenship of the 180,000. So, that would be over 30,000 felons that we gave citizenship to. You had talked about the efforts that were ongoing as far as finding these people and revoking their citizenship. I would just like to hear where you are. Ms. Meissner. The revocation program is in operation. We have actually centralized it so that all of our attorneys that are working on revocation are here in Washington. We are tracking it very closely. We have about 6,000, a little more than 6,000, revocations that we are looking at, at the present time. We have issued notices to revoke close to one-third of those people. We are working very systematically against a two-year deadline because we need to serve notices within two years of when the naturalization was granted in order to do it through an administrative process. We need to review all of these cases. The legal review of these cases has to be very thorough because the cases that are subject to revocation may not all lead to revocation, depending on whether people can provide evidence that indeed their case had been dismissed or there was some other reason that we were not aware. Mr. Rogers. Just answer the question please. We are running short of time. The question is simple. Answer the question simply. Ms. Meissner. Six thousand-plus revocations are being looked at and about one-third of them have had notices issued. Mr. Latham. So, out of the 71,000, you have been able to find 6,000. The Attorney General testified, I think, that there were 6,000 that had their citizenship revoked out of the 30,000-some that were convicted felons. Mr. Rogers. How many have been deported? Ms. Meissner. Very few have been deported to-date. Mr. Rogers. The answer is zero. Ms. Meissner. I believe that there are a few. Mr. Rogers. There are none. Can anybody dispute that? Ms. Meissner. Well, let me check. [The information follows:] Deportation of Those Improperly Naturalized During Citizenship USA As of April 1, 1998, a total of 2,535 cases have been finally reviewed by the Office of General Counsel for possible revocation of naturalization. Eight-hundred forty-one of these have been determined to be not legally sufficient to initiate revocation; 1,694 of these have been determined to be legally sufficient to initiate revocation. Of the 1,694 cases, 209 have been flagged for possible removal based on the existence of a possible removable offense. In the remaining cases, although these individuals are amenable to revocation of naturalization, they do not appear to be subject to removal. Because an administrative revocation case can be initiated only within 2 years of the date of naturalization, the Service is currently focusing on the timely issuance of notices of intent to revoke naturalization. As of April 1, we have issued final decisions revoking naturalization in 13 cases, and a notice to appear has been issued in one of these cases. Only when the majority of these cases have been issued, no later than October of this year, will we be able to focus our attention on this critical follow-up action, including initiating removal proceedings. Mr. Rogers. My information is not a single person, maybe one, was deported because he volunteered to go. But no one has been deported who was granted illegally citizenship two years ago. TRI-STATE DRUG TASK FORCE Mr. Latham. Still, I think if the general public were aware of what had happened, there would be tremendous outrage. Going back, also, and we have visited I know. I appreciate very much you coming up to my office and visiting with me on the Tri-State Drug Task Force. Can you just tell me, for the record, when we will have the second agent in place in Sioux City so we can have one designated as the law says to the Tri-State Drug Task Force and another one doing general business? Ms. Meissner. We are advertising for that position. We actually would think that, that person can be in place sometime this summer. I will verify that for you. At the present time, we are in the recruiting process for that position. Mr. Latham. Okay. [The information follows:] Second Agent in Sioux City, Iowa A selection has been made for the second agent position in Sioux City, IA. The individual should be on board in two to three months. DEPUTIZATION OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Mr. Latham. As far as the amendment I had in 1996 regarding the INS working with local law enforcement to help them, train them, and to have an agreement so that they could detain illegal aliens and transport them, I know you have the situation going on with Salt Lake City. Are you going to have to have a Memorandum of Understanding with each of the communities or each law enforcement entity? If communities comply with your standards, will there be a broad Memorandum of Understanding? Or are they each going to have to go through this process? Ms. Meissner. The short answer to that is no. The more full answer is that the first Memorandum of Understanding with Salt Lake City obviously will serve as a template for one approach to this. We expect actually that we will probably have several different approaches. So, there may be a couple of different kinds of Memorandums of Understanding, depending on what services and what delegations would actually take place. We certainly do not envision a de novo negotiation of a different kind of an MOU with every entity around the Country; absolutely not. That is one of the reasons we are piloting it and trying to work out what the typical circumstances would be. Mr. Latham. You know that as we have discussed--I did it because of the murder of a young man. His grandmother is continually calling me. I do not know if you got in touch with her. Ms. Meissner. Actually, I have written to her. I signed that letter yesterday. I hope that she is reassured by that. Mr. Latham. What about the video conferencing interrogation services for law enforcement? When are you going to be able to offer that all over? Ms. Meissner. That is one of the ways that we see ourselves doing delegations of authority. We are working out right now what the cost for that program would be in other places and what kind of delegation of authority it would require. I think we will be in a position to be talking with locals about that. Mr. Latham. Do you have a date for that? Ms. Meissner. I hope within the coming six months. DRUG TRAFFICKING IN THE UPPER MIDWEST Mr. Latham. As you are well-aware with the tremendous amount of drug trafficking going on in the upper Midwest and the direct link between our border to the south with my region up there, this is a huge issue. Just this Sunday in church, there was a drug enforcement agent that goes to the same church. This is his biggest problem right now. It really is. Ms. Meissner. That is exactly right. The methamphetamine in the upper Midwest is a serious, serious issue. Mr. Latham. But being able to have some authority, to have the video conferencing interrogation would be a great help right now. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Latham. ENTRY/EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM Now, back to the exit/entry control system that you have mentioned. That is something we have been working on for years. In 1998, we provide $12.9 million to expand the departure management initiatives; $10.4 million more than was requested. Now, you are requesting another $19.5 million for 1999. Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Bill requires that on October 1st of this year, an automated entry and exit control system would be developed that will: (1) collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with that person's arrival record; (2) enable the Attorney General to identify, through on- line searching procedures, lawfully admitted non-immigrants who over stay their visas; and (3) integrate that information into appropriate data bases of INS and the State Department at ports of entry and Consular Offices for purposes of approving future visas and entry into the U.S. Now, I think you have said that next year you are going to have that in place at ten of the U.S. airports. Ms. Meissner. This year; this fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. When? Ms. Meissner. By the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. In ten airports? Ms. Meissner. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Any of the other ports? Just the ten airports? Ms. Meissner. That is correct. And also the data system that is required to support that from the standpoint of being the repository of the entry/exit information. Mr. Rogers. Now, give us some idea of what kind of significance that is. There are a lot of airports. There are hundreds of ports of entry. How important is it that you be at these airports? What percent of the total load will you carry there? Ms. Meissner. I will have to provide that to you separately. I do not have that with me. Mr. Rogers. Is it significant? Ms. Meissner. These are significant airports. I mean they are Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh. They are flights that are coming with three airlines, U.S. Airways, Northwest, and Continental. Those are the airlines that are cooperating with us at the present time. We can provide that to you. They are substantial travel loads. Mr. Rogers. Do you have any idea what percentage of the total visitors would be covered by those ten? Ms. Meissner. I would have to get that to you. J.F.K., for instance, is included; these airlines at J.F.K. So, that is one of the major airports. [The information follows:] Percent of Traffic Coming Into U.S. Through 10 Airports Scheduled to Operate the Entry/Exit System This Year In FY 1997, 36 percent of the total passenger traffic through all air ports-of-entry came through the ports-of-entry scheduled for deployment of the Automated I-94 System in FY 1998. Number of Airports With Entry/Exit System Currently in Place Philadelphia received the Automated I-94 System in FY 1997. The airports scheduled to be outfitted in FY 1998 are: Pittsburgh, Detroit, JFK Terminal-1, Shannon Preinspection, Minneapolis St. Paul, Charlotte, Honolulu, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, and Newark. A total of 12 airports should be outfitted by the end of FY 1998. Mr. Rogers. According to your statement, you say that last year 320 million people visited the Country illegally and that you conducted 500 million inspections at your ports of entry. Will the three airlines at the ten airports be 10-percent of that total? Ms. Meissner. As I say, I will have to provide that for you. I think that what we are saying is that we are moving this project forward as quickly as we can, obviously consistent with funding and with the airlines. The major issue at this point actually is the airlines' ability to do this in their automated environment. Mr. Rogers. Yes, but we ordered it done by October 1, 1998 everywhere, not just ten airports, not three airlines. We said everywhere; all ports of entry. We gave you the money. In fact, we gave you $10.4 million more than you requested. You all apparently requested the minuscule amount of money for it. We loaded you up with money to get it done. Here you are not able to do it. Ms. Meissner. We are spending the full amount that is allocated for it. That is what the result will be. As I say, the automated system that is the structure to support it so that the data actually can be used and tracked properly is also a part of the project. Mr. Rogers. Well, if overstays are accounting for roughly half of all the illegal aliens still in the country, this project could have the same significance as the border patrol. Ms. Meissner. It is extremely significant. Mr. Rogers. I mean this was a minuscule amount of money compared to what we spend on protecting the borders with the Border Patrol. This could be very, very cost effective; could it not be? Ms. Meissner. We agree. We agree. We believe that the technology that we are using bears that out. It is a very straightforward technology. The airlines can use it. It is now workable. Mr. Rogers. Is the State Department cooperating? Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. Mr. Rogers. Fully? Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. I have no complaints whatsoever. We are working very well with the State Department. Mr. Rogers. Both of you say that and have said it for 15 years, but nothing ever happens. Ms. Meissner. We now have tangible palpable things to show for it. Mr. Rogers. Well, you got ten airports, three airlines at ten airports, maybe. It is not there yet. How many do you have right now? Ms. Meissner. I believe we have four right now. Mr. Rogers. Four. Ms. Meissner. I will have to check that, but I believe it is four. Mr. Rogers. Four what? Ms. Meissner. Airports. citizenship u.s.a. Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to get back briefly to Citizenship U.S.A. In fiscal year 1996 you granted citizenship to almost 1.1 million people and 263,000 of those people were granted citizenship without having a full criminal history check. As it turns out, 77,000 of those had criminal history records with the FBI of which nearly 17,250 had at least one felony arrest and 26,200 had one or more misdemeanors. So far, you have determined that at least 932 should not have received citizenship. You have issued notifications to revoke their citizenship. Though, I am told not one has yet been denaturalized. There are 5,000 cases still under investigation. Another 125,000 cases had unreadable fingerprint cards. So that fingerprint checks could not be done. And 61,000 cases contain no evidence of any fingerprint check at all by the FBI. Then following that is another long history of errors. Now, while over 6,000 cases have been referred to the INS for denaturalization proceedings, we are told that not all of those cases will be or can be pursued. In other words, some of those mistakes can never be corrected. In over 186,000 cases since no fingerprint checks were made prior to naturalization, we will never know how many of those persons had criminal records. We can never correct those mistakes. A few months ago KPMG found that 90.8 percent of the random sample cases reviewed contained at least one processing error. Most had more. Therefore, in 90 percent of the cases, the INS file alone does not contain evidence that the naturalization was proper. If you project that finding, that sample, for the entire 1.1 million Citizenship U.S.A. cases, 920,733 cases would have had insufficient documentation to support a proper decision. They also found that 38,845 cases can be projected to have been presumptively ineligible to receive naturalization. That is not just processing errors, but probably disqualifying problems; almost 39,000, and seemingly most of those felons. The Attorney General referred to the mistakes that occurred in Citizenship U.S.A. as a ``catastrophe''. Do you agree with that characterization? Ms. Meissner. The Citizenship Program had very serious deficiencies. Mr. Rogers. Was it a ``catastrophe'', as the Attorney General says? Ms. Meissner. There were serious errors. Mr. Rogers. Was she correct? Ms. Meissner. I would not disagree with the Attorney General. She is my boss. Mr. Rogers. So, when she says it is a ``catastrophe'', you cannot disagree; can you? Ms. Meissner. I wish it had not happened the way it happened. Mr. Rogers. You cannot disagree; can you? Ms. Meissner. I cannot disagree. Mr. Rogers. Has anyone been held accountable for this catastrophe? Ms. Meissner. We have held the entire Agency accountable. Mr. Rogers. Any single person been held accountable, brought to bear, brought to justice on this catastrophe? Ms. Meissner. Well, I think this was, as we discussed last year, there were major deficiencies in the citizenship process. They were deficiencies that had existed for many years. They are deficiencies which have been overcome. Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to dispute that. In normal times, I am told that the normal numbers of naturalizations are about one-third or so of what you did that one year. Is that right? Ms. Meissner. Typically, we had been doing about 300,000 per year. Mr. Rogers. Well, it is about a fourth then. And in 1996, you did 1.1 million or more. Ms. Meissner. About a million. Mr. Rogers. Which has either tripled or quadrupled what you normally do and that happened to be the election year. We know from the e-mail that the Vice President sent his Chief of Staff in fact to the major cities, Chicago, Detroit, and so on, where most of these took place, and over-rode INS field offices to waive the requirement that they check and see if people had a criminal history in order to get people enrolled on the voting books and gave U.S. citizenship as the prize. Has a single person been held accountable for what the Attorney General has called a ``catastrophe'' and what most of us would have more harsh words for, selling U.S. citizenship for a vote? Has any person been held accountable? Ms. Meissner. I have to dispute what you have said about over riding judgments made on criminals. Nobody changed procedures. Mr. Rogers. No, but they were told that the policy, not law, but the policy of INS was to get a criminal check before granting citizenship. That was INS policy. Do you agree with that? Ms. Meissner. INS policy was to wait for a set period of time to hear from the FBI. If we had not heard from the FBI, we proceeded. That was the major flaw in the system. We have corrected that by calling for a 100-percent fingerprint check. In other words, we now do not proceed without a response from the FBI in 100-percent of the cases. Mr. Rogers. Was a single person held accountable? Ms. Meissner. The entire system needed to be redesigned and revamped. We have done that. Mr. Rogers. Only when the Congress changed the law. Ms. Meissner. We revamped the system prior to the Congress acting. Mr. Rogers. What used to be a policy of the Department, which you violated and we said, no. We are going to make that the law. If you violate it this time, there are penalties because you refuse to prosecute or hold anybody responsible for a vast catastrophic evasion of our laws when you granted tens of thousands of convicted felons citizenship in this country for political purposes. Ms. Meissner. I really must dispute that. We did not grant tens of thousands of convicted felons citizenship. The audits have all now been completed. The numbers are very clear. They have been provided. I can provide them again for the record. That is not what happened. The system was changed. Mr. Rogers. You do not know whether--there is 186,000 of these people where no fingerprint checks were made and you do not know whether or not they were convicted felons or not. That procedure was waived. The requirement that the FBI search the person's record for criminal violations was waived. For 186,000 we do not know. We will never know. K.P.M.G. projected, as I have told you, that almost 39,000, based on their sample, would have been presumptively ineligible. Meaning that they had a disqualifying feature of some sort; whether it be felony conviction or what have you. Yes, I can say there are tens of thousands and probably more convicted felons were granted citizenship. You cannot tell me whether or not they were. That is the problem. Ms. Meissner. What has come out of the audit is 369 cases of clear convictions and 6,000 cases where there is likely a disqualifying conviction. Mr. Rogers. Those are just the ones you can verify. What K.P.M.G. is saying is there is almost 200,000 of those that you have no idea because the records do not exist. Ms. Meissner. We clearly did not handle those properly. Subsequently, they have been put through an FBI name check. We have sampled. We know that the universe here is far smaller than what has been represented to be the case. We are following up on those cases. The critical issue is that the system has been entirely revamped and redesigned. Mr. Rogers. Only when the Congress moved in to make it the law of the land. Ms. Meissner. The redesign was done administratively and can be done administratively. It is being implemented administratively, which is to say that there is a 100- percent check of fingerprints and a whole more reliable way of handling the fingerprints, submitting them to the FBI and getting answers from the FBI for them. More over, we have an entirely new leadership team in place at the INS. Nobody that was involved in Citizenship U.S.A. is any longer involved in the Citizenship Program. There is from our Deputy Commissioner on through the senior chain of command in the field, a new group of players. We are implementing a redesigned naturalization process that has integrity. reorganization of federal border control functions Mr. Rogers. Now, over the years, there have been numerous initiatives merging functions occurring at theborder to an existing agency or into a new agency. These initiatives would incorporate functions now performed by Customs, by INS, by the Department of Agriculture into one entity to better coordinate all border functions. In 1993, a panel of former and current Government officials operating under the auspices of the GAO and the National Academy of Public Administration called for the end of dual management structure for border inspections. That panel strongly endorsed the creation of a single independent agency that would combine the functions of INS and Customs; not Agriculture. A subsequent report from the House Committee on Government Operations recommended that, that plan be given serious consideration. Congressman Reyes, as you know a former Border Patrol Agent, has a bill which would create a separate enforcement agency within the Department of Justice just with border control powers. When you were preparing your recommendations for a reorganization, did you or the Administration give any consideration at all to the concept of a single border management agency? Ms. Meissner. A single border management agency has been talked about frequently over the years. We did discuss it briefly, but we did not do detailed analysis. The idea has simply failed so many times when it has been proposed that we did not think that it was the way to go. What we do, and what is---- Mr. Rogers. Let me ask you why? Why was it rejected? I gather it was rejected and probably not even considered. My guess is the politicals at the White House wrote this plan, dictated it to you, and you are defending it. Why would they have rejected a single border control agency? Ms. Meissner. You know, you can slice this issue a variety of ways. If you go the border management agency route, you are dealing with several Cabinet level agencies and all of the difficulties that are involved with trying to merge agencies that have now different histories, different traditions. Then you detach them from the interior of the Country in terms of effective enforcement. So, you have to recreate their linkages. We decided that it was much better to go the route of linking the immigration functions at the border with the immigration functions in the interior of the country in order to get a more effective immigration enforcement effort that deals with the Border Patrol, with the ports of entry, with employers, with removal of aliens from the Country, with the series of issues that we have been talking about here because we believe that is the best way to get effective performance and effective cooperation and coordination between immigration enforcement entities. reorganization of ins Mr. Rogers. Well, it seems to me that what happened when you were submitting your reorganization plan, you were made to submit a plan by this body. So, you had to do something. The Attorney General had to do something. She was not a part of this process, I gather. So, when push came to shove, the White House looked at ways to justify saving the INS as an entity, knowing it was under assault on the Hill. So, you have come up with a reorganization plan hoping to salve the wounds of some of us who think the Agency does not need to exist. So, this is your offering at the altar. I do not think there was any serious study given to how we ought to properly deal with the problem the Country faces. What was looked at was how can we save this Agency and the entities that are already encrusted in that Agency? I really do not think there was much serious thought given to it. At what point was Booz Allen told to help develop a recommendation to restructure the INS without moving any of its functions to a new or existing agency? Ms. Meissner. I will answer that question, but I want to back-up and correct what I think is a misunderstanding. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Meissner. The Attorney General was actively involved in this effort as were senior people in the Justice Department. The Immigration Service has been intensively involved in this effort. I said in my opening statement that we took your requirement in the appropriations language as an opportunity. We have not resisted this. We have indeed taken it as an opportunity to look at what we think the best response for an effectively operating immediate system would be. We did look at the Commission's proposal. We did look at ideas in the past that have been floated where border management is concerned. We believe that the enforcement and the service missions of the Immigration Service work cooperatively. That they indeed are two sides of the same coin and that the very effectiveness and accountability that you are looking for is far more achievable in one agency than by splitting apart. If you split to several agencies, you dilute accountability. If you maintain one organization that is responsible for carrying out the immigration mission, you fix accountability. We do that by separating chains of command so that it is more manageable and so that there are professional skills on both the immigration and on the enforcement side that are more effectively developed. We brought Booz Allen into the picture at the end oflast year, exactly because we were taking this proposition very seriously. We would not have spent the money. We would not have spent the time to go to an outside consulting firm if we were not trying to put together a viable proposal that would be responsive to the Committee and that would be responsive to the needs that we, ourselves, have struggled to try to meet. The Booz Allen effort did look at the Commission's work. It did look at other proposals that have been made in the past. The Booz Allen team arrived in its own thinking at the view that a separation of these functions within the Immigration Service was the proper way to go because that was the most cost effective way to capitalize on the incredible investments that have been made in this Agency over the last three to four years. So, this is a proposal that is responsive. It is a proposal that indeed involved the Attorney General personally and the Justice Department working in concert with INS. It is a proposal that will more quickly and most effectively provide the accountability, the performance, and the professionalism that we are all seeking. Mr. Rogers. I would like to have a copy of all of the options that you reviewed and the pros and cons of each. Ms. Meissner. We can provide that. [The information follows:] [Pages 658 - 670--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. Did you look at two different agencies within Justice to achieve on the one hand enforcement and on the other hand service matters? Ms. Meissner. We did. Mr. Rogers. What was the conclusion there? Ms. Meissner. Our conclusion was that it made more sense separated, but within one organization in order to get the interaction and the most effective use of the data systems and the shared infrastructure that both sides of the House depend on in order to be effective. Mr. Rogers. But is not there at least a tacit understanding that within INS there are two conflicting roles. One, enforcement of laws that in effect punish people for violating our Nation's laws, illegal immigration and the like, and on the other hand, the granting of rights and privileges, the visa, and even citizenship granting. How can you justify, how can you resolve this inherent conflict that an immigrant must feel at one point or the other that they are getting fairly treated when the same person is deciding whether to give them rights and at the same time punish them for something else? How can we tell that person that they are getting a fair shake here? Ms. Meissner. That is one of the two or three core questions that we asked ourselves and that we believe this proposal answers. What this proposal does is fundamentally set up two separate organizations within INS. It sets up an organization for the enforcement of the laws. It sets up a separate organization or a separate chain of command for the granting of benefits under the law. It calls for two separate career paths within the Immigration Service. So that indeed the same person will not be doing both. Different people will be doing those respective jobs. That is something that we believe it is time to do. There has been a mixed identity. There has been a confusion, not only among the people who come to us, but within our own work force as to what their primary responsibility is. What this structure does is clarify that. It says that you give benefits or you do law enforcement. It creates opportunities for people to advance with those skills. Those are separate skills. It also takes advantage of the fact that they both need to use the same alien file. They both need to use the same repository of information in order to determine what to do. Mr. Rogers. But the crux question though is assuming along these two different chains, some decisions are going to be appealed up the ladder until they get to the same place and that is the Commissioner. Ms. Meissner. The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Rogers. Here you are. Essentially, that immigrant says, well, the same person can punish me or give me rights, give me services. It is the Commissioner. This is one Agency we are talking about. That is what I am getting at. There is an inherent conflict within having this all in one agency is what I am driving at, even though you may have two separate chains of command, it eventually winds up on your desk or could. How do you resolve that? Ms. Meissner. I think that it does come back to what we think immigration is all about. Immigration is both about upholding the law and it is about serving legal immigrants and granting them benefits. Those two have strong connections between the two of them. Take the naturalization example. Naturalization is the ultimate benefit that we grant. Yet, what did it founder on in Citizenship U.S.A.? It foundered on improper use of law enforcement information. That connection between granting a benefit, but granting it properly, similarly enforcing the law, but giving and assuring the rights of people to be certain that they do or do not belong in the Country. Those connections are implicit in our immigration law. We believe that they are better carried out in one agency than in two agencies, if only because of the shared information that is crucial to have in one place in order for each of those functions to be making decisions accurately. Mr. Rogers. And therein is the conflict. Ms. Meissner. It does not need to be a conflict. Mr. Rogers. An immigrant or a non-citizen in order to get certain benefits or services has to share certain information with you. That person, though, cannot be assured that, that same information will not be given to the enforcement side of the coin and it comes back at them with the penalties under the law. It just seems to me that it is almost like violating our notion of being convicted out of your own mouth; a violation of the Fifth Amendment type thing. Ms. Meissner. The Government still has to have information on the alien. That information has to be kept in one repository. In order for it to be available for enforcement decisions or for benefit decisions, it still is the same person. Mr. Rogers. Well, 245(i) is a good example. In order for a person to gain the advantages of it, he or she had to admit they were here illegally. The same person would make the decision--would be armed with the information that, that person was volunteering in order to gain something back could have been prosecuted. So, 245(i) is the most recent exampleI can think of where a conflict is concerned. Ms. Meissner. I do not think anybody would want to have a situation where the Government knew that somebody was here illegally and that law enforcement would not have access to that information. I mean, you want to know, you have to know the information about an alien in order to determine whether they are deportable or whether they are eligible for a benefit. Mr. Rogers. Now, in the enforcement chain of command, it appears that port directors, detention managers, investigations, and removal managers all report to a new position, ``an Enforcement Area Director,'' who reports to the Associate Commissioner of Enforcement at Headquarters up here. The Border Patrol's final reporting chain is the Border Patrol Chief at Headquarters. The question is, what is the justification for giving the Border Patrol different treatment in the chain of command? Ms. Meissner. Well, this is a confusion that I think occurred in a staff briefing last week. Let me start where you started. The plan calls for the Border Patrol chief, ports of entry, the investigations manager, and the detention manager, all of those entities which are all part of an integrated enforcement effort, all to report to an Enforcement Area Director. So, the Border Patrol is not any different from the director of a port of entry, or the head of the investigators, or the head of detention. The idea is to divide the County into enforcement areas that give us a basis for linking the border with the interior. We think of the border both as the Border Patrol and as the port of entry because both of those things have to be working effectively in order to deter illegal entry as well as to allow for legal entry. We want that Enforcement Area Director to be able to manage the resources in the area that he or she is responsible for both the border resources and the interior resources in a way that creates the best enforcement. That Area Director and the recommendation right now is that we look at a minimum of six enforcement areas around the Country that we still need to determine whether that is the proper sizing for this. Those Area Directors would report to a head of Enforcement Operations here in Headquarters. Mr. Rogers. So, you are saying between 6 and 12 areas. Ms. Meissner. Booz Allen has recommended between 6 and 12. That needs to be further refined, but that is the recommendation. Mr. Rogers. That is not very precise. Ms. Meissner. Well, I said six because that is the work load analysis that we have done so far. The effort here is to try to determine what really is an enforcement area if you think of the border linked with the interior. That is the crucial coordination that we need to achieve now, particularly with the resources that have gone to the border and the effectiveness that we are showing at the border. Mr. Rogers. The Commission recommended a single uniformed enforcement officer. Was that considered? Ms. Meissner. We did consider that. Mr. Rogers. And? Ms. Meissner. We decided that, that was too big a jump to make right now. That the most important thing was to define our enforcement occupations and get our current enforcement occupations working together in a coordinated fashion and develop an enforcement career path. Mr. Rogers. So, this is not a very radical reorganization. Ms. Meissner. This is a fundamental restructuring. It is a fundamental reform. It is not a reorganization. It is a restructuring. It is a rethinking of the way in which we do our business, the way in which we deliver service, the way in which we focus our enforcement efforts. Mr. Rogers. You have had numerous problems in maintaining your detention facilities and monitoring those facilities that you contract with, with private companies. Did you consider moving the INS detention function to another agency? Ms. Meissner. The issue of INS detention has been addressed in the context of another analysis which I think you are very familiar with. That was the Committee's request of the Justice Department to look at detention that the Immigration Service does, that the Marshals do, and that the Bureau of Prisons does. The outcome of that analysis has been--I think it has already been provided to the Committee, but it calls for INS to retain a considerable amount of the detention that we presently have. So, we have abided by that. Mr. Rogers. That is not a radical change, then; is it? In fact, I do not see much you are changing except you are reorganizing some boxes on the organization chart; the same people; same problems; same short-comings. Ms. Meissner. Well, I think it is far more than that. It is eliminating our district offices. It is eliminating our regional offices. It is setting up an entirely new chain of command, one devoted to enforcement, one devoted to to Immigration Services. It is establishing career paths so that service-providing occupations will no longer move through the enforcement ranks. The enforcement personnel will no longer be providing adjudications. It is a far tighter system for accountability. It is a major restructuring. It is fundamental reform. Mr. Rogers. Now, I want to know about the cost. What would the plan cost in terms of the annual budget? Does your 1999 budget request reflect this plan? Ms. Meissner. Our 1999 budget request, as you know, is a very sizeable growth request. We believe that the cost of this restructuring can be absorbed in the continual growth that we expect will occur. Although we have not done precise calculations and will be doing them, we foresee being able to incorporate the costs in continued growth. Mr. Rogers. But you have got new field officers. You have got new pay provisions. You have got all sorts of, you say, substantial--what was your word, ``fundamental?'' Ms. Meissner. Fundamental reform. Mr. Rogers. Nothing, we know, ever comes cheap with INS. Surely, this is going to cost us a lot more than we are paying now. Ms. Meissner. Well, first off, there are many things in this proposal that are cost neutral. I mean achieving the accountability that we are talking about here, setting up different reporting lines, grouping occupations in different ways. Those are not items that require additional funding. We do have substantial facilities and construction amounts in our budget. We have substantial growth inpersonnel in our budget. We believe that within the boundaries of that continued growth, we will be able to make the adjustments that this proposal calls for. ins' interior enforcement strategy Mr. Rogers. Now, our Conference Report in 1998 required you to provide to us by tomorrow, April 1st, a revised strategy for the interior enforcement. Can you tell us about that? Ms. Meissner. We have been working very hard on that. We are now either in receipt of or will be within the next day or two of an analysis that we have worked with a contractor to help provide. We will be working out the operational strategy for how we implement that in the coming months. This is along the lines of what I described when Mr. Skaggs was talking about the interior. This is an effort to---- Mr. Rogers. You are going to have this tomorrow; are you not? This is ordered by tomorrow. Ms. Meissner. I will have to check on that. I assume that if we have a deadline that we are being responsive to the deadline. Mr. Rogers. Well, tomorrow is the deadline. Ms. Meissner. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. I think you would know whether or not you have it. Will we have it? Ms. Meissner. Can I turn around and ask the question? Mr. Rogers. Please. Ms. Meissner. All right. [Pause.] Ms. Meissner. The analytic work that we have contracted for to be responsive to the April 1st deadline is coming into us on April 1st. That means that we are not able to be responsive to the Committee by April 1st. This apparently has been discussed at a staff level. So, we will be tardy in providing you with what you have asked for, but it is our objective to be able to provide it by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. It is not just this Committee you are to be responsive to. This was ordered by the U.S. Congress. Ms. Meissner. Then to the Congress; I apologize. Mr. Rogers. It was to be submitted by April 1st. What is the problem? Ms. Meissner. I will have to learn more about it. Mr. Rogers. Well, you must know what your strategy is because you have asked for an $80 million figure in the 1999 budget for interior. Ms. Meissner. Broadly, we know that what we are trying to accomplish here is a much closer coordination and resource allocations that deal with smuggling, with fraudulent documents, with removals and with work site enforcement, particularly where abuse of employers and employers that are connected to smugglers. We are beginning or we have that work underway already. We have been able to demonstrate it in a number of indictments and prosecutions that are underway. So, in broad outline, we are doing the interior enforcement that we are forecasting in this study and that the Congress has asked from us. The detailed work that follows it, where we need to move resources, where in the country we should be putting new resources, what the proper relationship is in size between our numbers of investigators, our transportation routes for removal, that level of detail is what we are trying to work out in the strategy and in the documentation that we will be providing to you. Mr. Rogers. How tardy will you be? Ms. Meissner. I believe by the end of the fiscal year. I will make every effort for it to be here sooner than that. Mr. Rogers. Let me get this straight. Ms. Meissner. In other words, that would be six months late. Mr. Rogers. Six months? You were ordered to do this by April 1st. Surely, you went through the interior enforcement aspects of INS as you thought about your reorganization plan because it is a hefty portion of your budget; one of the most important functions of the INS. Was this not considered as you went through your reorganization? Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. In fact, this restructuring proposal is premised on the kind of interior enforcement strategy that I have just described to you. What I cannot be responsive on by April 1st is a detailed plan for what targets we are setting and what accomplishments we intend to achieve. Mr. Rogers. Well, here we are dealing with, as of early March, you still had 78 vacancies in your investigations programs. Those have existed since 1996. We provided the money and you have not hired them. On removals, you say in your testimony that you had removed a record 112,000 aliens in 1997, but the number of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. is growing by 300,000 per year. The number of outstanding deportation orders is over 220,000; up 14-percent from last year. The Institutional Hearing Program resulted in 14,800 of the removals in 1997. That is only 13-percent of the removals, even though we have provided almost 700 positions and over $80 million for that program. We can go on and on and on. This is a major portion of what we are asking that this Agency do. Your 1999 budget request includes two initiatives for responding to State and locals' request for assistance when they encounter or arrest suspect illegal aliens; $10 million for anti-smuggling units; $3 million for Community Enforcement Teams. INS is currently able to respond to only 30-percent of State and local requests for assistance. I could go on and on. We are not about to wait six months for that report. We would not even dream of it. You have had until April 1st. If you put your crash program on this thing, when can we have the report? I am not about to wait six months. The Congress ordered this April 1st, tomorrow, and I want the answers. We have got to make decisions on your budget request soon as we mark-up this bill. I am not about to make those decisions without knowing what you are talking about on enforcement procedures. Ms. Meissner. Well, we know a great deal of what we are talking about in our enforcement procedures. Mr. Rogers. I do not. Ms. Meissner. I will get you something so that we can be talking about it with you far sooner than what I have just stated, if you would let me have a chance though to discuss it with staff. I will get back to you tomorrow on when we will have something for you. It will be soon. Mr. Rogers. It is due tomorrow. It is due tomorrow. Ms. Meissner. Okay. I will---- Mr. Rogers. You have known this for how long? Ms. Meissner. Clearly since the appropriation has passed. Mr. Rogers. Since July. You have known this all that time. I am so frustrated with--I have no problem with all of the other agencies we deal with, believe me, on this Subcommittee and we have a bunch. This INS is absolutely the most frustrating, I know I am preaching to the choir here. You share that of the some degree. It is the most frustrating agency that we have. They simply do not believe the Congress or anybody else is their boss or has the right to expect any kind of reports out of them. I am here to tell you, that report better be here tomorrow on the due date. I am looking for a chance to crack a whip. I cannot wait. Believe me, a whip will be cracked. This Agency will either go out of business or blend into the American Governmental scene. They will be responsive to the people of this country like every other agency is or they will cease to exist. How much stronger can I say that? I mean it fully. That report will be here tomorrow. You have had much too long to get it here and we want it. Is that clear? Ms. Meissner. I hear you. Mr. Rogers. Is it clear? Ms. Meissner. It is clear. Mr. Rogers. Will it be done? Ms. Meissner. I will bend every effort to get it done. Mr. Rogers. I want the names of those responsible for getting it here or failing to get it here. If it is not here tomorrow, I want the names and serial numbers of those who failed to do what we ordered them to do. Now, if you will not crack the whip, believe me, I will. Get me their names. There are things that we can do in this bill such as say that no funds of this bill shall be used for the purpose of paying John Doe his salary. If it takes that, believe me I will do it for every single employee of the Agency that does not respond to your and our requests and demands. This Agency will obey the law. It will respond to the will of the people like every other Government agency that we have or it will cease to exist. Believe me. I have a number of things to submit that you can answer for the record. Otherwise, if you have nothing further, we will stand adjourned. Ms. Meissner. I will be in touch with you tomorrow. Thank you. [Pages 678 - 690--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday, March 12, 1998. BUREAU OF PRISONS, D.C. CORRECTIONS TRUSTEE WITNESSES KATHLEEN M. HAWK, DIRECTOR JOHN CLARK, D.C. CORRECTIONS TRUSTEE MIKE ROPER, CONTROLLER Mr. Rogers. The committee will come to order. This morning, we welcome to the subcommittee the Director of Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Kathleen Hawk, and the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia, John Clark, to discuss the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Federal prison system and the challenge both of you share in transitioning the sentenced felon population of the District of Columbia in the custody of the Federal Government. For fiscal year 1999, the Bureau of Prisons is requesting a total budget of $3.5 billion, which includes $300 million for the construction of new prisons to expand prison capacity for the D.C. inmates. The Corrections Trustee budget request totals $185 million and will be handled as part of the D.C. appropriations bill. However, a portion of this funding will be used to support Bureau of Prisons' costs related to the housing of D.C. inmates, and ensuring the requirements of your office on that will be very critical to the orderly transitioning of these prisons. While the subcommittee has substantially increased funding for the Federal prison system over the past years, including almost $500 million since 1995, I believe we can say our investment is paying off. Serious crime fell 3 percent last year. It has dropped for the fifth consecutive year, and I would attribute this decline, in part, to yourefforts to keep the criminals off the street. As you take on the additional population of the District of Columbia, we should not ignore the requirements to maintain the growth of the Federal prison system so that there will be space to continue to lock up violent criminals for longer periods of time. We appreciate both of you being here today. We will include your written testimony in the record, and we would be delighted to hear your summary of your statement. Director Hawk, you can begin. Bureau of Prisons Director Opening Remarks Ms. Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 1999 budget request for the Bureau of Prisons, but let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Rogers and Congressman Mollohan and the other members of the committee, for the wonderful support that you have given to the Bureau of Prisons over the years. You have recognized the continuous growth and the challenging nature of our inmate population and provided the resources necessary for us to carry out our responsibilities. Appearing with me today from the Bureau of Prisons is Kevin Rooney, who is just behind me here, our Assistant Director for Administration. I am also pleased to be appearing today with John Clark, the D.C. Corrections Trustee. He and I will work and continue to work very closely together to ensure a very successful transition. Our 1999 request, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, totals close to $3.5 billion, and it amounts to 35,254 positions. It focuses on adding prison beds to keep pace with our own inmate population growth and also the capacity requirements of absorbing the D.C. inmates. With the resources that Congress has already provided, we have made substantial progress in adding capacity and keeping pace with overcrowding, and we must continue adding capacity as our population continues to grow. As of March 5, 1998, our population was 115,835 inmates. That includes nearly 11 percent that are housed in privately managed prisons, contract facilities, and other alternative confinement. By the year 2003, we project nearly 154,000 inmates in our custody. It is a growth of about one-third over our current inmate population. The 1999 request includes an increase of $2.8 million to activate a 200-bed expansion in our prison in Loretto, Pennsylvania, and the increase of $300 million that you reference, Mr. Chairman, to construct the new capacity to absorb the D.C. felons. In 1998, through reimbursement from the D.C. Corrections Trustee, we have adequate resources to construct two new prisons. These can be built at existing Bureau of Prisons' sites in order to most quickly generate the capacity to house the D.C. felons. In addition, 1998 funding from the D.C. Corrections Trustee will be used for site acquisition and planning of four additional prisons. The 1999 request provides the funds to construct three of those prisons and partial funding for the fourth. In total, we plan to build six new facilities to absorb the D.C. population. We have begun or are obtaining additional technical information to begin the environmental impact statement for sites in Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, and we plan to finish each EIS related to D.C. capacity this year, before the end of the calendar year. Mr. Chairman, the 1999 request includes only the increases that we believe necessary to address the major challenges we face and provide the funding increases necessary to add the inmate capacity to meet the requirements of law. I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for your continued support. This concludes my prepared comments, and I would be very happy to take any questions you may have. [The information follows:] [Pages 693 - 703--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Rogers. All right. Mr. Clark. District of Columbia Corrections Trustee Opening Statement Mr. Clark. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased to have my first opportunity to appear before you as a Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia, and it is certainly an honor and a pleasure to appear here with Director Hawk of the Bureau of Prisons with whom we work so closely on the Lorton transition process. As you know, our office was created by the National Capital Revitalization Act of 1997 and came into existence in October of last year. The primary responsibilities of our office are three-fold. The first major area is the financial, primarily the oversight of all aspects of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections operations. Our second responsibility is to facilitate the closure of the Lorton complex and the transfer of the sentenced felons from the District to the Federal Bureau of Prisons by 2001. Our third responsibility is to assist the DOC in its own reformation and long-term stabilization. Mr. Chairman, progress has been made in the transition. The total number of prisoners in facilities directly operated by the DOC, including Lorton and the D.C. Jail, has been significantly reduced in the past year by transfers to the Bureau of Prisons and the contract facilities. At the Lorton complex itself, one facility was closed in September and two are scheduled to be closed within the coming year. In the five facilities currently operated at Lorton, the overall count is 4,200, down from about 6,000, a year ago. However, to be clear, planning for the next steps of the closure in 1999 presents an unusual challenge because the closure pace depends on the DOC's ability to secure suitable contract beds outside the system. With the assistance of our office, the District is working diligently with several jurisdictions. We are hopeful of a favorable outcome to these negotiations in the near future. Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience that the most difficult aspect of the transition process is the impact on the 3,100 employees of the Department. The Lorton closure will mean the number of staff will be reduced to under 1,000 by 2001. There is ample evidence that the staff is dispirited and confused, and that attrition of the work force has increased. In this regard, the Department with the cooperation of our office is taking a number of steps. An interagency task force is working aggressively to provide resources to assist staff who are facing separation. The Bureau of Prisons has been very active and accommodating in this process. Further, the financial authority and the elected leaders who formed the District's management reform team have agreedto a significant pay raise for DOC employees, a concept which this office supports, especially since the salaries of the employees have essentially remained flat over the last several years. The Department of Corrections continues to be confronted with major challenges in its downsizing to a local corrections agency. A major concern of our office is that the Department does not have adequate systems of control and accountability at the operational level which would assure that policies are carried out as written, or that the performance of contractors is closely monitored by DOC staff. Our request provides for funds targeted to the development of such a system of internal controls. The successful long-term reformation of the Department requires such a resource. Another major concern of ours is the high cost of operations of the Department compared to other jurisdictions. In summary, the 1999 request of $185 million will meet the requirements of the Revitalization Act in assisting the District of Columbia in housing sentenced felons who have not been transferred to the Bureau of Prisons. This request provides for the transfer in 1999 of over 1,500 DOC felons outside the Department. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the committee might have. [The information follows:] [Pages 706 - 716--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] transfer of d.c. inmates Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, and thank you both for being here. It is good to see you. Let me say at the outset that I consider the Bureau of Prisons to be a stellar Federal agency. I do not know of a better agency that I deal with that has impressed me more with your management of the system. The Bureau of Prisons is the best-run Federal agency that I have been acquainted with. I do not say that lightly. I think you run an excellent agency. Ms. Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Now, of course, you have got this big challenge that we are all trying to work together on, and that is to absorb some 7,200 D.C. inmates into the Federal system. Of course, as you say, you started that transfer, and you are currently incarcerating about 600 of those prisoners? Ms. Hawk. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. If you do not mind, give us a little bit more about your plan for both 1998 and 1999 for the transfer of these additional inmates. What steps are you taking to be sure that this is going to go smoothly? Ms. Hawk. The monies we will be receiving in 1998, which is the reimbursement through the Trustee's Office, will be to start construction on two prisons. I believe both were sought in terms of being penitentiaries, although we are deciding now it may be better to go with one penitentiary and one medium- security institution with the 1998 monies, and we are initiating site and planning work for four additional facilities, as I referenced. In addition to that, we are required by the Revitalization Act to privatize 2,000 of the D.C. inmates by the end of 1999. So we are very aggressively moving forward on all the work that is necessary to put forward that contract. Our determination was to privatize the minimum- and low- security male population, to privatize the Youth Rehabilitation Act inmates, both male and female, and to privatize the females, and that comes up to a total of about 2,400 inmates. So we feel that we will be able to privatize the 2,000 from that population very easily. We have already gone out with the RFP, the request for bids, and we are anticipating having the bids in by, I believe it is, around the 1st of April of this year. So we are right on target, barring any unexpected delay, in terms of being able to fully privatize the 2,000 inmates that we are required to do by 1999. Our plan, as I indicated, also, was to complete the environmental impact work on all of the sites that we are anticipating to potentially serve our needs for the new prisons that will help us absorb the D.C. population. We are hoping to complete those by the end of this calendar year, and as long as we can do that and stay on target, and everything suggests we can, we should be able to get all of the prisons up and running, or most of them up and running, by the 2001 deadline, the end of 2001, which is when we are required to have all of the D.C. inmates in our population. So we have a very tight requirement on us. We had originally asked for a 2003 requirement, and that is what had been negotiated with many of the committees, but at the last moment, and I am not quite sure how it happened, the 2003 got changed to 2001, which really constrains us and makes speed very critical for us. So we are hoping to move as quickly as possible, and we are moving as quickly as possible to get those up and running by 2001. transfer of d.c. corrections department employees Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clark, tell us how you are working with BOP to accomplish this smooth transfer. Mr. Clark. Well, we are working very closely with the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Corrections. We have set up regular meetings with both of those agencies. I have a small staff of only about seven that we have come up to at this point, but there are several issues. We are working very closely to the personnel issue to try to find ways that the staff can transition those who would want to transition, as the Act provides, to the Bureau of Prisons. So we have set up a priority consideration programtask force of Bureau of Prison staffers, Department of Correction staffers, folks from the Office of Personnel Management are working with us on that, and several District of Columbia agencies. Our primary concern initially is what is going to happen to the 2000 staff who are going to be separated. So, as I say, we have been working closely with the Bureau of Prisons on that. Mr. Rogers. What is going to happen? Mr. Clark. Well, Director Hawk, is actually going beyond--I do not presume to speak for her, but the program that she has outlined goes actually beyond somewhat the requirement--well, let me put it another way. She is being very open to taking into her system employees of the Department of Corrections who meet the qualifications of the Bureau of Prisons and who desire to go to work for the Bureau of Prisons. Now, one of the issues in that regard is that there are obviously no Federal prisons in the local area. So that, any of the Department employees who would want to go to work for the Bureau of Prisons would have to move around the country. We did a survey in conjunction with the Bureau of Prisons of the staff, and a surprising number indicated a willingness to transfer to the Bureau of Prisons. So, as time goes by and in the near future as RIFs occur within the Department, there will be an opportunity for those employees to go to the Bureau of Prisons. In the alternative, there are also opportunities that we are developing with other Federal agencies. We are working closely with the Office of Personnel Management to provide a career transition center at the Lorton complex and access the one that is open on North Capitol in the downtown area. So I think there are a number of opportunities that will be available to employees who would be downsized. transferring d.c. prisoners and funding Mr. Rogers. How are you identifying which prisoners are to be transferred each year, and how many? Mr. Clark. Well, the prisoners, as Director Hawk referenced, who would be going to the Bureau of Prisons in the short run are primarily female prisoners and the lower-security prisoners. They do not have a capacity, as you are well aware, at this time to take the higher-security prisoners. The prisoners who have been transferred at this point to other contract facilities have been some higher-security prisoners. This is a determination, up until now, that has been made by the Department of Corrections more so than my office, and, again, to be clear, I am not running the Department of Corrections on a day-to-day basis. Director Moore is still the operational head of the Department of Corrections. My role is more one of coordination and oversight of her Department. So, at this point, most of the higher-security prisoners are remaining within the Department of Corrections facilities pending either new contracts or the ability in a couple of years for the Bureau of Prisons to absorb them. Mr. Rogers. Now, what portion of your $185-million budget request will actually be used to reimburse BOP for housing prisoners? Mr. Clark. The portion that would be used to reimburse the Bureau of Prisons, we estimate in 1999 to be about $14 to $17.25 million. That will depend, however, on the pace of the transfers. We are keeping very close tabs with the Bureau of Prisons on the actual number of transfers, but our estimation is that the average population that would be within the Bureau of Prisons, the average new population next year would be about 750 on a daily basis, and that would equate to about $14 to $17.25 million. Mr. Rogers. Why is it more prudent to include these monies under your budget than directly under BOP's? Mr. Clark. Well, I think part of the logic and rationale on that is the difficulty in determining the numbers that will actually occur, that will actually be transferred, which will depend, again, on availability of beds within the Bureau of Prisons. So that, I guess the logic is that the amount of money to be spent on the 7,000 inmates would be included in my budget, and then, to the extent that they go into the Bureau of Prisons, I would reimburse them, and to the extent that some of them would stay within the District, I would reimburse the District. Mr. Rogers. Do you get any good cooperation out of the D.C. Department of Corrections and the D.C. Government? Be frank. Mr. Clark. We cooperate closely on a number of matters. I meet with Director Moore every week. There are some issues of disagreement, but, in many ways, they are cooperative, and some other ways, as I say, we just do not see eye to eye on some issues. Mr. Rogers. Like what? Mr. Clark. Well, one of the issues is, quite frankly, the degree of funding for the Federal portion of the payment for the Department of Corrections for the current and the coming year. Mr. Rogers. They want more? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. How much more are they wanting? Mr. Clark. Well, depending on the analysis, somewhere between $25 and $50 million for this year. They feel the District has been shorted, and about $30 to $40 million for 1999. Mr. Rogers. Because of what? What is their argument? Mr. Clark. Well, this is a complicated answer, sir. There are several disputed categories. First of all, let me say I stand behind the $185 million as a fair and accurate and adequate amount, and that was arrived at after consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of the District and his office and the Department of Corrections. It provides amounts well above the national average for funding prisoners in other systems around the country. It provides about $28,000 per year, per inmate. So I feel it is adequate, but there are several areas, to respond to your question, that are disputed. One is the area of external indirect costs, costs that are not part of the Department of Corrections, but are attributable to the central government of the District, in the amount of about $25 million that they would be requesting. The external indirect costs fall into several categories. Interest and depreciation on buildings account for about two- thirds. Again, these are not correctional buildings. These are other buildings in the District. Some costs related to the City Administrator's Office, the Chief Financial Officer's Office, personnel processing, worker's compensation, issues like that. It is my understanding, and I have talked to a number ofpeople who were involved in the run-up to the passage of the Revitalization Act, that these issues were raised in discussions between the City and the Administration, and it was not agreed that they would be reimbursed, and it was not my understanding that that was the intention of Congress, but, quite frankly, sir, it is going to be a continuing issue on the part of the District until it is resolved and made clear what the intention of Congress may be. So that is the first issue, this $25 million of external indirect cost. There is also a dispute as to the method of counting prisoners who would be a Federal responsibility. The Act is somewhat vague in this regard, but our read, the Trustee's Office read, is that it essentially would be the Federal responsibility to reimburse the District for those prisoners who in the future would be transferred into the direct care and custody of the Bureau of Prisons, and our role is an interim measure. On the other hand, the District's assertion would be that everyone who is sentenced, even if they are not serving that sentence at the present time, even if they are in the jail or another facility, pursuant to other charges, would be a Federal responsibility, and there are hundreds of inmates in this category, and at $20,000-some a year, this amounts to a fairly significant dispute. A third area would be the issue of economies in the system that we feel could be had. As the count is downsized, as the count under their direct control has been reduced from 10,000 to about 6,000 now, there are economies both in staffing and in other costs that we feel could be had. So there is some disagreement there, and several other areas, but there are significant disagreements between the District and our office. Mr. Rogers. The $185 million that you have requested of us, that will not be impacted by any changes that may come as a result of your negotiations with D.C.? Mr. Clark. We do not intend to change--at this point, we do not intend to change our request. future growth of d.c. inmates Mr. Rogers. I am glad to hear that. Director Hawk, we have been focussing sort of on the current D.C. inmate population, around 7,200 inmates. I assume that the D.C. population, inmate population, will continue to grow. What will you do to absorb the future growth of inmates out of D.C.? Ms. Hawk. In terms of the capacity requirements, the request that we are anticipating for 1999 and 2000 would actually require more capacity than is currently needed to house the D.C. inmates, but there is still a question mark as to what that number is ultimately going to be. There are still sentencing changes being considered by the Sentencing Commission that was created by the Revitalization Act and because of the work that still needs to be done by the Council, we are not real, real sure what the ultimate population of D.C. will be in the upcoming years. If we find we do not need the full monies for construction, then we will certainly make that known when the time comes. We anticipate the growth of the D.C. population beyond that point to be probably at similar increments to our own growth and population over the out-years. As I indicated earlier, we are anticipating the entire population of the Bureau of Prisons to continue to grow to approximately 150,000 inmates, which will include D.C. and its projected growth by approximately 2003. So, with our projections to date, we are projecting numbers that we feel are accurate and that our request each year, forthcoming, will match what we project those population numbers to be. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. role of d.c. corrections trustee Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hawk and Mr. Clark, I join the Chairman in welcoming you to the hearing today. Mr. Clark. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Clark, what is your charge? Mr. Clark. My charge, first of all, is in the financial area to provide oversight to all the operations of the Department of Corrections, financial oversight which actually gets into a degree of oversight of all of their operations. It is also to receive the funds allocated by Congress and to pass them on to the District and to oversee the way those funds are spent. So the first major area, the way I would interpret my charge, is this financial area. Second is to facilitate the transfer of the prisoners, the closure of Lorton, and the issue that I mentioned as far as the staff and trying to help them through this process. The third part of my charge--well, and I might say in that second area--in fact, in all of these areas, quite frankly, I have been cast in the role of an agent of change, which is frequently not a pleasant or easy role, and I wind up, in that role, sometimes having to be a painful prod to help people to move forward and get beyond a level of inertia. The third area beyond the financial and the transition is to, in my estimation, provide assistance to the Department of Corrections in its own reformation and rebuilding. Mr. Rogers. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Mollohan. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Did I understand him to say that the difference between a pat on the back and a kick in the rump is about 6 inches? [Laughter.] Mr. Clark. I find myself in both---- Mr. Mollohan. The answer to that is yes, just to help you out. Mr. Clark. Thank you, sir. I will take all the help I can get. classification of d.c. prisoners in private facilities Mr. Mollohan. That is kind of the way it goes. I am sure the distance is traveled frequently. Mr. Clark, I understand there are approximately 1,700 D.C. prisoners under contract in Ohio. Is that correct? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. What is the security level of classification for those inmates? Low? Medium? Minimum? High? Mr. Clark. Quite frankly, sir, I think you have a mixture of inmate classifications, and this is a subject of an ongoing lawsuit in Federal court in Northern Ohio as to this very issue of the classification of the inmates. I think it is generally agreed that there is a mixture of inmates between the high- medium and maximum level as---- Mr. Mollohan. Wait a minute. I am sorry. Medium? Mr. Clark. In the Department of Corrections---- Mr. Mollohan. Wait, wait. Mr. Clark. Sorry, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Answer the question. Mr. Clark. Medium-high, and maximum. Mr. Mollohan. Medium, high-medium. Mr. Clark. ``Medium, high-medium,'' which is a term usedwithin the Department of Corrections. They have a different classification system than you would have been used to dealing with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and then they have a maximum security level which would be the rough equivalent of high security in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Mollohan. Maximum would be high. Mr. Clark. Medium--these do not equate directly. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, but I just want to get them down. Mr. Clark. Right. Mr. Mollohan. Medium high-medium. What is the next one? Mr. Clark. Maximum. Mr. Mollohan. Oh, and then to maximum. Mr. Clark. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. There is nothing in between high-medium and maximum. Mr. Clark. No. And they do not have any equivalent to the Bureau of Prisons' ``low.'' So that, many of the prisons who in the Bureau of Prisons would be classified as low security would fall into medium security in the Department of Corrections classification. Mr. Mollohan. So medium is the lowest classification in the Department of Corrections? Mr. Clark. Above minimum. There is a minimum security level, similar to the Bureau of Prisons, but, to my knowledge, they do not have minimum security prisoners in Ohio. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, I think the record is clear. Mr. Clark. Okay. Mr. Mollohan. I am sure by now you are familiar with the Bureau of Prisons classification system. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Applying that standard, how many inmates at the Youngstown facility would be medium and high security inmates? Mr. Clark. That is a subject of great dispute right now, sir, and---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you have an assessment of it yourself? Mr. Clark. I would say that almost--well over half would be medium or high security in the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Mollohan. Are other inmates besides the D.C.-sentenced felons housed at the Youngstown facility? Mr. Clark. No, sir. It is exclusively devoted to the D.C. inmates. Murders of Prisoners At the Private Facility Mr. Mollohan. I understand two inmates were recently murdered at the Youngstown facility, one yesterday. Can you explain the circumstances of those murders? Mr. Clark. First of all, could I make one thing clear? This contract is not a contract that was entered into after the Revitalization Act and was not an action to which our office was a party. This occurred about a year ago. Mr. Mollohan. I know that, and I think it is good for you to make the record clear---- Mr. Clark. But as far as---- Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. We are getting information. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir, and I have visited Ohio. In fact, I had three staff in Ohio at the facility when the murder occurred, when the most recent murder occurred yesterday. The information on the most recent murder is at this point preliminary, and there is obviously an ongoing criminal investigation there, but from what we know about the most recent murder, there are some troubling aspects in that it occurred in the most secure area in the institution. It occurred in a segregation unit where there is ample staffing, where inmates should be under total control, and there is some indication that these were prisoners who should have been separated from each other. So there is a number of troubling aspects at least from the initial information that we have, but I would hate to speculate too much until there is more substantial information. The previous murder was in a general population unit. It occurred early on a Sunday morning when one inmate apparently went to the cell of two other inmates, and they closed the door and he was brutally stabbed. There have been a series of other stabbings at the facility, well over a dozen apparently. The facility has been locked down several times, more recently. So it is a troubled institution. I might say, as a former warden and after 23 years or more at this point in corrections, you go through troubled periods in institutions. Things happen. Bad things happen sometimes in institutions. It certainly would have been my experience in the Bureau of Prisons. Why those things happened is an issue, but, more important, how those difficult days, those difficult periods are handled is also a test. So---- Mr. Mollohan. The press account suggests that the inmate who was stabbed and killed yesterday was shackled. Is that correct? Was he being escorted by a guard? Mr. Clark. It is my understanding that there were a group of inmates returning from a recreation yard, possibly five inmates who were all shackled, and the prisoner who was the assailant was being returned to his cell and was taken out of the shackles, and it was at that point that the assault occurred. Mr. Mollohan. Were guards present at that time? Mr. Clark. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. It is my understanding that approximately 72 percent of the D.C.-sentenced felon population, or about 5,184 inmates, are considered medium or high security inmates by the Bureau of Prisons. Do you agree with that assessment? Mr. Clark. I do not think the Bureau of Prisons has had a chance to classify or to review the files and classify most of the prisoners. They have done a random sample. I am not sure what their conclusions are on that, but there is a significant number who are medium and high. Mr. Mollohan. Director Hawk, the D.C. Revitalization Act requires the Bureau of Prisons to privatize 50 percent of the D.C.-sentenced felon population by September 30, 2003. Ms. Hawk. Fifty percent by 2003. Security Levels in Private Facilites Mr. Mollohan. In looking at the numbers and percentages of inmates that the Bureau of Prisons considers to be of medium and high security classification level, I find no way of avoiding placing medium and high security D.C. felons into private facilities if that law remains operative. The law is specific in that D.C.-sentenced felons are to be placed in private facilities. Given the specific instruction, it appears that we simply are transporting much of the Lorton population elsewhere intact if we carry out that directive. You have spoken to us in the past about the management challenges associated with that population and why it isimportant to break up the D.C. population. As I said, though, the law specifically states that 50 percent of D.C.-sentenced felons must be privatized. What are your concerns about this approach? Ms. Hawk. We are concerned about the privatizing of the 50 percent because our experience to date has been that the private corrections companies have not yet demonstrated the ability to safely operate medium and high security institutions. Now, one of the problems here is a problem of semantics that Mr. Clark referenced. When I say medium security inmates, I am talking about ``medium security'' as classified by the Bureau of Prisons' classification standard. We have a five- tiered system: minimum, low, medium, high, and super max or administrative max. Most State systems, as D.C., do not have a low security. They have minimum-medium, high, and max. Most of the private companies use that same classification system of minimum- medium. So the private companies will say yes, we do run medium security institutions, but, to date, our experience has been their medium security matches our low security. So, when we talk medium and the private companies talk medium, we are really talking apples and oranges. We are talking two different classification structures. So it is my experience and our evaluation to date that the private companies do not have a track record operating institutions to house our classification of medium-high security inmates. I believe Congress also shared some of that concern because, in addition to requiring the 50-percent privatization by 2003, they also directed a study to be done. The study is to be directed by the Attorney General to evaluate the feasibility of privatizing all security levels, including medium and high. Also, Congress has tasked us with evaluating a 5-year pilot study, actually, of evaluating the privatization of our Taft Federal Correctional Institution that just opened in December of this past year. So, although the 50-percent requirement stands in the law, there are also these studies that Congress has directed us to do that, I think, will allow for a fair answer to the question of what privatization is ready to absorb. My concern, I think my responsibility in the Bureau of Prisons, is to ensure that public safety is assured. I mean, that is our absolute responsibility, and we take that responsibility very seriously, as well as the safety of the staff working in those institutions and the inmates who are placed in our custody. That is why you hear me repeatedly in the Bureau of Prisons being very conservative about moving too fast at placing higher security inmates in institutions that have not yet demonstrated the ability to provide the kind of security necessary to ensure public safety, the safety of staff, and the safety of the inmates placed in that custody. Mr. Mollohan. Is that 50-percent privatization requirement in any way contingent upon the outcome of those studies? Ms. Hawk. It is not specifically stated as such, although since the 50-percent requirement and the requirement of the one-year study to be done by the Attorney General are stated in the same Revitalization Act, I would assume that there is a nexus between the two, but it is not specifically said that the one is required for the other. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Taylor? Federal Assumption of DC Corrections Mr. Taylor. Mr. Mollohan, I noticed the suspects in the stabbing--one had been convicted twice for murder in D.C. He also had stabbed a prison guard in 1995, stabbed a Youngstown inmate in July, and assaulted another prison guard in October. Now, in D.C. where you get about 2 weeks for murder, the first murder, you are going to get--you know, you are up to 3 months. The second murder, you will get in trouble. Now, he may have to go 90 days or more. As Chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Committee, we tried to do things about it, and until this Congress gets serious about D.C.--and we are spilling over into your operation something that would be unpleasant for the entire country, but I would like to ask a couple of questions. Given the facts that have been brought up in your statement and Mr. Mollohan's statement, do you think that the--is this Act good for the Federal Government, or is it good for D.C.? If you had to pick one that came out ahead, which would you pick? Ms. Hawk. In terms of the entire Revitalization Act? Mr. Taylor. Yes. Ms. Hawk. Well, I am on record---- Mr. Taylor. And the prison portion of it. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. I am on record for the years preceding this Act passing of saying that the Federal Government should not absorb the D.C. population because there, for a while, I believed very much that with proper resources and oversight that D.C. could manage its own population effectively. But I came to the realization finally, about a year ago, that I did not think that was going to happen, especially with all the many problems the entire D.C. Government was facing. As a prison administrator, I support the idea of the Federal Government absorbing the portion of the D.C. Corrections that kind of matches what a State would absorb for a city. So absorbing the DC sentenced felons into the Federal Prison System, I think, is an appropriate decision to serve both D.C. and to serve the needs of the Federal Government. Impact of Revitalization Act Mr. Taylor. What would you say the plan's impact is going to be on your agency's workload, the guards in the system, the communities that are going to be impacted? Do not sugar-coat it with optimism, but what are people going to have to expect in the coming years, and actually less than that? Ms. Hawk. I believe that given sufficient resources, sufficient new capacity, and operating resources in the out years commensurate with the number of inmates required to be held by absorbing the D.C. population, I believe that we are going to be able to transition them relatively well. The Bureau of Prisons has tripled in size since the mid- 1980's. So regarding growth and responding to growth effectively in large numbers of populations, I believe we have already demonstrated quite well that the Bureau of Prisons is very capable of doing that. Mr. Taylor. We have your testimony this year. What would be the growth of the resources that you think would be adequate looking ahead with an estimate? Is that going to be pretty significant? Ms. Hawk. Well, we are anticipating the 7,000 more D.C. inmates at a cost for us of about $20,000 per year, per inmate, and then we are projecting, as I indicated earlier, that by 2003, we will have increased another 31,000 inmates, not counting the D.C. population. So that is a growth of 38,000 more inmates by 2003, and I do not have the math here, but if you would simply multiply that with an inflation factor probably 22,000 or 23,000 by 2003, that would basically present to you what the growth in our budget request would be annually in the out-years. Mr. Taylor. Is that adequate, do you think? Ms. Hawk. I think it would be very adequate, as long as we can receive the operating expenses, incrementally increasing as our population goes up. The Congress has been very good to us, heretofore, in ensuring that we have the resources we need to manage our population, I think we will be fine. Mr. Taylor. Is the time estimate reasonable? Ms. Hawk. The time is tight. We had originally--the administration had originally put forward the date of 2003 because it takes a few years to build a facility once the money is obtained and the site is determined, and that is true whether it is private sector or public sector. Both of us agree that it takes 3 years from the time you have thesite identified to build a new facility. The change, though, from 2003 in the final Revitalization Act to 2001, is going to be real tight for us. If we stay on target right now and we are able to meet all the timelines without any unanticipated delays, we will be ready by the end of 2001 as required by the law to absorb the increase. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, I have not voted yet. I would be pleased to be passed on this first round. Mr. Rogers. We have two votes, by the way. Mr. Latham. I have not voted either. Mr. Rogers. Well, we have, I think, plenty of time to have one round here. We have 6 minutes, if you would like to start. Mr. Dixon. I would pass on the first round, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Okay. Health Care Costs for Inmates Mr. Latham. I would be interested, I guess, in health care being provided by the Bureau. How much does the Bureau spend as far as health care in total and per inmate? Do you have those numbers? Ms. Hawk. Our cost per inmate is roughly $3,400 per year. I would like to note that that is a decrease in our per capita over the last few years. We have been doing a number of initiatives to bring the cost of health care down in the Bureau of Prisons, even though medical inflation is increasing at the rate of 3 to 7 percent. Our per capita for medical has gone down almost 2 percent during the past year. So, obviously, some of our initiatives are working very well. Mr. Latham. Do you expect that to continue as far as you are planning? Ms. Hawk. Yes, we do. Mr. Latham. Good. Ms. Hawk. Even though our population is becoming sicker with infectious diseases and just the quality of health care that many of our inmates bring to date. Mr. Latham. You had a pilot program, I think, starting in 1996 down in the Beaumont, Texas, complex. Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Latham. Do you have any preliminary results or anything to see if that has helped to reduce the health care cost? Ms. Hawk. We are really still in the middle of analyzing the pilot. So far, the pilot is going well. As in any pilot or new situation, there have been some adjustments made on both sides to ensure that adequate medical care is being provided and the quality of the medical care meets the community standard, which is a standard that we try to adhere to, and so far, the pilot is going well. We are optimistic that there are going to be some lessons learned for us. We are already watching very carefully, some lessons to be learned for us, in looking at our own health care costs to make sure that we are providing adequate health care at the lowest cost possible. So far, the pilot is going well. It is just a little early yet to---- Mr. Latham. When will you have definitive results? Ms. Hawk. I am not sure what the timeline is, sir, but I will get back and get that to you. [The information follows:] Health Care Pilot--Time Line Congress has directed the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to undertake a health care privatization demonstration project based on a competitive procurement covering a representative sample of the Federal Prison population, i.e., at least one Federal correctional complex. The project is to run for a minimum of three years. The BOP proposes the following reporting schedule for the Beaumont health care privatization project: August 1998: a status report that outlines progress to date, including an update on numbers and types of inmates at each facility, accreditation progress, and an evaluation plan that outlines how the Bureau intends to evaluate the health care services. August 1999: update on progress toward complete activation and medical referrals, numbers of inmates and medical severity profiles, preliminary report on monitoring effort. August 2000: a descriptive analysis of offenders treated at the health care facilities in Beaumont and Taft, comparing those offenders with offenders treated in other BOP facilities and providing preliminary data as to these comparisons. August 2001: preliminary results from survey of all state correctional health care programs, including public and private efforts, update on progress toward final evaluation report. December 2002: a final report on the health care privatization efforts at the Beaumont Complex and the minimum and low security facilities at Taft and a final report on the 5-year demonstration project at the two Taft facilities. Mr. Latham. Are States going the same way on that, as far as privatization? Ms. Hawk. There really is a little bit of everything being done across the country. Mr. Latham. You have not looked at the State programs, though, as far as to see how they work? Ms. Hawk. Many of them are very different. Mr. Latham. If they have complied? Ms. Hawk. Some have tried privatization, and it has not worked for them. We had tried privatization in the past, and it did not work for us, but there are a lot of new initiatives, I think, being put forward by private companies. What happened to us in the past was we found that, initially--and that is why we want the pilot to go on for afew years to really make sure we have a good analysis--privatization of health care was initially very cost effective. They came in with very good bids, but then once we would become dependent upon that and have no other health care available, you could watch the prices begin to increase dramatically. They reached the point very quickly of being cost prohibitive. Now, I do not know if that is what is going to be happening in today's initiatives. So we would like to watch this pilot over a few years to make sure that costs stay consistent. use of generic drugs Mr. Latham. Just very briefly, regarding drugs, is there a Bureau policy as far as using generic equivalents? Ms. Hawk. We are involved in a pharmacy formulary that is very cost effective. It is one of the things we have done over the last several years to bring our costs down where they are able to use the lowest cost, but equally effective medications, and we are able to tap into an entity that buys them in large quantities. Then, we only receive that which we absolutely need on an as-needed basis or biweekly. We are getting the drugs that we need for that week. So it has really saved us a tremendous amount of money in terms of buying the drugs ourselves, risking of going past expiration dates, risking having drugs sitting there that we really did not necessarily need right now. Really, the pharmacy formulary has served us very, very well to bring the costs down. Mr. Latham. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Death of BOP correctional officer of Lompoc, CA Mr. Rogers. Director Hawk, last year we talked about the tragic death of a BOP correctional officer at Lompoc, California, and we gave you additional money for construction upgrades there. Has there been any improvement in the potential for violence at Lompoc? Ms. Hawk. The construction is still ongoing there, but we are quite certain that it is going to have a very good effect in terms of making that facility more secure. The Lompoc penitentiary really was never built to be a penitentiary back when it was originally created, and it had to be upgraded because our high security needs were so severe. That has been several years ago that we kind of upgraded it, even though it had not been built to be a high. For long-range planning, our hope is to come back to this committee in future years requesting funds for a new penitentiary on the West Coast, and then we could convert the current penitentiary at Lompoc to a medium security institution, which we feel is much more commensurate with what its original design was intended to be. The staff there has just done an extraordinary job after the horrible tragedy of Scott Williams' death. They really have increased their own vigilance where they have put in a lot of cameras and other kinds of things to increase security. We have dropped the population there a little bit to make it more manageable, and so far, things have been going very well at that institution. managing gangs Mr. Rogers. In the past, you have mentioned emerging gangs in your system. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. What kind of gang problems do you see, and how do you manage them? Ms. Hawk. Gangs are a very serious problem for just about any correctional system in this country because all of us, for the most part, have our share of gangs. The gangs in the Federal Prison System have been proliferating at a dramatic rate. It used to be we would get the old prison gangs, the Aryan Brotherhood, some of those more traditional prison gangs. What we are getting now is more and more of the street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, all the crews in D.C., and all of those smaller gangs that are very violent, very aggressive. Since the Federal Government has been focusing more and more of its prosecutorial resources on bringing in the large drug- traffickers who are touching the large amounts of violence and everything in our communities, we are getting more and more of these violent street gangs into our prisons, and they are getting more membership inside the prison. And it is these many, many street gangs that are becoming the gang problem in our institutions. We have a plan afoot right now, and we hope to activate it by January of next year. We are going to totally restructure the way in which we approach gangs, and really try to--a term that we use is ``cut off the head of the snake,'' in that we will be able to peel off all of the gang leaders, segregate them in a special way, and then be able to touch those inmates who are simply the followers, with the leaders removed, being able to bring them more in line with the expectations of behavior in the Bureau of Prisons. That is an initiative that we have been working on now for over a year. It is a major change in the way we designate inmates and the way we manage inmates, and it is a change that you cannot do piecemeal. We have to have the plan laid out very clearly and be ready to move in, in a full sweep to affect all the gangs in the system. Heretofore, we have had actually a few hundred gang members, gang leaders, locked up in special housing or segregation because of their misconduct, because of some of the homicides and serious assaults that have been going on in our institutions. Rather than dealing with it on an institution-by- institution basis, as we are doing now, we believe this new system of just taking the leadership across all gangs, across the entire system, placing them in separate facilities, until they renounce their gang membership and renounce their gang leadership will have a calming effect on all the rest of the population and provide a much safer environment for the staff and inmates in those facilities. Mr. Rogers. Have you reason to believe it is working? Ms. Hawk. Well, we are not there yet. We are still planning. The long-term systemic sweep is not really going to begin until about January. What we have been doing to this point is pulling off the leaders, institution by institution, and that is already having an effect on the safety in some of those institutions. What we need is the grand plan, but it is going to change the way we restructure every one of our facilities. So we wanted to make sure we have the plan clearly together before we go in and implement it, which we are hoping around January of next year. intelligence gathering effort Mr. Rogers. In the fiscal 1998 budget, we gave you $1.4 million to expand your intelligence-gathering effort capabilities on inmates. Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers. How are you using that funding, if you cantell us? Ms. Hawk. The intent for that funding was really an initiative that goes across the Department of Justice. What we find is that we have our Metropolitan Correctional Centers in the large cities, in New York, in Los Angeles, in Chicago, San Diego, and Miami, where we house the U.S. Marshal's pretrial inmates, those coming straight off the street that have not been sentenced yet, and what we find is there is a tremendous amount of intelligence among law enforcement, both State and Federal, about what is happening in that inner-city area or in the extended communities outside of the inner-city area. We are a ripe source of information because we are housing all of these pretrial inmates that are oftentimes the leaders, movers and shakers of some of these drug cartels and drug initiatives. So, the intent of these new positions is to be able to place someone who is 100-percent focused on simply gathering that intelligence, working with local, State and Federal law enforcement, to make maximum benefit of all the intelligence that is known in that area about any of the crime going on. Drug-trafficking is a major portion of it, and so is the violence that flows from the trafficking. So we believe it is really going to enhance law enforcement by making us a more intimate part of that collection of intelligence and have a good impact. Mr. Rogers. We would be interested in keeping up with you on gangs. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. funding for growth of prison population Mr. Rogers. That could have very serious consequences. I have been on this subcommittee for 15 years, and during that time, I have seen over $5 billion given to construct more prison beds in the Federal system. In fact, according to our numbers, you have added over 59,000 prison beds, but the population has risen to meet that number. Your 1999 budget request for new prison construction is solely to handle the additional D.C. population, and, yet, the Federal general population is still suffering from overcrowding, also growing at very significant rates. Is the request that you made sufficient to handle your current problem of overcrowding in population growth, outside the D.C. problem? Ms. Hawk. It is sufficient for now, Mr. Chairman. If we did not have the D.C. problem coming in and the need for new construction this year or next year, we probably would have come in with some request for construction other than the D.C. facilities. As you know, we are still behind the curve in overcrowding. System-wide, we are 20 percent over capacity, but it is most frightening in our medium and high security institutions which are still roughly 50 percent over capacity, but we try to be reasonable in our request and we know the limited money that is available to us. It is not an endless pot of money, and we try to be very reasonable in terms of what we came forward with this year. Once we address the capacity needs of absorbing the D.C. population, that is not going to be the end in terms of our projections of capacity needs. So we envision in the out- years probably coming back to this committee again, Mr. Chairman, requesting new capacity just to help us absorb the increase that is still coming, separate from the D.C. population. Mr. Rogers. Did you ask OMB for more construction money than you were given? Ms. Hawk. There were discussions in the Department in terms of what was reasonable and what our needs were and what we could hold off on for a later year. The reality is we anticipated there will be some beds in these D.C. institutions that we are asking for that will help us absorb some of our growth because our prisons are roughly 1,500 inmates, or 1,000 inmates in size, and when you project out how many we need to absorb the D.C. population, there are going to be some beds left for some of our own growth. So our feeling was that we will be okay. We will be okay with what we are asking for in this year, but in the out-years, we will be back, probably seeking more funds. Mr. Rogers. Did you ask OMB for more money than they allowed? Ms. Hawk. I know there were discussions of what the needs were, but I do not believe we made a specific request for anything more in the appeal process. Attorney General's study of federal detention management Mr. Rogers. In our report accompanying the 1997 appropriations bill, we directed the Attorney General to conduct a review of Federal detention and incarceration at the BOP, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Attorney General was to ``evaluate the performance of these agencies and develop recommendations to consolidate management of their operations, where possible,'' on November 15, 1997. Do you know where we stand on that report? Ms. Hawk. I know a tremendous amount of work has been going on. We and the Marshals and INS have been working very carefully with the staff in the Justice Management Division working on this. I am not 100 percent sure where the final report is right now. long-term criminal alien detainees Mr. Rogers. In your statement, you mentioned that criminal aliens represent 28 percent of your total population, and that you anticipate the transfer of nearly 2,000 long-term non- releasable criminal aliens now in INS custody to BOP. At the INS El Centro service detention facility which houses 658 aliens, there have been three incidents this year, many involving long-term criminal detainees. The most recent one was 2 days ago, Tuesday, where about 170 detainees smashed lights, kicked guards, struck them with bricks--I am sorry-- with sticks before using mattresses to barricade themselves in the facility. In your opinion, is INS adequately equipped to handle long- term criminal detainees? Ms. Hawk. I think INS has been doing a very commendable job maintaining this very difficult population because they basically have no idea what the future is going to hold for them because they are not serving a sentence anymore. So they do not really fit the definition of a sentenced population or the kind of inmates the Bureau of Prisons should hold, but their home country will not receive them back, and we are not going to release them into this country. So they are kind of in a limbo status. They do, though, pose just as you suggest in the El Centro situation, a real challenge to INS because they have a limited number of secure beds, and they contract out most of these individuals to local jails or to private companies. That is why, as I noted in my comments, it is the long-term plan with the Department of Justice for us in the Bureau of Prisons to be able to absorb these inmates, even though theyare not sentenced felons, even though they are not traditionally what our Bureau of Prisons should house. They are really detainees who are serving time simply because their home country will not take them back. We are not going to release them into this country. So they are kind of in that limbo status. It is the long-term plan for us to hold them for INS simply because we believe we will be able to house them more safely and securely. The problem is, sir, we do not have the capacity to hold them just yet. So the plan is once we have adequate capacity at medium and high security to start absorbing those inmates into our system, we will do that. I do not have a specific date and the Department of Justice is not citing a specific date of when we are going to be able to do that. It will totally depend upon when our capacity will allow us to do that. We have several facilities, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that have already been funded by this committee that will be opening up for us, separate from the D.C. facilities, but opening up in the next few years, and we are hoping that will provide some of the capacity we will need to take in some of these long-termers that INS is holding. Mr. Rogers. Give us some idea of a timetable for that. Ms. Hawk. I believe the date we are saying to the Department is roughly 2002, 2004. When I look and see when our new capacity is going to be built that has already been funded, we have numerous institutions coming on between 2000 and 2003. Mr. Rogers. Well, these incidents, as you know, this Committee funds the INS as well, and we just cannot have this kind of incident continuing. I mean, it is becoming a chronic problem that we have got to deal with, and that is the reason we asked in the report last year for the study, and we have heard nothing yet. We are going to have to move on this. We will tell INS and the Attorney General the same thing. We have, in fact, but she will probably hear it in a more shrill voice than before. So I just think we have to move on getting these long-term criminal detainees out of inadequate facilities into where we can take care of them safely, for their own sake, as well as the other population. Ms. Hawk. Well, I know there is a very serious work going on in terms of the study. As I said, we have been very much involved, and it ends up being a very complicated process. We wanted to make sure it is very thoroughly studied, evaluated, and then brought forward to this committee. So I know there is a lot of work going on with it. I just do not know the status of it at this point in time. Mr. Rogers. Can you get back to us and let us know when that report is going to be available? Ms. Hawk. Absolutely. We can certainly do that. Mike, did you want to talk to that at all? Mr. Roper. Mike Roper, Controller. The report is sitting within our policy office. It is in the Deputy Attorney General's office, awaiting the Attorney General's office for signature. The hope is, it should be up here within the next week to 10 days, the first phase of the report. There was a second phase of the report that is looking at the cost of the consolidation of the major parts of the detention capacity. That probably will not be ready for about another month or so. Mr. Rogers. Well, a week from today is the 19th. Is that agreeable? Mr. Roper. We will carry that message back. That is the date the swallows will come back to Capistrano. Mr. Rogers. I am sorry. I did not hear that. Mr. Roper. The 19th of March, I believe, is the day. I will remember it in that term. Mr. Rogers. Well, in addition to the swallows returning to Capistrano, may the report filter onto our desk. [Laughter.] [The information follows:] Status of the Detention and Incarceration Study Phase I of the Department's Detention and Incarceration Study was submitted to Congress on March 19, 1998. The phase II report, which is currently being reviewed by the Department, examines the costs and benefits of a range of options to determine whether major consolidation of all detention functions into one or two components is warranted. The Department expects to transmit the phase II report to the Committee in May. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon. revitalization timeline Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I guess I am searching for a chronology here first. Then I would like to go to how much corrections really costs in total Federal and District funding. Then I would like to go to some other matters that have been called to our attention. Director Hawk, in your view, there is now no inconsistency in the 2003 and 2001 language in that revitalization bill, as I understand you said. You were leaning toward 2001. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. Now, as I understood the language, it said that you had to reach 50 percent privatization by the year 2003. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. On the other hand, the Department of Corrections would have jurisdiction until 2001. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. I do not see any inconsistency. Is there? Ms. Hawk. I do not see a real inconsistency in that either. No, sir. Mr. Dixon. Has it been an issue? Ms. Hawk. You mean in terms of the difference in the dates? No. We just wish both dates were 2003, but other than that---- Mr. Dixon. With cleaner language, but there is noinconsistency? Ms. Hawk. No. Mr. Dixon. Now, refresh my memory. When Congressman Moran sat on this panel, he directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to conduct a study as it related to the Bureau of Prisons taking over the correctional facilities of the District, primarily Lorton. is that correct? Ms. Hawk. Well, there were actually two studies that were requested. One was directed by Congressman Moran, and it specifically said what would need to happen for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections to function like the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and we assumed that meant absorbing our policies and classification systems and all of that. Mr. Dixon. What has happened to that? Ms. Hawk. That study was completed a few years ago. Mr. Dixon. Okay. Ms. Hawk. The second study that was requested was much broader, and it talked about what kinds of options would be available to D.C. in order to ensure that it could be run safely, cost effectively, and all the things we would all hope for in any prison system. That study was completed about a year ago. It was funded by the Bureau of Prisons. We tasked the National Institute of Corrections, which is our arm that deals with State and local issues, and then they subcontracted with NCCD, the National Commission on Crime and Delinquency, to do the study. They came forward with about five different options. It involves us fully taking over the system, us taking over the high security inmates, and D.C. keeping others. There are five different options, and it kind of flowed from that study--the final Revitalization Act--and kind of narrowed in on which option that the Government wanted to go with. Mr. Dixon. So this mess has really been all directed by Congress? Ms. Hawk. I would not say the mess has been, but I think the fix has been directed by Congress. Mr. Dixon. The fix has been directed by Congress. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. budget for d.c. department of corrections Mr. Dixon. Trustee? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. If I understand your request, it is for 385, is it? Mr. Clark. No, sir. 185. Mr. Dixon. 185. I am sorry. How much, if any, is in the D.C. budget, do you know, for the Department of Corrections? Mr. Clark. The total request for next year, it is my understanding--and I have sat in on the budget hearing before the City Council last week--that their request is slightly over $250 million, which would cover not only the sentenced felons, but also their cost of housing pretrial prisoners and misdemeanors. Mr. Dixon. $250 million? Mr. Clark. Correct. Maybe 252, but in that range. Mr. Dixon. Included in that is a payment to the Federal Bureau of Prisons of some $36 million? Mr. Clark. No, sir. I do not think there is any anticipation that any payment will be made from the District to the Federal Bureau of Prisons next year. In previous years, the Bureau of Prisons was reimbursed for the number-- Mr. Dixon. I understand that. Mr. Clark. Right. Mr. Dixon. But it is your understanding that you are not requesting any reimbursement in the-- Mr. Clark. I am requesting funds in my budget that would reimburse the Bureau of Prisons to the extent-- Mr. Dixon. Well, Mr. Taylor should not anticipate a line item in the D.C. budget that says payment to the Bureau of Prisons? Mr. Clark. No, sir. Mr. Dixon. Now, I noticed in this morning's paper--and the staff brought it to my attention. I was not going to mention it, but I read it and then they thought it was important. Ms. Norton, at least according to the Post this morning in a paragraph or two, has sent a letter to the President requesting another $94.7 million, and this clip says that Ms. Norton says that the Federal Government has to agree to take over the cost from incarcerating D.C. felons, and that the City should not bear the cost of erroneous projections. Do you know what she means? Mr. Clark. I have seen the article, sir, and I did see a copy of her press release. Yes. Mr. Dixon. Do you know what this is all about? Mr. Clark. Oh, yes, sir, and I think you may have been out voting or not here when the issue came up previously, but there are several disputed areas. I did reaffirm that my---- Mr. Dixon. Several disputed areas between the Trustees and the District? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. And so her idea of settling it is to ask for more money from the President? That resolves the dispute? Mr. Clark. That is my understanding. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. What is the issue in Congress? Mr. Clark. There are several areas. One, the primary area that involves at least $25 million is what is termed by the District, ``external indirect cost,'' not cost of running the Department of Corrections, but in addition to the $250 million in their budget, another $25 million for payment of interest, for depreciation on buildings. Those two amounts are about two- thirds of the $25 million, and there are payments--or there is an assertion that there should be a reimbursement for other central costs to the government, including the City Manager's office or City Administrator's office, to some extent, the personnel processing costs of the central government, those types of costs. So there is that one figure, which this current year they estimate to be close to 25 and another 25 million next year. That is the biggest disputed issue, and it is my understanding that this was an issue that was brought up in some detail in the run-up to the passage of the Revitalization Act in discussions between the District and the administration, and it was not agreed that this would be part of the funding. It is also my understanding that that was not anticipated in the 1998 appropriation to the Trustee that those costs would be funded. So that is the biggest---- Mr. Dixon. So, basically, they cannot get you to agree to this. The District is trying to appeal to the President. Mr. Clark. Apparently. Apparently. There are several other areas that include lesser amounts, including my assertion that there should be some significant reduction in their operating costs, as the number of prisoners in their direct control is reduced. Mr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more questions, but I do not want to be harsh on the time. responsibility for prisoners in private facility Who in your opinion is legally responsible for the prisoners of D.C. when they are housed in a private institution? Is there an agreement with CCA as to who has legal responsibility for that? What do you mean by that? Where would I file a cause of action for wrongful death? Is it still the District? Is it the Trustee? Is there any agreement? Mr. Clark. Hopefully, certainly it is not the Trustee. I do not think that the District or any jurisdiction which contracts out its prisoners thereby loses responsibility for the safe custody of those prisoners. Mr. Dixon. Unless there was some agreement. Mr. Clark. Even there, no matter what the agreement is, I am sure the courts would not necessarily honor that agreement if a cause of action was brought if the contracting---- Mr. Dixon. What do you mean by an agreement? To carry some kind of insurance clause? Mr. Clark. Sure. Frequently, there is an indemnification clause that is included in the contract, but---- Mr. Dixon. Is there such a clause in this contract, the District's contract with the Ohio facility? Mr. Clark. I do not think so, no. Mr. Dixon. So the District is still legally responsible? Mr. Clark. I think both the District and CCA in this case bear some legal responsibility, and I think part of the responsibility of any jurisdiction that is contracting out beds is to do close and meaningful oversight and monitoring of those contracts. If that is not occurring, then that would speak to the liability of the jurisdiction. Mr. Dixon. Do you feel that the Trustee has now assumed that responsibility for the District? Mr. Clark. No, sir. Mr. Dixon. I noticed that you said at the time of this most recent occurrence, we have had three employees on site there. Mr. Clark. I did. Mr. Dixon. Does the District have people on site that are monitoring the conduct and the operation? Mr. Clark. Not on a full-time basis, and that is an issue that has been raised within the City government. They, in fact, have contracted out to another private firm to do the oversight of the facility up there, which is an approach that I have some problem with. Mr. Dixon. The District has contracted that responsibility to a private firm? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. Do you have any responsibility to sign off on that contract? Mr. Clark. No, sir. If I could just continue---- Mr. Dixon. Sure. Mr. Clark [continuing]. I feel I do have a responsibility. My role, as I tried to articulate earlier, is not to run the day-to-day operations or be responsible for hiring, firing, or making operational decisions, but to do oversight of the manner in which the Department of Corrections is doing that. Director Moore is still the Director of the Department of Corrections. Mr. Dixon. But I guess I am asking you, what authority you presently have. Now, they have contracted out their responsibility to monitor, and as I understand, you have objected to that or had some reservations about it, but it was done, anyway. Is that correct? Mr. Clark. Well, it was done previous to my tenure, and they are moving in the direction of taking back that responsibility themselves. They have a plan to put an on-site monitor there. They have advertised for that position. At this point, they are not there yet, but that is their plan, and that is what we have encouraged them to do, to take a more active, direct responsibility by the Department rather than contracting this out to another private firm, but our responsibility, again, is not to enter into these contracts and not to necessarily approve of them, but to do oversight, to call to their attention where we feel there are significant problems. I had staff on site both to be looking at the quality of the management by the private firm, as well as to look at the manner in which the other firm was doing oversight of the contract. Mr. Dixon. Now, as I understand it--and I think Mr. Mollohan indicated--the judge in Ohio has put a bar on any more prisoners being transferred to that facility. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir, for 90 days. Mr. Dixon. For 90 days. Will you be responsible now for the transfer of other prisoners to other facilities, or will that be the District? Mr. Clark. No, sir. I do not bear responsibility for those day-to-day operational decisions in the Department. That is the responsibility of the Department of the District. Mr. Dixon. I am trying to get to what your responsibility is. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. As I understood it, there were things that happened prior to your arrival on the scene, and that you had no responsibility for those decisions. Now what responsibility do you have for the Department of Corrections actions? Is it just to advise? Mr. Clark. The law, as passed, gives me responsibility to do oversight and monitoring of the financial operations of the District. It does not give me operational responsibility on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Dixon. No. Do you have the authority to stop an action by the Department of Corrections if you think it is financially or otherwise imprudent? Mr. Clark. I am not sure. I think that a case could be made for that. We have not gotten to that point. That is why I need a good attorney. [Laughter.] It is new ground. Our whole office is obviously new ground, and we are trying to sort out some of these issues, to be frank. privatization--gao study Mr. Dixon. Director Hawk, I understand that there are several reports out that criticize the privatization process in that basically, in the long run, it is not safe. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association wrote me concerning, I guess, a Federal facility in California. First of all, are there some studies that you are familiar with dealing on the subject of privatization? Ms. Hawk. There are some studies that have been done, and perhaps the one you are referencing or was referenced by California was the General Accounting Office's actualanalysis, done just a few years ago, that took a lot of the studies that had been done around the country and did some investigating themselves and found that at that point in time there was kind of a wash in terms of whether there was actually savings or not savings in privatization. Some States have experienced some savings. Other States had experienced the cost was greater, and so they found that, in general, there was not a guaranteed cost savings. I think that if any system is going into privatization just to save money, they are probably making a wrong decision. There are a lot of considerations that go into making the decision of whether to privatize. We have roughly 11 percent of our population in non-Bureau of Prisons facilities. We have been using privatization for many, many years, but we carefully select which entities we feel will best serve the Government, which populations will best serve the Government, which are most cost effective for us, which are the best all the way around in terms of which populations to privatize and which to not. I think if those decisions are made very prudently, then privatization has a clear role, a positive role in corrections in this country. I think when sometimes those decisions get made for perhaps the wrong reasons, whether it is because they believe they are going to save money, but they have not done the analysis yet or they are moving too rapidly and have not really tested the water in terms of what the correctional companies are really ready to take on in terms of higher security inmates and get into issues of public safety. That is where some decisions get made that can have some negative impacts in terms of public safety and cost. placement of classified prisoners in private institutions Mr. Dixon. Mr. Mollohan was asking about classification. What classification of prisoners of the Federal Government are placed in private---- Ms. Hawk. The Federal Government places minimum and low, but as I said earlier, many States do not have a low classification. So we place minimum and low, not medium and high, and we will also place detention, which is kind of a mixture of the short-term, pretrial status of not really knowing for sure what is going to occur to them in sentencing. Mr. Dixon. Now, if you can, can you give a parallel of what classification of prisoner in the D.C. system is going, on your scale? Ms. Hawk. We have estimated so far--we really are in the process now of going in and trying to reclassify the entire 7,000 inmates by our standards. So we will know precisely, but we went in about a year ago and did a random sampling, you know, statistically correct, but did a random sampling and determined that roughly 70 percent of the D.C.-sentenced felons are medium and high, which would leave 30 percent--would be in the minimum and low categories. In the Revitalization Act, we are required to privatize 2,000 of the D.C. inmates by the end of 1999, and we feel that we can comfortably privatize the minimum and low security males and females in that 2,000 and not have to get into yet considering privatizing the medium and high security inmates where we get a little nervous in terms of public safety. Mr. Dixon. But I am asking at the present time, those prisoners that have been transferred, where would they fall on your classifications schedule? Ms. Hawk. I think probably Mr. Clark could answer that better than I. I think it is probably a mixture right now of medium and high. Mr. Clark. In the Bureau of Prisons classification scale, with which I am very familiar, the preponderance of the inmates in Ohio--and I assume you are talking about the Ohio inmates-- -- Mr. Dixon. Yes. Mr. Clark [continuing]. Would be medium--low to medium, with some in a high security. Again, this is a matter of dispute, and we have not gone in and had an opportunity to view---- Mr. Dixon. If I could just, Mr. Rogers, finish, please. Who is it a matter of dispute with? Mr. Clark. Well, no one has gone in and looked--well, no, it is a matter of dispute between the plaintiffs in the lawsuit in Ohio and the Department of Corrections and the CCA on the other hand. We have not gone in---- Mr. Dixon. Setting that aside, what is your opinion of the classification of the prisoners that are being transferred from D.C. to Ohio? Mr. Clark. Well, I think the majority of them in the Bureau of Prisons would fall into medium or high security. Mr. Dixon. As I understand it, under your Federal rules, you would not be transferring those prisoners into private institutions? Ms. Hawk. That is basically the practice, yes. We would not. Mr. Dixon. Now, have you made a recommendation that those prisoners not be transferred because they are above the threshold of the Federal standard? Mr. Clark. No, I have not, sir. Again, this occurred previous to my coming into this position. Quite frankly, the District has very few alternatives. The Bureau of Prisons has alternatives where to put these higher security prisoners. Until there is a capacity within the Bureau of Prisons in several years to take these prisoners in, there is not a capacity at Lorton. There is nowhere else at this point--there is no other option. So it was kind of a forced fit. The facility in Ohio is a very well-built facility. I toured there, very strongly built. The issues are more with the operation, the significant degree of idleness that is there and so on, but if I had my druthers, I would recommend that they pull them out, but they do not have any other setting to move those prisoners to. Mr. Dixon. One final question, Mr. Chairman. Is there a private facility that has been established to handle this kind of prisoner, this medium-to-high risk? Mr. Clark. To my knowledge---- Mr. Dixon. In other words, does D.C. have an alternative where they could go to a private organization that specializes---- Mr. Clark. No, sir. Mr. Dixon [continuing]. In, say, administrative--the highest---- Mr. Clark. To my knowledge, there is very little experience in the private companies in dealing with this type of inmate. This is one of the first tests of that capacity. Mr. Dixon. So would you say a combination of an increase in the prison population and the way that the law is written that D.C. at this point in time has little alternative as it relates to the classification of prisoners they send? Mr. Clark. That is a fair assessment, although, actually, their population has not increased. Their population has actually decreased in the last several yearsoverall. If it had increased, I hesitate to imagine the problems we would be facing today. Mr. Dixon. Until the year 2001, the District will still have jurisdiction over their Department of Corrections and will supervise the transfer of prisoners? Mr. Clark. Well, I see it as a gradual process. Between now and then, there will be a gradual outflow from the Department. So the size of the Department will continue to decrease between now and 2001. It will not be that we magically hit 2001 and something happens. We all agree with that, but at that point, yes, they--or up until that point, they would have the responsibility for a significant number of felons. authority of corrections trustee Mr. Dixon. One final question. In this transitional period and based on the financial position, the financial responsibility position, there is always kind of a rub as to who has the authority. My question to you is: Is it clear that you have the authority that you need to implement these goals in your time frames, or are you being more of a diplomat here urging? Do you have the authority to do what Congress has mandated? Do you think you have the clear authority to get this job done? Mr. Clark. At this point, I think so, sir. I would hate to go beyond that. We are working closely with the Department---- Mr. Dixon. Would that change tomorrow, you did not have the authority? I mean, either you have the authority or you do not have it. Mr. Clark. No. I do not think so. That is a difficult issue. We are dealing with a troubled system. It has been a troubled system for a long time. Everyone acknowledges that, and I think we are making progress with that. Mr. Dixon. That is not my question either. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. I mean, I think you are doing a wonderful job, but the question is, do you have the authority to reach the goal mandated by the Congress, not the persuasive authority, and maybe you are doing a good job in bringing this along, but do you have enough authority to do the job. Your initial answer is at this moment, you either have the authority to do it or you do not have the authority to do it. Maybe you are being persuasive. Do you have the authority to do what is required? Mr. Clark. My analysis at this point is that I do, sir. The alternative to give the Trustee, I guess, total operational authority has--whereas, it may have some upsides, it also has some downsides in terms of---- Mr. Dixon. Particularly for you if you had it? Mr. Clark. Well, in terms of the responsiveness of the agency to someone who had been imposed on them at this point. I can see---- Mr. Dixon. That is a structural problem here. As I said, we are going through that problem in another committee on this whole issue, but you feel comfortable you have the authority? Mr. Clark. At this point, yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. reduction of health care costs--telemedicine Mr. Rogers. Madam Director, we asked you to look at ways to reduce the health care costs in Corrections. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. I understand you are doing some projects. Could you describe those for us? Ms. Hawk. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated, we have actually had a decrease in our health care per capita in the last year, although medical inflation is going up at a rate of 6 to 7 percent a year. Our medical costs went down almost 2 percent in the last year. We envision it continuing to go down as we initiate a number of new ways of doing business and some creative ways of doing business that are going to bring our costs down. Some of it involves simply restructuring our staff and relying--we traditionally have relied very heavily on physicians and physician assistants to be our primary care- givers in health care, 24 hours a day in our institutions. We are finding that restructuring some of that staffing and using different staff, RNs, LPNs, and EMTs, on especially the midnight shifts and evening shifts, we are seeing significant savings. Another area that we are pursuing very aggressively is telemedicine. We have been doing a pilot for the last 18 months. It has just come to an end, actually, this month, and we anticipate the report very soon. We have initiated telemedicine pilots at two penitentiaries, Lewisburg and Allenwood, Pennsylvania, and our medical facility in Lexington, Kentucky. They are working in conjunction with the VA Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. Although we do not have the final report, we had the study done by an outside consultant, Abt Associates, and they will complete the report very soon. We are very optimistic that we are going to see some significant savings there and look to spread that across to other institutions. I mentioned, in reference to Mr. Latham's question earlier, our pharmacy formulary. We have gone to a totally different way of purchasing medications and supplies, tapping into larger bulk purchases which enable us to cut the costs significantly. We are doing more sharing of services across institutions that are geographically, relatively close together. There are just a number of things that we are doing where we are finding a significant savings in cost. Mr. Rogers. I would think if the telemedicine mechanically works that you could save enormous amounts of transportation costs. Ms. Hawk. That is the other benefit, transportation costs and public safety. That is why we tried the pilots initially at penitentiaries, because some of these individuals, we really do not like taking out into the community for a medical evaluation or diagnosis or whatever. So you have the cost savings, plus the additional savings in public safety, and as long as it is cost effective, which is the bottom-line analysis in terms of working with some of the providers, as long as it is cost effective, I think we are going to reap many benefits from telemedicine. Mr. Rogers. We are interested in knowing as quickly as you receive the reports what it looks like. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Report on Telemedicine Study We anticipate receiving the first draft of the results of the telemedicine study from the private contractor, Abt Associates, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts by the end of April, 1998. Once the report has been reviewed and put in final form, it will be transmitted to the Committee. Mr. Rogers. It is something that we would like to encourage if it is cost effective, and it sounds like it has to be. It would certainly be safer and less expensive to use telemedicine than transporting the prisoner under guard for a day to a doctor's office a long way outside of prison grounds and finding out in the end that it was a malingering problem in the first place. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. We had piloted it back a few years ago and tested it out, and at that time, the equipment was very expensive. There were not many hospital providers willing to really get involved in it. So an earlier time, it was not cost effective, but the technology has advanced. The whole acceptance, I think, of medical providers of telemedicine has advanced dramatically. So we think now is truly the time that we are going to find significant savings. Mr. Rogers. Well, as you have indicated, hospitals are doing this routinely now---- Ms. Hawk. Yes. Mr. Rogers [continuing]. In the medical offices, and I am told that the Navy does practically--well, a good portion of their worldwide medicine from aircraft carriers and other ships directly to Bethesda Naval Hospital routinely. Well, we encourage you in that regard. Ms. Hawk. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. oversight of private facility in ohio Mr. Clark, do you know the respective classifications of the victim and the perpetrator in the Youngstown murder? Mr. Clark. From yesterday, sir? Mr. Mollohan. Yesterday, yes. Mr. Clark. No. I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Mollohan. What is the name of the private firm that is running that facility? Mr. Clark. The Corrections Corporation of America owns and runs the facility. Mr. Mollohan. They built it? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. What is the name of the private firm that is oversighting that facility? Mr. Clark. Pulitzer Bogard. It is a consulting firm. Mr. Mollohan. Can you tell us something about the consulting oversight firm? Mr. Clark. It is a small firm that has been providing consultation to the District for several years. They have some expertise on the one side in facilities and architecture, and then they have some other folks who have some experience in prison management. Mr. Mollohan. What is the scope of their oversight responsibility? Mr. Clark. They have a contract with the District, in my understanding, to provide the full oversight of all aspects of management, security, health services, food operations, and so on, and to provide reports to the District and to go into the institution and see that the recommendations that they have made are followed up on. Mr. Mollohan. In other words, the District has hired them to do an assessment. What is the name of the company? Mr. Clark. Corrections Corporation of America. Mr. Mollohan. They are responsible for the operation of that facility. Mr. Clark. That facility and the correctional treatment facility in Southeast D.C. Mr. Mollohan. Have you, in the context of your responsibilities here, had an opportunity to review any of the reports that the oversight company have given the District with regard to the operation of that facility by the Corrections Corporation of America? Mr. Clark. I have asked for those reports. I have only been provided with a couple of those reports recently. As I mentioned earlier, I have concerns with the adequacy of the oversight and the adequacy of the follow-up on the oversight. Mr. Mollohan. First of all, you are having difficulty getting copies of the reports from the oversight company to the District? Mr. Clark. Well, I mean, to be frank, I had not gotten---- Mr. Mollohan. Can I say something about that? Mr. Clark. Let me put it this way. Mr. Mollohan. I suggest you be frank. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Have you had trouble getting the reports? Have you requested them? Mr. Clark. I requested the reports in the fall, and I got the initial report shortly after I had come into office, and I had visited there. I got a report. I had not gone back and requested any reports until---- Mr. Mollohan. What did you request? Mr. Clark. Any reports that had been done. Mr. Mollohan. Any and all reports that had been done? Mr. Clark. Yes. And I received---- Mr. Mollohan. And you did not---- Mr. Clark. No, I received--at that point, I received one report that had been done. I had not gone back until recently. With all the other things that I was involved with, I had not asked for any follow-up reports. I recently asked for any and all additional reports that had been done, and it took a little while to get those reports. I wanted our staff, before they went out there, to have access to those reports. They did receive them several days before they left. Mr. Mollohan. Your testimony is that you have received all of the reports? Mr. Clark. I do not know if I have received all of them. I have received several reports. Mr. Mollohan. Are you going to find out whether you received them or not? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Would you let the Committee know the answer to that question? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir, I will. Mr. Mollohan. And would you make available to the Committee, upon request, any and all those reports that you receive? Mr. Clark. Certainly. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. In regard to these incidents, do you know if the Bureau of Prisons, particularly given this new association, has been called upon to assist in these investigations in any way? Mr. Clark. No, sir. To my knowledge, they have not been called upon, except that I did recommend after the more recent--after the killings that the Department undertake something akin to what the Bureau of Prisons would do in terms of an after-action report to send a team in to look, and I know that they have requested at least some guidance from the Bureau of Prisons in terms of the way the Bureau of Prisons would go about that, and that has only been within the last day or two. Mr. Mollohan. Director Hawk, has the Bureau of Prisons been asked to assist in an investigation of anyof the incidents? Ms. Hawk. To the best of my knowledge, we have not been asked to assist with any of the investigations at all. I do believe, as Mr. Clark indicated, that D.C. staff did ask our staff how we go about doing a review when we do one, but they did not ask for our assistance in performing the review. construction costs Mr. Mollohan. There has been a lot of discussion about the cost of construction. Could you give us an estimate of how much the cost of operating these new facilities is going to be, and what your press is going to look like in the future with regard to operations? Ms. Hawk. Operating costs for us vary across the different security levels, as you know. Our average annual per-capita per inmate to include overhead and total cost from the Bureau of Prisons, except for construction, runs approximately just under $22,000. The reality is that is a reduction in our per-capita. Just as in health care, we have been initiating a number of things to bring our costs down. We have also been initiating things to bring our costs down across our full spectrum of institutions, and we realize that in the reduction of costs this past year, which I think is especially noteworthy in that our overcrowding has come down during that time. Obviously, the way to reduce your cost is to crowd up your institutions and to put as many inmates in as you possibly can. So, when your crowding is high, your costs should be lower. However, we are managing to achieve a reduction in per-capita costs, at the same time, we are bringing our crowding levels down, which suggest some very different ways of approaching our institutions. If you look just at the six institutions we are asking for in terms of the increase of the D.C. population, we are talking about an overall increase of roughly $175 to $200 million per year for the six institutions combined. So, once they are up and running, that is the kind of money we would be seeking for operational funds. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon, do you have anything further? Mr. Dixon. Just one. Were you on board at--the facility in Southeast Washington, I assume, is the facility that was built with Federal money? Mr. Clark. The correctional treatment facility that is attached to the jail, sir. That is the only facility that I am aware of, myself. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. It was sold by the District. Is that the one? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. And then leased back? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. Right. Were you on board when that occurred? Mr. Clark. No, sir. Mr. Dixon. You came at an opportune time, after all of the incidents. Now there is a lease-back arrangement? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir, for about $2.6 million a year. Mr. Dixon. Right. And the District was able to get some cash out of it. That was the---- Mr. Clark. $52 million. Mr. Dixon. $52 million. Mr. Clark. It contributed to their $185-million surplus this year. Mr. Dixon. Then they are outlaying 2.6 in rent, so to speak. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. Then they have contracted out the supervision of that? Mr. Clark. Partially. They have one staff on site, but they also have contracted with this consulting agency to do most of the oversight. They, in turn, have subcontracted some of the oversight. For instance, the medical oversight of the facility is done by a doctor that they have so contracted. Mr. Dixon. What is the cost of that going to be to the District, the total package, per year? Mr. Clark. The---- Mr. Dixon. I mean, the 2.6 is part of it, but the contracting out, the supervision of the private contractor is another part of it, and then there is medical and all the other stuff. What do you estimate it is going to be? Mr. Clark. Well, the total--I just do not have that figure, but the cost per day, per inmate there, including the oversight, the medical and so on, in the District's estimation--and I have no reason to disagree--is about $85 a day---- Mr. Dixon. But that does not---- Mr. Clark [continuing]. Which is fairly steep. Mr. Dixon. Yes, but what is it going to be annually? That is what I am trying to get here. How many prisoners are there? Mr. Clark. There are about 800 prisoners there. Mr. Dixon. So it did help them in their cash flow? Mr. Clark. It helped them in their cash flow. Mr. Dixon. They sold the property that was given to them, basically. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. They had a money problem. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Dixon. And then they are paying for services from the new owner of the facility. Mr. Clark. Exactly, yes. I believe the figure is somewhere around $25 million a year, but I do not have it at my fingertips, but I will certainly get back to you with that. Mr. Dixon. Right. $25 million, you think is---- Mr. Clark. I am quite sure that their estimated cost per inmate, per day, is about $85 to $90, including everything, including---- Mr. Dixon. Supervision, medical, the whole---- Mr. Clark. The outside medical costs, everything, it is about $85 to $88 a day. Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Madam Director, at the conclusion of the last session, our office space out here was completely cluttered. Our staff was working day and night, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, and the place was an absolute mess. I had ordered the place cleaned up and neatened up some. They have made some progress, but, in the process of cleaning up out there, they found an old book on construction of Federal prisons in 1949, almost 50 years ago, and I am going to present that to you this morning, so that you can see what we have learned from the past. It is also--stay with us, Julian. Mr. Dixon. Oh, yes. I am not leaving, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. It is also a memento of the fact that that office has not been cleaned up in 50 years. [Laughter.] There is no telling what else we will find out there, but it is interesting to note that in this book that the annual average pre-World War II cost of housing and care of an inmate was $4,100, and we are hoping that you can get back to that. [Laughter.] Ms. Hawk. We will sincerely try, sir. Mr. Rogers. So we have given you the manual on how it is done. Ms. Hawk. Okay. Mr. Rogers. I sincerely want to commend you for your efforts for keeping down the costs of running the Federal prison system. It is exorbitantly high, but it could be a lot higher. So you have done a wonderful job. Ms. Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. So I want to present this to you, and we will do that as soon as the meeting closes down. If there is nothing further, we will adjourn the meeting. [Pages 749 - 756--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Bilchik, Shay.................................................... 507 Brann, J. E...................................................... 507 Bucella, D. A.................................................... 387 Clark, John...................................................... 691 Constantine, T. A................................................ 387 Freeh, L. J...................................................... 295 Hawk, K. M....................................................... 691 Meissner, Doris.................................................. 585 Reno, Attorney General Janet..................................... 1 Robinson, L. O................................................... 507 Roper, Mike...................................................... 691 Warren, M. L..................................................... 387 I N D E X ---------- Page Attorney General................................................. 1 Antitrust Division Increase.................................. 225 Asset Forfeiture Fund........................................ 234 Biography, Attorney General Janet Reno....................... 23 Budget: Request.................................................. 6 Summary.................................................. 24 Bureau of Prisons, Budget Request............................ 21 CALEA.......................................209, 254, 255, 276, 285 Campaign Financing........................................... 250 Census, 2000................................................. 240 Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS): Budget Request........................................... 3 Initiative, new.......................................... 231, 233............................................... Police Officers Hired.................................... 226, 227............................................... Community Prosecution Program................................ 9 Community Relations Service.................................. 236 Computer Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center (CITAC)............................................. 264 Crime: Combat, Technology....................................... 10 Hate..................................................... 18 Indian Country........................................... 16 Cybercrime Initiative........................................ 4, 11 Defensive Civil Litigation................................... 19 Discrimination: Federal Law Enforcement Officers......................... 292 Police Departments....................................... 294 District of Columbia Correctional Facilities: Funding.................................................. 280 Location................................................. 280 Privatization, Plans..................................... 281 Drugs: Initiative............................................... 228 Trafficking.............................................. 4, 12 Treatment, Prisoners..................................... 251 War on................................................... 250 Encryption Policy............................................ 225 Extradition, Mexico.......................................... 287 False Claims Act.................................242, 253, 268, 270 Fingerprint Identification System IDENT/IAFIS.........214, 220, 260 Forfeiture Issue, USDA-Justice Department..................235, 288 Health Care Fraud Investigations............................. 267 Immigration and Naturalization Service: Accomplishments.......................................... 220 Agents................................................... 262 Budget Request........................................... 5, 15, 21.............................................. Citizenship, Revocation.................................. 224 Immigration Investigation................................ 218, 221, 243.......................................... Independent Counsel: Act, Reauthorization..................................... 230 Funding.................................................. 249 Investigation, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.......... 217, 219, 278.......................................... Indian Country: Crime.................................................... 16 Law Enforcement Initiative............................... 240, 278............................................... Industrial Espionage......................................... 241 Infrastructure Needs......................................5, 11, 19 Inspector General, Office of the............................. 236 Judicial Vacancies........................................... 291 Juvenile Justice Programs...............................9, 229, 252 Legal Services Corporation.................................237, 239 Methamphetamine.............................................. 233 Mexico Extradition........................................... 287 Narrowband Communications...................................20, 277 National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000 Initiative..... 263 National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC)............. 264 Palestinian Terrorism........................................ 283 Prosecutors Grant Program.................................... 3 Radiation Exposure Compensation.............................. 290 Questions for the Record..................................... 264 Statement: Formal, Reno, Janet...................................... 6 Opening, Reno, Janet..................................... 2 Telecommunications Carrier Compliance........................ 20 U.S. Marshals, Budget Request................................ 21 Violent Crime: Gangs.................................................... 8 Violence Against Women................................... 3, 9 Winstar...................................................... 274 Youth Violence............................................... 3, 7 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)............................ 295 Attrition Trend Chart........................................ 349 Biography, FBI Director, Louis J. Freeh...................... 323 Bombing Cases................................................ 357 Budget: Overview................................................. 297 Summary.................................................. 308 Request for Field Agents................................. 342 CALEA..................................300, 328, 339, 355, 358, 384 Chairman's Opening Remarks................................... 295 Challenges Facing the FBI..................................296, 303 Civil Rights Enforcement..................................... 317 Communications............................................... 321 Conclusion................................................... 322 Coordination with the Department of Defense.................. 336 Counterterrorism and Cybercrime: CITA Squads.............................................. 310 Computer Networks........................................ 309 Crime Enhancement........................................ 298 Cooperative Efforts...................................... 385 Strategy................................................. 351 Criminal Enterprises......................................... 306 Encryption................................................... 306 Technology............................................... 338 Espionage and Intelligence Activities........................ 304 Explosives Detention Taggant Capability Funding.............. 334 Explosives Research and Development.......................... 333 FBI Academy: Construction............................................. 319 Improvements............................................. 300 FBI Laboratory............................................... 337 FBI/DEA Cooperative Efforts.................................. 363 FBI/INS Fingerprint Coordination............................. 327 Hate Crimes................................................300, 317 IAFIS-INS IDENT Duplication.................................. 331 Status................................................... 347 Independent Counsel: Estimated Costs.......................................... 343 Impact of Staffing....................................... 340 Investigations, CAMPCON.................................. 345 Positions, CAMPCON....................................... 345 Staffing................................................. 327 Indian Country Law Enforcement: Enhancement.............................................. 299 Protection of Victims.................................... 315 Information Sharing: OCIS..................................................... 299 Initiative............................................... 346 TECS Database............................................ 313 INS Electronic Fingerprint................................... 328 International Training....................................... 353 Legal Attaches............................................... 352 Mexico Certification......................................... 335 Recertification.......................................... 383 Staffing................................................. 352 Misuse of FBI files.......................................... 324 Murder of American Citizens in Israel........................ 380 Narrowband Radio...........................................300, 321 National Instant Background Check System: NCIC 2000................................................ 333 On-Line, Federal funding................................. 361 Technical Conference..................................... 365 National Guard Response Team................................. 383 NCIC 2000.................................................... 347 NIPC......................................................... 347 Outreach to the Technology Industry.......................... 336 Personnel System, FBI........................................ 347 Safe Trails Task Force....................................... 379 Southwest Border Initiative: Coordination............................................. 336 Initiative............................................... 335 Mexican Narcotics........................................ 382 Statement, Freeh, Louis J: Formal................................................... 302 Opening.................................................. 296 Strategic Management Focus: Budget Compliance........................................ 307 Technology Industry.......................................... 336 Telecommunications Carrier Compliance........................ 320 Terrorist Threats............................................ 304 Weapons of Mass Destruction.................................. 305 State and Local Preparedness............................. 313 Drug Enforcement Programs........................................ 387 Criminal Division: Activities: Caribbean Initiative................................. 460 Federal Capital Cases................................ 466 Geographic Targeting Order........................... 463 Heroin Strategy...................................... 461 International Efforts................................ 468 Marijuana............................................ 462 National Methamphetamine Strategy.................... 460 Southwest Border Initiative.......................... 459 Biography, Warren, May Lee............................... 475 Budget Request........................................... 443, 470............................................... Drug Control Strategic Plan, DOJ......................... 441, 445, 495.......................................... Drug, Problem............................................ 476 Drugs, War on............................................ 483 Drugs, Youth............................................. 485 Mexico: Certification........................................ 478 Extraditions......................................... 477 Government........................................... 480 Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.............. 442, 452............................................... Statement: Formal............................................... 444 Opening.............................................. 441 Drug Enforcement Administration: Agents, Mexico........................................... 482 ARCOS-2.................................................. 499 Bi-National Task Forces.................................. 481 Biography: Constantine, Thomas A, DEA Administrator............. 419 Marshall, Donnie R................................... 420 Whetstone, James M................................... 421 Budget: Request.............................................. 413 Strategies........................................... 389 Caribbean: Funding.............................................. 494 Trafficking.......................................... 493 Certification, Mexico.................................... 487 Decertification, Colombia................................ 483 Drug Abuse Warning Network............................... 407 Drug Diversion Control: ARCOS-2.............................................. 499 Control Fee Account.................................. 497 Positions, 1998...................................... 500 Drug-Related costs....................................... 394 Drugs: Coca Production...................................... 495 Derivatives.......................................... 489 Heroin............................................... 390, 395, 405...................................... Ketamine............................................. 488 Methamphetamine...................................... 390, 395, 407, 487, 489............................ Prevention........................................... 491 Solution, Family Structure........................... 492 Strategy, War on..................................... 490 Success Rate......................................... 492 Trafficking.......................................... 390, 393, 398, 403, 493............................ Indictment, Bowman David................................. 496 Interdiction Operations: LIMELIGHT............................................ 397, 401........................................... META................................................. 408 Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET)....................... 410 Organized Crime Enforcement Strategy................. 400 RECIPROCITY.......................................... 397, 401........................................... Resources............................................ 495 Statement: Formal............................................... 392 Opening.............................................. 388 Task Force Operations.................................... 501 Telecommunications, Impact of no Upgrade................. 496 Questions for the Record................................. 497 U.S. Attorneys: Biography, Bucella, Donna A.............................. 437 Budget Request........................................... 422, 427............................................... Civil Defensive Litigation............................... 423, 432............................................... Crime: Computer............................................. 431 Indian Country, Violent.............................. 430 D.C., Resources for Criminal Activity.................... 504 Drug Strategy............................................ 423 Drugs, Youth............................................. 485 Narcotics................................................ 428 Statement: Formal............................................... 424 Opening.............................................. 422 Questions for the Record................................. 497 State and Local Law Enforcement.................................. 507 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).................. 528 Biography, Director COPS, Joseph E. Brann................ 541 Budget Request, FY 1999.................................. 529, 538............................................... Community Policing....................................... 534 COPS MORE Program........................................ 577 COPS Office.............................................. 532 COPS Program, Extension.................................. 573 Grants................................................... 570 Grants, Meth............................................. 574 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program................ 572 Versus COPS Grants....................................... 573 New Cops, Retention of................................... 570 Police Corps Program..................................... 578 Statement, Joseph E. Brann, Director: Formal............................................... 531 Opening.............................................. 528 Witnesses, Introduction of............................... 507 Office of Justice Programs................................... 507 Biography: Bilchik, Shay........................................ 561 Robinson, Laurie..................................... 527 Block Grants, Juvenile Incentive......................... 576 Chairman's Opening Remarks............................... 507 Community-Based Prosecution, Weed and Seed............... 520 Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP)...................... 575, 582............................................... Crime Rates, Decline..................................... 513 Domestic Violence Programs............................... 516, 583............................................... Drugs: Drug Treatment Initiatives........................... 581 Drug Use and Crime................................... 510 Drug Use and Crime, Breaking the Cycle............... 518 Drug Use and Juveniles............................... 562 Drug Use, Perceived Risk............................. 563 Focus, What Works........................................ 515 Gangs and Youth Violence................................. 521 Inititiatives: Drug Treatment....................................... 581 Juvenile Drug Demonstration.......................... 567 Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention: Anti-Drug Abuse Media Campaign....................... 565 Budget Request, FY 1999.............................. 542 Budget Summary, FY 1999.............................. 546 Children-at-Risk Program............................. 568 Juvenile Drug Demonstration Initiative............... 567 Juvenile Drug Use.................................... 562 Juvenile Incentive Block Grants...................... 576 Missing & Exploited Children Programs................ 549 New Directions....................................... 557 New Programs, 1998 Appropriation..................... 550 Statistical Updates.................................. 545 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program................ 572 COPS Grants, Versus.................................. 573 Maryland Report on Crime Program......................... 568 Media and Drugs: Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign............................. 565 MORE Program, COPS....................................... 577 Objectives, OJP.......................................... 508 Office of Justice Program Structure (OJP)................ 579 Programs, Other.......................................... 524 Questions for the Record................................. 584 Cap on Hiring Grants, $75,000........................ 584 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.................. 582 Statement, Laurie Robinson, AAG: Formal............................................... 511 Opening.............................................. 508 Statement, Shay Bilchik, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Formal............................................... 544 Opening.............................................. 542 Structure, OJP........................................... 579 Technology............................................... 523 Violence, Domestic....................................... 516 Weed and Seed, Community-Based Prosecution............... 520 What Works, Focusing on.................................. 515 Witnesses, Introduction of............................... 507 Youth Violence, Gangs.................................... 521 Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).................... 585 Accomplishments............................................586, 643 Agents, Number of Border Patrol.............................. 682 Anti-Smuggling, Anti-Terrorism and Overseas Deterrence....... 601 Biography, INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner.................. 624 Border Enforcement.........................................592, 685 Border Management Strategy................................... 611 Border Patrol Station, Douglas, Arizona...................... 635 Border Security............................................682, 689 Budget: Request.................................................. 585, 609............................................... Summary.................................................. 589, 623............................................... Checkpoint, Nogales, Arizona................................. 634 Citizenship U.S.A.: Approvals, Erroneous..................................... 647, 652............................................... Deportation of Improperly Naturalized.................... 648 Naturalization Improvements.............................. 587, 603, 672.......................................... Congressional Relations and Public Affairs, Offices of....... 680 Crossing Cards, New Border................................... 636 Departure Control Systems:................................... Airports, Participating.................................. 651 Airports, Traffic into................................... 651 Arrival/Departure Formulation............................ 640 Entry/Exit System........................................ 637, 650............................................... Deputization, Law Enforcement Officers....................... 649 Detention Policy............................................. 678 Drug Task Force, Tri-State................................... 648 Drug Trafficking, Upper Midwest.............................. 649 IDENT System: Border Enforcement....................................... 685 Compatibility............................................ 632 Development.............................................. 630 Illegal Crossings........................................ 684 Illegal Aliens, Removal of.................................595, 685 Infrastructure, Institutional Improvement.................... 618 INSpect...................................................... 606 Interior Enforcement Initiative.............599, 614, 646, 673, 674 Iraqis, Removal of........................................... 646 Law Enforcement Communities, Cooperation with................ 602 Naturalization Backlog, New York............................. 689 Personnel..................................................679, 680 Questions for the Record..................................... 678 Reorganization: Federal Border Control................................... 655 INS...................................................... 607, 625, 655, 658..................................... Statement: Formal................................................... 590 Opening.................................................. 586 Technology: Green Cards.............................................. 681 Improvements............................................. 597 Year 2000 Conversion..................................... 642 Terrorist Removal............................................ 645 Visa: H-1B Program............................................. 644 Nurses................................................... 644 Overstay Problem......................................... 642 Processing Times......................................... 686 Bureau of Prisions, District of Columbia (D.C.) Corrections Trustee........................................................ 691 Alien Detainees.............................................. 733 Authority of D.C. Corrections Trustee........................ 742 Biography: BOP Director, Kathleen M. Hawk........................... 702 D.C. Corrections Trustee, John L. Clark.................. 716 Classification of D.C. Prisoners...........................722, 725 Construction Costs........................................... 746 D.C. Corrections Budget...................................... 736 D.C. Corrections Transfer: Employees................................................ 718 Funding.................................................. 718 Prisoners................................................ 717, 718............................................... D.C. Department of Corrections, Status....................... 708 Work in Progress......................................... 710 D.C. Revitalization Act...................................... 695 Death of Correctional Officer................................ 729 Detention Management Study.................................732, 734 Federal Assumption of D.C. Corrections....................... 725 Gangs........................................................ 730 Growth of Inmates: District of Columbia..................................... 721 Federal.................................................. 731 Health Care: Costs for Inmates........................................ 727, 752, 755.......................................... Generic Drugs............................................ 729, 756............................................... Pilot Program............................................ 728, 754............................................... Telemedicine............................................. 743, 744............................................... Initiatives: 1999 Budget.............................................. 713 Inmate Population Growth/Projections......................... 697 Intelligence Gathering Effort................................ 731 Overcrowding, Progress in Reducing........................... 699 Private Facilities: Classification........................................... 722 Murders of Prisoners..................................... 723 Oversight of Ohio Facility............................... 744 Responsibilities for Prisoners........................... 737 Security Levels.......................................... 724 Privatization: GAO Study................................................ 739, 759............................................... Placement of Classified Prisoners........................ 740 Privatization............................................ 700 Questions for the Record..................................... 749 Drug Formulary........................................... 756 Health Care Privatization Project........................ 754 Health Care Services of Inmates.......................... 752 Health Services Costs.................................... 755 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997................................ 749 Privatization of Correctional Facilities................. 750 Revitalization Act: Impact................................................... 726, 749............................................... Timeline................................................. 734 Role of D.C. Corrections Trustee............................. 721 Statement, John L. Clark: Formal................................................... 706 Opening.................................................. 704 Statement, Kathleen Hawk: Formal................................................... 693 Opening.................................................. 691 Witnesses, Introduction of................................... 691